I like how all these people complain about the Ps3 version only running a Ps2 game at 30fps yet those same people say they prefer the Ps2 version because the frame rate drops make it more 'nostalgic'.
Yeah. It only works because it's not a input heavy and intensive game. Everything has a sort of weight to it which is why it works as good as it does. Framefrate is still shit tho
True. The ps2 was waaay ahead of it's time and the best game example to prove it is probably either Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater or Subsistence OR Shadow of the Colossus.
Yeah bcos people didn't have access to fps counters as easily as they have now. And even now people don't care about fps, atleast console people don't. For pc people, however, fps is probably the most common reason as to why they shifted from console to pc.
@@therandomguy2441 Yeah, even back then if you gamed on PC, you would notice and "feel" low fps and poor performance even without a real-time frame counter. Also, I remember playing this game back in the day, and although loving it, I thought the game ran like shit.... which it did. That being said, I was already older when this game realeased. So I don't have the nostalgia of playing it when I was a little kid like most of the comments here. That's why people are circle-jerking over the ps2 original so much.
It's amazing how that some very popular ps2 games had horrible frame rates and people put up with it. I wasn't so sensitive to frame rate drops back when I was palying ps2 so I probably didn't even realize I was playing at 15-20 fps. If something like that was released today people would tear it apart.
one of the main reasons i couldn't stand playing that game back then because of the choppiness it was near unplayable, i could notice the fps even through i was 11.
I love when I have a PS3, I'm so innocent about FPS and graphics, all I need is to play. But now when I learned about tech, I'm so abit choosy on my PS4 in-short I'm so disappoint.
Just finished my first playthrough of this game with the PS2 version on a CRT. It ran much better than I thought it would and the controls were decent. I had a lot of fun with it though, easily one of the best games ever made.
@@frizzbeemans007 onimusha 4 and jak and daxter push limits more the performance jak and daxter runs at 60 fps and has no loading times onimusha 4 while it has loading it’s one of the best looking games in the era and has good draw distance and 60 fps
@@armorwolf7934 To my knowledge, neither of those games were using extensive amounts of bloom lighting, post processing effects (to which ps2 couldn't really handle), tons of particles, texture techniques used to simulate fur on the enemies. It's a bad comparison, honestly.
The game had low FPS on PS2 because it pushed the PS2 to its limits, I don't think there are other games that look as good as SotC on the PS2. The PS3 version is indeed better if you want a more stable framerate, but what's really important is that you get to play this masterpiece.
@@Limerain Let the idiot speak, he is probably soon to get vaccinated a 3rd time, as how stupid he is, so their kind will be gone from planet earth soon.
No. S-Video and Component out-class it. And HDMI is over-rated crap that only looks better thanks to crippling by sony and microshaft to sell HDMI and moar DRMS.
Objectified Cross I agree, but as somebody who grew up in the early 2000s, I will always prefer the reliability and versatility of composite cables. The day when no television has those familiar red, yellow and white ports will be a sad one for me.
The PS3 one is superior by all means, I understand that some people have nostalgia and stuff like that but I grew up on the PS2 too and I can say that I would choose the remake over the original any day.
Kids= frame rate is terrible can't play Adults= oh man I love this game on ps2 Lol understand the PS2 is like 16 years old already games are getting older on the Ps2
Camerello Cleef It was the best console ever because of its games and tech (for the time). A lot of games were never remastered for PS3, based on hardware, every console is shitty, but PS2 had a huge game collection
Camerello Cleef Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3, Black, The Mark of Kri, Dead to Rights, Final Fantasy XI, TimeSplitters, The Warriors, Burnout 3: Takedown, Rez, Twisted Metal Black, Dead or Alive 2, Manhunt, Viewtiful Joe, Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution, Devil May Cry, Gran Turismo 4, Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy, Psychonauts, Bully, Beyond Good and Evil, Soulcalibur 2, Jak 3, Katamari Damacy, Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves, Silent Hill 2, Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, God of War, GTA 3, MGS 2, Resident Evil 4, Final Fantasy X, GTA Vice City, MGS 3, ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, God of War 2, Kingdom Hearts, GTA San Andreas, and many more
+Camerello Cleef ps2 overrated???? What???? You do realise that the ps3 and future ps consoles owe A LOT of respect to the ps2 because it was the best console ever, great games, good controler and just enjoyable with friends or alone. Who the FUCK gives a SHIT about performance????? Oh yeah, only butthurt boys and graphics fanboys
Funny thing is when i originally played this on the PS2 back in the day i can't remember it being that choppy. The fact that they were able to pull it off is a massive achievement in itself. Im currently playing the PS3 remaster at the moment and really enjoying that, when im done with that i have the PS4 remake to play.
