The best thing about the PS2 is that it was the first system to be backwards compatibale. I think that was somewhat innovative. If Sega would have been able to do that with a console it may have taken the cake (not that is would be technically viable to have all the Saturn/Sega CD/Genesis and MS hardware in the same box as a dreamcast ). Having the PS1 and PS2 library together on one system makes it worth owning. The other good thing they did was to have some many retro game collections. These are awesome for people who are MAC users and really can't emulate too much besides MAME.
Other than that...i'm think I'm on the same page as the Doc.
I don't think it's ready for an article yet. It really didn't do anything to push games further, it just won the popular vote. Mostly because lack of competition.
There are alot of articles but all the articles I've seen are on PS2 games, but nothing about the actual system. I think he was referring to reviewing the previous gen consoles. I don't really know....i was just putting my 2 cents in.
ott0bot wrote:The best thing about the PS2 is that it was the first system to be backwards compatibale.
I hadn't realized that it was before the GBA. Although I reckon one could argue with technicalities there (Does the GBC count? Probably not. What about home computers like the A1200 who could do most games of the A500, or if you want to be in consoles, the CD32 could play CDTV games). But it's important that something widespread like the PS2 did it, to bring it up as an important feature whenever new hardware gets released.
I too would love to see some ps2 articles. But, if it is against policy then ok.
I love the racketboy featured articles. They are great! Keep up the good work.
ott0bot wrote:The best thing about the PS2 is that it was the first system to be backwards compatibale.
Let's not forget 1983 with the Atari 5200 (well, with the aide of an adapter) or the GameBoy Color that played all B&W GameBoy games.
But really though, I won't consider the PS2 a retro system until at least another four years simply because it feels like the PS2 games are getting major playtime on PS3s instead of the PS3 games people are still waiting for to come out. That and it will probably still be sold for another four year while Sony milks what it can out of the system.
I don't really see the relative shadiness of a company as a reason not to like a console, considering some of the stuff that went on in the 1980s... But as for the PS2 being a retro console, I don't think so, at least not quite yet. Sure, it's been nearly a decade since its initial release, but I can still walk into almost any Gamestop and find a large number of new PS2 titles for sale. Sure, much of it's crap, but there's almost always a few titles I see that I like. Consider it that way, when Gamestop no longer sells a console's games as new, then it's old enough to be "retro".
As for its place in gaming history, I think the PS2 did several things right. While the guys here have shown us that backwards compatibility had existed before then, the PS2 really brought it to the forefront. It played DVDs(and dual layers) without needing peripherals(and was cheaper than most DVD players), as well as audio CDs like the PS1. Honestly, I can see how Sony could start attempting to make consoles into complete entertainment systems after the success they had with the console. Heck, the machine even included USB and IEEE 1394 ports(not widely used however).
As for the game library, Wikipedia has listed 1700 games currently, and the information isn't anywhere near complete. Sure, with that many there's going to be lots of crap. But there's tons to choose from in every genre I care for, and that's what I like. Not all of it's quality, but there were titles worth playing in every category. Factor in the size of the PS1's library, and you've got a monumental game list. It just gets better when you add the hard drive, throw linux on the machine, and begin emulating titles.
All in all, I had a lot of fun with this console, and I keep mine hooked up at all times. I don't think it's old enough yet for the Racketboy official treatment, but when it gets there, I'll make sure to add my two cents. In the meantime, I'm gonna keep playing it and continue finding great titles that I never got a chance to try, or extremely obscure games in genres I enjoy on the console, or just sitting down with a classic that everyone has played from time to time. Is it old enough yet? No. But does it deserve its place in gaming history? I think so.
Im glad that I got some good responses to my comments. I can roll with waiting a while longer to call it retro, but I think that it is foolish to say that it was insignificant and merely popular. Without it, there would not be a fraction of the same money there is in games today, and it really made alot of developers enough revenue that they could keep developing into the future. Though it didnt bring anything truly revolutionary,it didn't flop like the consoles of last generation (Gamecube, Dreamcast). It brought what people wanted, and it did it well, in a package cheap enough that people young and old, rich and poor, could all enjoy the same gaming experience. It truly brough gaming to the masses, while not canabilizing the market for older playstation games. And it did introduce new gamers to the market. While the Wii is championed as the console making old people get up and play, my grandfather and grandmother first learned to play games on the good ol PS2
Consoles Owned:Nintendo SNES, Nintendo GameBoy Color, Nintendo GBA, Sony PSX, PS2, PS3, Sega Master, Microsoft XBox
ott0bot wrote:The best thing about the PS2 is that it was the first system to be backwards compatibale.
Let's not forget 1983 with the Atari 5200 (well, with the aide of an adapter) or the GameBoy Color that played all B&W GameBoy games.
I suppose you're kinda right, but the gamboy color and the Atari play games that are really the same gen. The PS2 was a big jump as far as harware goes from the PS1, not just a minor alteration. Now GBA like IVO said is truly backwards compatible. I don't know which came first, but i was thinking console not portable. I'm not a sony fanboy or anything, but that was one of the the only reasons I bought a PS2. I think its a great feature and innovative.
Ack wrote:
As for its place in gaming history, I think the PS2 did several things right. While the guys here have shown us that backwards compatibility had existed before then, the PS2 really brought it to the forefront. It played DVDs(and dual layers) without needing peripherals(and was cheaper than most DVD players), as well as audio CDs like the PS1. Honestly, I can see how Sony could start attempting to make consoles into complete entertainment systems after the success they had with the console. Heck, the machine even included USB and IEEE 1394 ports(not widely used however).
Dude you're so right about the DVD thing. I use mine as my player in the bedroom. Great feature.
). Having the PS1 and PS2 library together on one system makes it worth owning. The other good thing they did was to have some many retro game collections. These are awesome for people who are MAC users and really can't emulate too much besides MAME.
