PS2 to 3 and 4

[Kyle Nuva]

why didnt sony make it so the PS3 and 4 able to play ps2 games? the ps2 games were able to play ps1 game but needed a ps1 card to save game data, that and its own console not recognizing its own data is a serious flaw ITS THEIR CONSOLE but didnt allow to play older games? why? i mean my ps2 is hanging on a thread, the stupid thing cant read game disks i never had before or in awhile, i bought code lyoko and it wouldnt play, many tries later, it worked and ratchet and clank deadlock is doing the same, so i guess my ps2 is nearly done for.
some games play, others dont. ratchet wouldnt move at all by the game started. never have i seen a game behave like that before, menus are super delayed and he doesnt move. another time was when the batteries were dying that caused my payer to lag, super weird too but new batteries fixed that

[Illusion of Progress]

I didn't see someone mention this so I'll ask, didn't the PlayStation 2 use a chip for it's I/O that was the same one used as the PlayStation as its main CPU? Also, is that how it "emulated" the older titles or did it actually just emulate them without that?

I knew the PlayStation 3 initially had PlayStation 2 hardware, which it later dropped to help save costs (I'm presuming it being able to still play PlayStation titles came more down to it being so easy to emulate at that time).

The only other things I remember about the PlayStation 2 at the the time was it was simultaneously said to be a complicated and "powerful" console while also being the weakest of the generation (especially next to the Xbox which was mostly a PC).

[HypersleepyNaputunia]

xbox is massivesolid heavy brick with a massive brick of a controller

[nullable]

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

I didn't see someone mention this so I'll ask, didn't the PlayStation 2 use a chip for it's I/O that was the same one used as the PlayStation as its main CPU? Also, is that how it "emulated" the older titles or did it actually just emulate them without that?

I knew the PlayStation 3 initially had PlayStation 2 hardware, which it later dropped to help save costs (I'm presuming it being able to still play PlayStation titles came more down to it being so easy to emulate at that time).

Well, save costs, and from what I remember of the era is that customers liked the idea of backwards compatibility, but rarely used it relative to the whole user base. No one likes something be taken away, even if they're not really using it. But that's always been the struggle. Backwards compatibility is an appealing feature. But generally if you buy a new current gen console it's usually to play current gen games. Not absolutely of course, before everyone comes out saying they played old games as much as new as new games on their backwards compatible consoles, or played old games primarily on the new consoles.

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

The only other things I remember about the PlayStation 2 at the the time was it was simultaneously said to be a complicated and "powerful" console while also being the weakest of the generation (especially next to the Xbox which was mostly a PC).

Well it did come out before the GameCube or the Xbox so they had the opportunity to use better hardware. It was more powerful than the Dreamcast I believe, but that was the first next gen console after the N64/PSOne/Saturn, unless you want to put it in it's own mini-group. And of course it all fell apart for Sega rather early on that generation, so easier to forget about them.

I remember Sony's 66 million polygons a second BS. Yeah 66 million one sided untextured polygons. You know the sort of things games all use almost exclusively. /s

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by Snakub Plissken:

Well, save costs, and from what I remember of the era is that customers liked the idea of backwards compatibility, but rarely used it relative to the whole user base. No one likes something be taken away, even if they're not really using it. But that's always been the struggle. Backwards compatibility is an appealing feature. But generally if you buy a new current gen console it's usually to play current gen games. Not absolutely of course, before everyone comes out saying they played old games as much as new as new games on their backwards compatible consoles, or played old games primarily on the new consoles.

I was definitely in the minority then as I was definitely wanting to use it rather than it just being an emotional "I don't want to lose something". After all, the par for the course back then was that a new console would be its own thing, and I still had so many PlayStation titles (Final Fantasy IX being a huge one) that I was actively playing even after getting the the PlayStation 2. But it certainly helped being able to play it all on one device.

I sort of miss my PlayStation/PlayStation 2. Both consoles have a special place in my heart.

Originally posted by Snakub Plissken:

Well it did come out before the GameCube or the Xbox so they had the opportunity to use better hardware. It was more powerful than the Dreamcast I believe, but that was the first next gen console after the N64/PSOne/Saturn, unless you want to put it in it's own mini-group. And of course it all fell apart for Sega rather early on that generation, so easier to forget about them.

Yeah, the release date is probably easy to overlook. Might not sound like much, but hardware was advancing very fast at the time, so a small time frame would make for a bigger difference.

It certainly FELT like the first time a console had become "advanced" for me. I'm not exactly sure why. Maybe a combination of things, but it was always interesting to hear later on how it was actually one of the weakest in many ways of the generation. It was unanimously the winner of that generation by far despite that. The gaming library (which the expanded older PlayStation library would also be a part of) helped largely, as did the DVD capability. Early on, many people were buying PlayStation 2s with that being a big factor, as DVD players were new and super expensive.

