Metal Gear Solid 2 better on the Ps2

Post by **BreakmanX** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 2:57 pm

Just thought this was kind of interesting.

Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance Head-to-Head - http://insider.ign.com/articles/388/388211p3.html wrote: There is one clear issue that can be called an Xbox flaw, however: Major CPU slowdown. Konami's development team spent years researching the PlayStation 2 hardware and came up with very specific particle effects, making use of the PS2's unique hardware architecture. Translation: porting such specific code to Xbox has its drawbacks, and that happens to be slowdown. The first level, on top of the tanker, has you trudging through the pouring rain. It looks great, cranking out a fairly consistent 60 FPS on the PS2. Meanwhile on the Xbox, not only does the framerate suffer, but the CPU takes a hard hit. What this translates into is slower motion. Meaning, it takes you longer to get from point A to point B on the Xbox version versus the PS2 one.

Thankfully, these issues clear up when you enter areas sans major particle effects, but the slowdown does rear its head often enough that it's annoying. You'll be firing off a few rounds at the targets in the VR missions, causing smoke to congregate in one area, and suddenly your rate of consecutive shots drop because of the slowdown. "

Even though the Ps2 hardware is inferior, Konami researched the Ps2 hardware so well and made the game fit it like a glove. Ports, as in most cases, don't do the original justice. Still, I just thought it was worth bringout out that this games looks better on the Ps2 than the Xbox. It also won the overall award.

Evilmagicpirate · Post by **Evilmagicpirate** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:13 pm

This isn't the kind of thing I would expect from Konami.. Especailly since particle effects are such a minor part of any game, you'd think they could be re-written rather easily for the Xbox..
Maybe its just that Japanese Konami doesn't really want to give a toss about the Xbox.. Or they though that the Xbox was so technically superior, that it could handle the code that is unoptimized for its hardware.. probably the later.

Web_22 · Post by **Web_22** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 2:19 am

I would say it's because they ported it instead of adjusted it, otherwise it would have probably run the same or better. From what I've read, the Xbox version does look slightly better, although it's really not that noticeable.

Due to that slowdown issue, I bought the PS2 version of Substance for collection purposes.

RenegadeAssassin · Post by **RenegadeAssassin** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:51 pm

I actually like the fact that the put Metal Gear on the Xbox, seeing as how i have an Xbox. It was a wierd choice Konami made but it as pretty good one they really didn't change the gameplay or story and it was pretty easy getting used to the controller. $\:D/$

eXistence · Post by **eXistence** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:11 am

Oh no. PS2 is not inferior. PS2 over X-box anyday. And yes, MGS2: Substance is much better on PS2

Jbrown · Post by **Jbrown** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:11 am

w0w xbox freakin owns PS2 anydayz...only thing is ther titles like FF...thats all

Post by **BreakmanX** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:35 pm

Xbox is technically superior to the Ps2. Which was why I thought it was weird that this game looked better on the Ps2. More power doesn't always mean better, though.

Cable · Post by **Cable** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:49 am

How come Xbox is better than PS2 becouse it has more power, but PSP is worse than gameboy becouse it has more power?

Sony just can't win here...

Post by **BreakmanX** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:20 am

BreakmanX wrote:Xbox is technically superior to the Ps2. Which was why I thought it was weird that this game looked better on the Ps2. More power doesn't always mean better, though.

Where did I say more power was better, or that the Xbox is better? It is a provable fact that it is technically more powerful. Whether it is a better system or not is entirely up to you. I've been playing more ps2 than anything recently, thanks to the glory that is Megaman Collection. It's all about the games, man.

And I'm not saying your wrong, but where did you see that the PsP was more powerful?

jayt11 · Post by **jayt11** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:34 am

hmmm, Splinter Cells 1 and 2, compare that head to head, and PS2 gets embarrassed. God forbid Chronicles of Riddick goes to PS2

Post by **BreakmanX** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:47 am

To clarify the psp and ds situation.

If you think about it, any kind of gameplay that the psp can do the ds can do. Because the psp doesn't do anything the ds can't. The DS on the other hand has two screens, touch screen, wireless multiplayer gaming (including something I just found out about called wireless game sharing Basically, if someone has a game and wants to play it with you, it will send the game to your DS via the wireless network,) two independent processors, and the list goes on. Sony's device looks sexy, but besides that, I am hard pressed to see what it can do that the DS can't. I mean, not even talking about battery life. I'm also assuming that since the psp's media is similar to cd-rom and minidisc, that it will have load times. Where the ds uses a cartridge (Which I've heard that they will hold 1 gigabyte of info) that has no loading times. And just to squall any rumors, I don't think that Square has offically announced any support for the PSP beyond Advent Children (which is a movie, not a game, and will be released on DVD as well) wheras they have said they will make at least Chrystal Chronicals for DS.

But that's my case. Why do you like the psp better?

Cable · Post by **Cable** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 7:41 am

I wasn't attack you in my original post, it was just a broad generalization of what i've heard in these forums.

when i think of what i want from advancing technology, i think of what looks the best. I want to be taken back. DS does not do that for me, nor does anything that i have seen from nintendo recently, except for Resident evil 1, and 4 looks pretty good too.

The DS allbeit an interesting system and not neccissarily a bad one in my opion is not what I want. I want more power, more pretty collors, more LCD, and more cowbell.

I have heard people say a few times at elast they didn't want the PSP to have so much detail, becouse it would hurt their eyes, and they just don't need that much power in a handheld. Whereas people for obvious reasons draw a line between xbox and PS2 in the same way.

And i noticed that Sony was on the short end of each of the two sticks, i was just pointing out that irony, but apparently it is lost.

Realm · Post by **Realm** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 4:58 pm

I want to be taken back.

Wait a sec... you were taken aback by the PSP which just looks good, rather than the DS which is completely revolutionary?

yeah, yeah, nice landspeeder but check out this pretty horse!

Cable · Post by **Cable** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:26 pm

Revolutionary?
BAH!

Post by **BreakmanX** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:06 pm

What else do you call doing several things that have never been done before?