Ng ligava pra esse negócio de framer na época, naquele tempo, o gráfico do ps2 era uma maravilha, perfeição, só depois com o passar do tempo e das gerações que notamos defeitos que não enxergavamos na época.
I remember this coming out when I was 10 and there was just nothing like it. It didn't feel like a game, because there wasn't really a HUD or NPC's guiding you. It had both a boring (due to it repetitive nature) and exciting feel to it. Something pulled you back to play it again and it was mostly the unique atmosphere and that you didn't know what was going to happen.
I don't understand how some people are saying the ps2 version is better, i mean 30 fps is not amazing but is a hell of a lot better than 14 fps. How can anyone object to playing a game they like at a higher resolution and better frame rate.
It is technically better but that means nothing when choosing a classic. For example GTA SA PS2 version is my favorite despite XBOX and PC versions being far superior in technical aspects but the PS2 has the atmosphere, the feeling and something special that other versions doesn't.
Kaylied Gamer RGB at 60hz Videogaming even Shenmue 2 looks better than GTA SA when it comes to the characters and textures, but GTA was a good game though
GTA SA was imo so poorly realised graphically on the PS2 that I really could not stomach playing it... dire. Never was any game on PS2 that matched the quality of Shenmue series - even the PS2 Yakuza games were no match. Only the PS3 / PS4 Yakuza titles surpass the graphics of Shenmue on Dreamcast :-)
+Arisato Minato Zuero Don't worry sony will obviously remaster this! Along with every game of a previous generation! Just hope they remaster it and not re-release it like they've done with beyond two souls.
+True Pride sotc is it come out you sure? because this my best game ever in my life I got the ps3 version.also is it sotc 2 come out on ps4? or is still continue project or there canceled the game?
Yuvi Singh It was for me. It's the exact same game, just with lesser effects and lower frame-rate. But like I said, there is something special about playing a game like MGSV on a 10 year old console.
Yes. The exact same game with slightly higher resolution and better framerate, released for full price. Only with TLoU, the developers called it a "steal" for $50.
hristaki99 Actually, the remastered version contained the base game and all DLC at that point, making it cheaper than PS3 version if you were to buy the DLC I got the PS4 version because I didnt had a PS3, that is good enough reason Also, SotC doubled the framerate on PS3, from 15 to 30.
Marcuss2 No, PS2 was most of the time, 30FPS with some slight 20FPS drops and VERY rarely, below 20FPS. The PS3 version of TLoU is $30 and the DLC isn't at all worth $15 so you're basically paying $20 for a DLC that is just two girls shooting each other with a water gun or pretending to play a fighting game at an arcade. For $20, you could buy the Max Payne triology for actual shooting and one of the thousands of fighting games with actual people fighting, not a QTE with a girl's face in the background. If you just want more of the TLoU plot and it's not about the gameplay, you can watch a full walkthrough of the DLC for free on UA-cam.
hristaki99 I think that you just forgot that gaming isn't always about 'shooting' and 'fighting'. Games also tell stories. Journey, Flower, Dear Esther didn't have guns, but they did have all this emotion which could be fully percieved only while playing them. And this is WHY Left Behind is a game, and not a life action short film: because you become one with the characters while controlling them, thus absorbing the story on a whole new level. (sorry for responding to a 4 month old comment, and also for my bad english)
Please don't think i'm stupid people of youtube, but im a bit confused. Is there a version of sotc that came out on ps3 or is it just a ps3 patch ? Because i have never seen this game advertised for ps3 but i know xbox has a patch to play older games, so does that mean ps3 has one as well ?