It's funny how that's all from the days of 4:3, standard definition, hardware in terms of MB and MHz, and no dedicated storage, but at the time everything was so advanced (and fast advancing) compared to what was right before it, what with VHS and even smaller TVs in measurements that started with a "1" (at least in the US where it's measured in inches).

[nullable]

Oh the PS2 was a great console. And we've seen time and time again how raw power doesn't automatically win.

I mean the N64 was significantly more powerful than the PSOne, but the PSOne was extremely successful and arguably won that generation (I had an N64).

The PS2 was very successful.

The Wii was extremely successful, and it was the weakest compared to the PS3/Xbox 360.

And the Switch also the weakest console of the last generation, but it's wildly successful. I love mine.

We're all very lucky the gaming pie is large enough that being the "winner" of a the generation doesn't really matter because 2nd and 3rd place can still be very successful products by the numbers.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

The old fat PS3 models had PS2 chip which is used to play PS2 game disc, when newer fat model release the 40GB, they removed the PS2 chip, which stops you from being able to run PS2 discs, Sony did this to cut cost of the console, lower overheating issues, and power draw, to make up for not being able to run PS2 discs they gave emulator support, which is only available to downloaded PS2 titles from the PSN store, so basically Sony got you to rebuy the game. All PS3 models can play PS1 discs AFAIK.

PS4 is using another chip that isn't RISC, they went with a x86 chip AMD. PS1 ~ PS3 uses RISC chips. So not only not able to natively support the games, but it take a lot of work on their end to get the games to run, which again went to emulation to running the games, and only available to games you bought from it PSN store that for PS4, basically getting you to rebuy the game again, and no the digital copy bought from PS3 PSN store is not transferred to PSN store for PS4, I know it dumb but that how they roll.

Example Jak and Dexter 1 someone was able to fully decrypt and reverse engineer the game to natively run on x86 or in this case PC, all it requires you owning a certain version PS2 copy of the game. Can look up OpenGoal from Google, they're working on rest of the series as well. It took over 500k line of code to edit for first game alone to translate for x86 processor system can understand how to process the game.

PS4 to PS5 has zero issues because both using x86 chip from AMD. Now Sony could've easy just emulate PS1 game discs on PS4, but Sony choose not to, and only leave it to digital copies to get.the emulator support.

[_I_]

and another thing with the ps2, some game devs used hardware in ways not intended
like using the dvd video decoder as a processor for other tasks

if the emulator does not treat all the ps2 parts correctly and return results at the correct times some games will not work right

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by Snakub Plissken:

I mean the N64 was significantly more powerful than the PSOne, but the PSOne was extremely successful and arguably won that generation (I had an N64).

I lived with my father in a house sub-divided into three units at the time (we had upstairs, the downstairs was split in two). We had a Super Nintendo and a local pawn shop had a Sega Saturn, which I got very cheap.

A new neighbor moved in downstairs and had a PlayStation. Friends across the street got a PlayStation. My mothers' household got a PlayStation. Everyone was getting one. Another friend of mine had the Nintendo 64. The latter is what I originally wanted, but then I also got a PlayStation and it ended up becoming my favorite console in the end.

The Nintendo 64 was overall much more powerful from what I remember, but it wasn't like it is today where things are more directly comparable. 3D for example was in its infancy and everyone was still sort of trying to figure it out. The Nintendo 64 had much better visuals from what I remember, but one notable downside was if often had a muddy (or "texture-less") look since it relied less on textures and more on some sort of color shading in place of actual textures. But the PlayStation had its infamous issues with visuals too, like geometry warping/texture wobble for a number of reasons. It's interesting how both of those things gave each console its own unique "look and feel" across the library.

Few games were multi-platform back then too, and the few that were (Resident Evil 2 going from the PlayStation to the Nintendo 64 comes to mind) were more of ports after the fact and were marvels of their own in how they accomplished the task.

[nullable]

I don't know if you've ever watched War Stories on Ars Technica, but you might like it https://arstechnica.com/video/series/war-stories several PSOne games are in the series.

The N64 only had 4MB of VRAM out of the box, so any complexity in the scene would stretch that pretty thin. Although I felt like hot stuff playing Rogue Squadron with the expansion pack and could run the game at a full 640x480.

I mean the PSOne often didn't bother with textures because texture mapping effectively halved the amount of textures it could render, so the more stuff you could do with simple shading the more you could squeeze out of it. Plus with only 1MB of VRAM you had to use it wisely.

Either way I feel like the hallmark of a lot of consoles was art from adversity. A lot of games were pretty bad, but the good ones did magical things with very little resources.

I think I probably kept playing my SNES as much as the N64 though, the lack of RPGs just when they started getting big kinda hurt. Overall I think I liked the SNES better.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

Originally posted by Snakub Plissken:

I don't know if you've ever watched War Stories on Ars Technica, but you might like it https://arstechnica.com/video/series/war-stories several PSOne games are in the series.

The N64 only had 4MB of VRAM out of the box, so any complexity in the scene would stretch that pretty thin. Although I felt like hot stuff playing Rogue Squadron with the expansion pack and could run the game at a full 640x480.

I mean the PSOne often didn't bother with textures because texture mapping effectively halved the amount of textures it could render, so the more stuff you could do with simple shading the more you could squeeze out of it. Plus with only 1MB of VRAM you had to use it wisely.

Either way I feel like the hallmark of a lot of consoles was art from adversity. A lot of games were pretty bad, but the good ones did magical things with very little resources.

I think I probably kept playing my SNES as much as the N64 though, the lack of RPGs just when they started getting big kinda hurt. Overall I think I liked the SNES better.

What crazy is how PS1 was better for games, but somehow is worse in hardware spec wise to the N64, even when comparing same game, PS1 outshine and that was just due to the fact of the limited storage on the N64 with 64MB via cartridge, while PS1 has upto 700MB of storage on disc, and with the amount of storage it made a huge gap in for better looking game when came to 3D.

[Illusion of Progress]

Wait, the PlayStation had a quarter of the VRAM the Nintendo 64 did? That's... surprising. I might have guessed the opposite with how the games of each console typically appeared.

The Super Nintendo and PlayStation (and somewhat PlayStation 2) were definitely the consoles to have during the Golden age for jRPGs IMO. That's a part of why those two (or three) consoles are probably my top three overall.

And no, I never heard of that, but thanks for the link.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

Wait, the PlayStation had a quarter of the VRAM the Nintendo 64 did? That's... surprising. I might have guessed the opposite with how the games of each console typically appeared.

The Super Nintendo and PlayStation (and somewhat PlayStation 2) were definitely the consoles to have during the Golden age for jRPGs IMO. That's a part of why those two (or three) consoles are probably my top three overall.

And no, I never heard of that, but thanks for the link.

Actually PS1 has 2MB of RAM, and 1MB of VRAM, but also to add this might blow you away, but even the processor on the PS1 is 3x slower than N64 proceesor.

N64 is using 64-bit NEC VR4300 at 93.75 MHz
PS1 is using 32-bit R3000 @ 33.8688 MHz

Pretty big gap in performance, as N64 is clear winner in hardware spec, but problem there more issues with N64 what had it back why it couldn't do better 3D than PS1, as it was design, and storage limit of the N64, despite you have an 8MB of RAM expansion, very few rare games uses that, but it to allow games output at higher res such as 640 x 480.

[Illusion of Progress]

Yeah, I knew the clock speed of the Nintendo 64 was much higher than the PlayStation and that it was said to be all around much more better in terms of hardware in general. But it also had a reputation for a muddy and "texture-less" look so I would have guessed there was a reason. Though as you mention, the more limited storage space on the game itself might be just that.

[nullable]

Originally posted by Dr.Shadowds 🐉:

What crazy is how PS1 was better for games, but somehow is worse in hardware spec wise to the N64, even when comparing same game, PS1 outshine and that was just due to the fact of the limited storage on the N64 with 64MB via cartridge, while PS1 has upto 700MB of storage on disc, and with the amount of storage it made a huge gap in for better looking game when came to 3D.

Well better is subjective. I mean what faults aside I did like the N64. Ocarina of Time, Goldeneye, 3D platformers, there were lots of great games. The cartridges had limited space, even with heavy compression. And it wasn't like there were multi-cartridge games. The cost would have been too much. Although it wasn't 64MB uncompressed vs 700MB uncompressed. You didn't really want to compress PSOne games because the CD drive was already so slow 2x speed at 300 KB/sec max.

There were pros and cons to both, but it did seem like CD's were maybe a better choice. With disc swapping you could cram whatever you wanted on nearly as many discs as you wanted. And the slowness didn't really seem to hurt anyone, so the speed of cartridges was kinda moot, not worth the trade off in hindsight. Nintendo wasn't ready for change yet.

Although, it's kinda funny, that with the Switch, cartridges came back. And flash memory is cheap and the largest Switch cartridges can store more than a Blu-Ray. Although it doesn't feel weird to have cartridges the size of your thumb nail.

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

Wait, the PlayStation had a quarter of the VRAM the Nintendo 64 did? That's... surprising. I might have guessed the opposite with how the games of each console typically appeared.