You recommend me getting the remastered one since it has better visuals or should I try and get the original ones for ps2 just to experience the original game which may make it better just cause it is the original?
The thing is.... I played it last year on my 42" Bravia and on PS2... Still, enjoyed the hell out of it. It is a masterpiece indeed! :) Btw anyone remember the last staircase grab at the end? Amazing moment!! :D
I'm gonna go ahead and say this. I could not play SotC on PS2. The framerate was horrid enough for me to flat out get rid of the game because I simply could not enjoy it. The PS3 re-release, however, is indescribably better. The one major issue that previously butchered an other wise great game is finally gone. I highly recommend getting the Ico/SotC collection rather than the individual games, that way you have 2 fantastic games for the price of one, you won't have to worry about lackluster framerate in SotC or have to witness the atrocious box art for the US release of Ico. :)
the game didn't feel that slow on a real PS2 for 2 reasons: - it's locked to 20 most of the time for even frame pacing, because 20 is a divider of 60, so 20 feels better than 21 or 22 for instance - CRT TVs + wired controllers gave us near-zero input lag, which helps to mitigate the choppiness
So much improvement from the PS2 to the PS3: Higher resolution,higher frames per second,Blu-ray discs that could store much more information in just a single disc,wireless controllers with motion sensors AND no more Memory Cards (THANKS GOD!!!) ,better network,less loading screens,characters with MUCH more human-like movements,much better graphics,BIGGER Open-Worlds,etc,ect...The only thing that I think the PS3 lacked were games as good as the PS1 and PS2 ones....I mean,the PS3 DID HAVE GOOD GAMES,but not so good as the PS2 in my personal opinion,I always wanted to play games like Jak&Daxter,Spyro and Crash Bandicoot with PS3 graphics...I hope the PS4 era to be better,I HOPE!!
Right, and PS3 also got hacked more, had servers crash, had more defect systems, was more expensive, had less artistic and masterful games(which you mentioned), sometimes actually had longer loading times, and wasn't that big of a jump in terms of content or graphics considering Grand theft auto san andreas on the ps2 has the most content than any grand theft auto game. the Ps3 was awesome, but had a lot more problems than ps2
DrearierSpider1 I honestly don't like the majority of PC games (By the way,games like Shadow of the Colossus are not available for PC nor Uncharted or The Last of Us)...Sorry,I don't want to offend your love for PC,but until one could play EVERY game directly from a TV like we do with movies,then consoles are still the way to go..Plus,when it comes to graphics comparison,consoles are only SLIGHTLY weaker than PCs.It's not like if you compare an "Atari 2600 vs a Nintendo 64",and sometimes,I have even seen games where the console version looks better.
So is the one on ps3 the new remastered one that comes with both games? I'm thinking of getting it although in a way I wanted the original version on ps2 just cause it is original but I may get the ps3 one.
I tried to warn you :'( Edit: "for some reason I kinda like the shittier frame rate. seeing the ps2 struggle because of it awesomeness bring out the joy in me" fucking WHAT "Man, I'm really enjoying Breath of the Wild, the scaled-back graphics and framerate that help it run on the Wii U really help me appreciate how awesome this game is" - No one, ever
No it doesnt. If you are trying to get the platinum trophy from this game, the FPS of Ps3 makes a good job of messing with the difficult of this trophy, in the third colossi in order to get the time attack trophy, you need to kill the colossi in a short time, but because of the FPS of the Ps3, he simple moves to much, so you need to make some absurd tatics, almost a glinch to kill him in time. You need to jump at the same time the colossi stands his wood and make a giant jump to his head, I tried like 3 hours.
ThePreciseClimber I played through the Ratchet and Clank trilogy and I encountered very little glitches, you just need to make sure your disk is clean, or play them as downloaded games
Considering this game released all the way back in 2005, it’s insane how much they were able to fit into a console like the PS2. This was towards the tail-end of the 6th console generation, so the devs knew the PS2’s capabilities and limitations inside out.
I've been tinkering with the settings in PCSX2 emulator for hours, trying to get it to run smoothly... Only to find out it's been actually perfectly emulated all along :|
I just got done streaming the PS2 version on my PC today and even that, with 5x resolution, 16x anisiotropic filtering, and mipmapping, STILL looks a lot worse than the PS3 remaster. That's Bluepoint's first effort, just wait til we all see their second effort in full.
Dentro del menú en la barra de progreso, ve a donde se encuentra el engrane, y cambia a 720pHD. Más que los gráficos, el framerate es el que cambia, se percibe que al momento de estar atacando al coloso, el ps2 baja hasta 14, lo he notado (Lo he jugado ultimamente en PS2), mientras que en PS3 se mantiene.
When I played it on PS2 (after PS3 came out) I just thought to myself "wow, this isn't really that far off PS3 graphics! This is amazing!" (perhaps besides the aliasing)
This is one of my favorite games of all time. I just love cryptic, mysterious nature of this game. Does anyone know if there's any other games like this?
I love playing video games in 60fps, but if i were to choose either the PS3 version or the PS2 version, i'd go for the PS2 version because it has that epic, cinematic feeling.
My PS2 died in 2004 and I decided to go with the 360 over the PS3 when its price tag in the US was announced (unfortunately at like the same time Halo 3's teaser came out and Lost Odyssey was confirmed to be Xbox only), so I never got to play SotC. Got a PS3 in 2009 but only got a chance to play Demon's Souls and Infamous before that one died. Does it emulate well on a modern gaming PC, or should I buy a used PS2/PS3? The word "modern" here being within the last three years or so.
While I do appreciate the sharper image and clarity brought by the HD collection, it's clear to the point of being distracting. On the PS2, when a texture was loading in from the low resolution texture, it was more subtle. On the PS3, it's low resolution and then POP! HD texture. It's VERY distracting. I also appreciate the increased frame rate, but the lower frame rate seems really epic.
It was a game for the PS2 of the year two thousand with graphics of a console that would come out 6 years later. It was like playing a game of the future in the present. It was a game that does not match the time it premiered. One of the best Playstation games if not the best.
@@szkworc2008 that just isn't true lmao, the PS2 was a lot stronger than high end PCs at release. Even the Xbox couldn't handle a majority of its games at higher than 480p.
I'm gonna be one of the few who actually considers the framedrops to make the creatures more epic. I mean it's not better on a playable standpoint but when your computer has a hard time rendering these beasts it does give them.. something mystical I guess. Never bothered me anyway the framerates.
I thought so too when I originally played the game, however it really starts to not matter and you can look past it easily and see just how amazing this game is, laggy or not.
This game was so epic. I never felt so attached to a game as I have with this one. I know it sounds homo but this game is an experience like no other. Anyone who didn't play this game should do so. Trust me you won't regret it. Plus its got the best soundtrack in video game history IMO.
I think you mean the feel was more better cause of the render speed (which was choppy but yes felt a slow-motion to it) which gave it a better feel to you. However the PS3's speed cleans it up and makes it more fast paced, which may or may not be to your taste. Am I right?
i remember having this on ps2 and never felt like it was 20fps unlike on pc when a game get under 28 fps i immediatly notice it, how comes on consoles when the fps are in the 20's it doesnt feel as sluggish as on pc?
The only bad things about the PS3 version is that there is quite significant pop-in because of the game having to load higher-resolution textures and I've noticed Wander shakes around A LOT more, which can make the game, particularly the time attack modes, more frustrating.