The Super Nintendo and PlayStation (and somewhat PlayStation 2) were definitely the consoles to have during the Golden age for jRPGs IMO. That's a part of why those two (or three) consoles are probably my top three overall.

And no, I never heard of that, but thanks for the link.

Well RAM was super expensive back then. And the PSOne came out a year before the N64. And like I mentioned the PSOne developers often didn't bother with texture mapping and preferred shading methods because that would often yield better results and better performance.

Although looking at the specs again the N64 had a unified memory architecture so it had 4MB total, not just VRAM. Where the PSOne has 2MB system RAM, and 1MB VRAM. So the N64 had more overall RAM, and that could sometimes mean more VRAM. I guess it would have varied from game to game, or how the RAM was used. Of course with the expansion pack that bumped the N64 up to 8MB that offered some decent improvements for games that took advantage of it.

But when you look at a lot of PSOne games a lot of the characters aren't textured, they use some shading technique. Overall it was probably a better choice and some of those games have aged better style-wise where muddy textures maybe haven't.

If the N64 had less RAM, or bigger performance consequences for texture mapping they might have leaned in the same direction. But that's art from adversity for you, score on for PSOne. And the N64's strengths didn't annihilate the competition. But they could push more polygons so games could look better and higher resolutions were better. And at the time that PSOne style warping was a strike against the PSOne for me. But twenty-five years later there's a charm to it where indie games will replicate the effect and we'll cheer for it.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

Originally posted by Snakub Plissken:

Originally posted by Dr.Shadowds 🐉:

What crazy is how PS1 was better for games, but somehow is worse in hardware spec wise to the N64, even when comparing same game, PS1 outshine and that was just due to the fact of the limited storage on the N64 with 64MB via cartridge, while PS1 has upto 700MB of storage on disc, and with the amount of storage it made a huge gap in for better looking game when came to 3D.

Well better is subjective. I mean what faults aside I did like the N64. Ocarina of Time, Goldeneye, 3D platformers, there were lots of great games. The cartridges had limited space, even with heavy compression. And it wasn't like there were multi-cartridge games. The cost would have been too much. Although it wasn't 64MB uncompressed vs 700MB uncompressed. You didn't really want to compress PSOne games because the CD drive was already so slow 2x speed at 300 KB/sec max.

There were pros and cons to both, but it did seem like CD's were maybe a better choice. With disc swapping you could cram whatever you wanted on nearly as many discs as you wanted. And the slowness didn't really seem to hurt anyone, so the speed of cartridges was kinda moot, not worth the trade off in hindsight. Nintendo wasn't ready for change yet.

Although, it's kinda funny, that with the Switch, cartridges came back. And flash memory is cheap and the largest Switch cartridges can store more than a Blu-Ray. Although it doesn't feel weird to have cartridges the size of your thumb nail.

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

Wait, the PlayStation had a quarter of the VRAM the Nintendo 64 did? That's... surprising. I might have guessed the opposite with how the games of each console typically appeared.

The Super Nintendo and PlayStation (and somewhat PlayStation 2) were definitely the consoles to have during the Golden age for jRPGs IMO. That's a part of why those two (or three) consoles are probably my top three overall.

And no, I never heard of that, but thanks for the link.

Well RAM was super expensive back then. And the PSOne came out a year before the N64. And like I mentioned the PSOne developers often didn't bother with texture mapping and preferred shading methods because that would often yield better results and better performance.

Although looking at the specs again the N64 had a unified memory architecture so it had 4MB total, not just VRAM. Where the PSOne has 2MB system RAM, and 1MB VRAM. So the N64 had more overall RAM, and that could sometimes mean more VRAM. I guess it would have varied from game to game, or how the RAM was used. Of course with the expansion pack that bumped the N64 up to 8MB that offered some decent improvements for games that took advantage of it.

But when you look at a lot of PSOne games a lot of the characters aren't textured, they use some shading technique. Overall it was probably a better choice and some of those games have aged better style-wise where muddy textures maybe haven't.

If the N64 had less RAM, or bigger performance consequences for texture mapping they might have leaned in the same direction. But that's art from adversity for you.

Yeah I know, it crazy we have disc speeds these days doing hundreds of times faster than back in the 90s, and yea they didn't have to compress anything on PS1 with all the storage they had, and can do disc swap, I remember doing 3 ~ 4 disc swap with some JRPG games lol, and yeah the cartridge were pricy compare to disc's back in the day, due to needing it own flash chip, components, battery, traces, and board with it shell, it was a just a bad choice over all on nintendo part, it funny Sony was gonna partnership up with Nintendo, and Nintendo done goof themseleves when they went, and start a partnership with Philips, and Sony went their own way making PS1. We would've had a another instance of Sega Genesis + Sega CD lol.