Sorry if i've got a bad English, but that's true, Wander shakes A LOT MORE in PS3 version than in PS2, and makes the game really frustrating, i really can't believe while playing that i can barely beat the second colossus because of those shakes
Konnor Games Your English is fine :). But yeah, I think the worst offender would have to be the 3rd colossus, especially on the hard mode time-attack. I was on the verge of ripping my hair out fighting that guy. It's really a shame, too, because it's incredibly unsatisfying when you beat a tough enemy from pure luck alone, rather than actual skill.
I personally like how the PS2 version is more "choppy" It almost made it look more cinematic, and like it was moving slow cause the Colossi were so huge. So, I just think it made it look more dramatic, and one of the little details that made this game SO cool.
I wish they added some nice self shadows, ambient occlusion and some nice Depth of field effect to the PS3 version to give it a next gen look... but they didnt, although the PS2 has kind DoF effect trick not to show the low polygon view it gives a slight edge in terms of camera stick and I like it...
That's totally cool and respectable. I watched through and I can see exactly what you mean by it having looked really intense and epic, but I think it would have helped to have played the ps2 version originally. I've only ever played the ps3 one, and it's really cool how they made it look so much cleaner. Comes down to preference I guess.
It's not just you! I feel the same. It actually gives a more cinematic effect to the game. This same thing happens with MGS3, it plays at 60fps on the HD version, but on PS2 it runs between 30 and 22, average of 25, almost like films, which are 24fps. Me and you and many other people love that 24fps cinematic effect this creates. I say games should give you the option of playing at 24fps!!
"The goal of motion pictures is not to recreate reality, it's not even to show reality. I want to suck you into the world of the story, suspend your disbelief and make you forget about yourself and your life and just be in the moment of the film. By not showing enough visual information, we force the brain into filling in the gaps... it draws you in even more. It's part of how you let go to the point where you can laugh or cry or feel tense or afraid or elated." Naim Sutherland
There's something way more charming about the PS2 version. I am not to sure what it is though. It probably has something to do with association of time with the framerate. When Wandr stabs the colossus you get the slowdown. It feels good for some reason.
Ratchet and Clank had a very similar thing going on which I thought was cool too. The drops remain in the PS3 versions of R&C though, it's a shame that they don't in SotC if it does the slowdowns too.
Jared Prymont This is exactly what I felt Lords Of Shadows 1 framerate to have very weird,indescribable charm to it... I mean I HATE when games stutter and lag like no tomorrow but there something about LOS1....its oddly charming in a way which is hard to put in words.
It is exactly because of the 20-15 fps drop for both SotC and LOS1 giving you the illusion of "cinematic" experience when in reality it is a hardware limitation. I've always hated this "cinematic" excuse from developers to hide hardware limitations but i have to admit for this particular game, the colosi falling at 20-15 fps on PS2 is way more "special/cinematic" than the stable 30 fps port for some odd reason. And that is coming from a PC player right here :)
Tetra Digm It's a matter of opinion. You don't expect to find any sense in it when you have a different one. Some people find the fps drops to be "cinematic" especially when the colosi falls. Most console players don't even know what fps means especially in the PS1 and PS2 eras. Ocarina of Time runned at 19 fps on the N64 and nobody really cared.
This was cool to see. I always wondered why the PS3 version felt off. There is something really epic feeling when the game drops in the teens because there is too much happening on screen. Sometimes smoother isn't better. Same goes for the added resolution and sharpness. I prefer the gritty feel of the lower res PS2 version. I just like softer images. I don't understand this obsession with sharpness, clarity and high frame rates. Those are all technically "better" things, but you have to admit a lot of the nuances and feeling are lost because of it.
***** No, but I am saying that when the game drops to 14 fps during these epic moments in the game, I feel that it adds a layer to the gameplay that make it "feel" better. When your brain has to work to fill in the details, you are left with a more immersive experience. If this wasn't the case, then reading books would be incredibly stupid, yet everyone who reads a book says it is better than the movie adaptation 100% of the time.
Daniel Marinho I also thought Battlefield 3 on the 360 was better than BF4 on the PS4. I like the lower frame rate, it feels more immersive. I never had issues with getting precision kills. If I was playing Doom, then yeah give me 60fps, or Mario, 60fps. But for many games like Uncharted, atmospheric shooters, non e-sports titles. 30fps is preferred.
It always seems impressive that the PS2 actually had great power, so many games hold up well. Even with HD collections on PS3, these games don't really change that much. Sony definitely knows how to make a good console.
Shadow of the colossus on PS2 AKA: Search for bright light on dark unknown object controlling grey unknown object, all in glorious 512x224 and amazing music. /Sarcasm/
No you are right because the PS2 version is more blurry. Because of that the backgrounds looks more like a cinematic scene from a movie in case the ps3 version is very clean without depth of sharpness. Some mountains or other things wich is far away have better textures and looks sharper but this kind of this far away feeling is gone. the PS2 version makes this better. mountains and colossuses looks bigger and more massive. Cause of that the world looks bigger and not like a clean plastic texture.
According to Fumito Ueda's interview when the game released, the low framerate of this game was intended. He said he didn't want SotC to be similar to other games which are running at high fps
My ps2 is super overclocked ...i am playing @ 50 - 60 fps all the time.* *I thought that it was more than obvious but i guess some people need help....THIS IS A JOKE!
If you look up reports and research how the human eye can see things it is almost impossible to tell the difference between 25-27 fps from 30-35 fps. The game when it came out on the ps2 is almost basically how other games looked that had the same play style or graphics. If you're complaining about how you couldn't stand how the games fps was then you must have never played doom or medal of honor when they were old and lacked good fps.
melanie finch I enjoyed this game when it came out and I still enjoy it now, even after small tweeks in the fps. It's all about character. And I know most people probably couldn't play it cause it hurt their eyes but that's mostly because of the fuzzy graphics. I played Doom all the time, you think that fps didn't mess up my eyes, but it didn't stop me cause the game was fun and multiplayer.
There's actually quite a difference between 25 and 35. I've been playing the witcher 3 on PC a lot recently, and my fps will usually stay at slightly above 30, but in some instances it will drop to the upper 20's and I notice, instantly, there is a HUGE difference, for me it becomes almost unplayable after the fps drop, it just feels off.
+melanie finch It is individual. For me example I can see difference between 25-30 or 27-30... when I have 30 and it drop to 25-27 I can see the game is somehow slower and that I notice and I can know now that it dropped some FPS.
There is a story, it's just really small and simple, but then the task of actually finishing the story is big, in a big world with big bosses. You just don't see the amazing feel of this game, the mystery of "what big boss will be next and how to defeat him". The puzzle of figuring out how to kill the bosses, and explore the big open world.
Don't get me wrong here, but if I had to chose, I would pick the PS2 version. Now the HD remake has better graphics by all means, but the slight choppiness of the original makes it feel more like a classic.
Nosferatumiamor Except that they fucked over with the physics engine and if you play on hard mode time trial on the HD remake now it's pretty much fucking impossible.
this game is amazing, im happy to say i still own my ps2 copy of this game and am actually playing it as i type this and watch youtube. the hd version was a nice thing for them to do, it meant that people who never got a chance to play the ps2 version could now play the game, i wish they would do a remake, maybe keep everything the same as the original, but make the land bigger and add more colossi and bring the graphics up to next gen standards. just to see what it would look like
I like how all these people complain about the Ps3 version only running a Ps2 game at 30fps yet those same people say they prefer the Ps2 version because the frame rate drops make it more 'nostalgic'.
I mean it's kinda true tho
XD
Yeah. It only works because it's not a input heavy and intensive game. Everything has a sort of weight to it which is why it works as good as it does. Framefrate is still shit tho
Nostalgic is a drugs. Thats they all dumb
Actually a slower frame rate can give a better sense of weight and heft to the animation.
The fact that this was even playable on PS2 in 2005 is pretty amazing
well they made it for ps2
so you know
@@Ghost-pb4ts who now
@@ChunkyKongGaming ask your
@@Sum_Yousah friend
*insert comment saying no one cared about frame rate back then here*
True. The ps2 was waaay ahead of it's time and the best game example to prove it is probably either Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater or Subsistence OR Shadow of the Colossus.
Yeah bcos people didn't have access to fps counters as easily as they have now.
And even now people don't care about fps, atleast console people don't.
For pc people, however, fps is probably the most common reason as to why they shifted from console to pc.
@@therandomguy2441 Yeah, even back then if you gamed on PC, you would notice and "feel" low fps and poor performance even without a real-time frame counter. Also, I remember playing this game back in the day, and although loving it, I thought the game ran like shit.... which it did.
That being said, I was already older when this game realeased. So I don't have the nostalgia of playing it when I was a little kid like most of the comments here. That's why people are circle-jerking over the ps2 original so much.
It's amazing how that some very popular ps2 games had horrible frame rates and people put up with it. I wasn't so sensitive to frame rate drops back when I was palying ps2 so I probably didn't even realize I was playing at 15-20 fps. If something like that was released today people would tear it apart.
now other technologies
Have you heard of Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous on PS4? :P
we didnt realize how good 60fps or even consistent 30fps looked back then lol
Cuz crt
@@riosavannah123 I'm not sure how a CRT can solve performance issues?
Back then, we didn't care about the frame-rates. I miss those innocent days.
Yes people did
Yeah 20fps was the standard back in those innocent days
one of the main reasons i couldn't stand playing that game back then because of the choppiness it was near unplayable, i could notice the fps even through i was 11.
I love when I have a PS3, I'm so innocent about FPS and graphics, all I need is to play. But now when I learned about tech, I'm so abit choosy on my PS4 in-short I'm so disappoint.
True Pride Kids in the 80's - 2004 be like
Just finished my first playthrough of this game with the PS2 version on a CRT. It ran much better than I thought it would and the controls were decent. I had a lot of fun with it though, easily one of the best games ever made.
ps3 looks better but the ps2 looks amazing for its time
yeah the frame rate drope to 16 it was way bigger than what the ps2 was capable of
so and framerate 🤣
Yeah true that. I mean give it a break,this game pushes the PS2 limit so freakin hard
@@frizzbeemans007 onimusha 4 and jak and daxter push limits more the performance jak and daxter runs at 60 fps and has no loading times onimusha 4 while it has loading it’s one of the best looking games in the era and has good draw distance and 60 fps
@@armorwolf7934 To my knowledge, neither of those games were using extensive amounts of bloom lighting, post processing effects (to which ps2 couldn't really handle), tons of particles, texture techniques used to simulate fur on the enemies. It's a bad comparison, honestly.
The game had low FPS on PS2 because it pushed the PS2 to its limits, I don't think there are other games that look as good as SotC on the PS2. The PS3 version is indeed better if you want a more stable framerate, but what's really important is that you get to play this masterpiece.
Sunrisedarkness God of War 2 was on par with SOTC
Stable 30 fps is better than 60 fps going up and down...
@@asfandyar9029 but sotc wasn't stable 30 fps on ps2....
@@claudiovega2531 he talking about the PS3 version. Its a steady 30fps all the time
There was also Metal Gear Solid 3, that game had slow downs too on the ps2
Damn, SotC gives PS2 hardware a challenge, I played the demo, its playable, but damn
No it's just badly programmed.
@@MilkerMurphy No it's not.
@@Limerain Yeah it is and so is Ico. Sure the Ps2 is a toaster but for a Sony-owned developer this is terrible.
@@Limerain Let the idiot speak, he is probably soon to get vaccinated a 3rd time, as how stupid he is, so their kind will be gone from planet earth soon.
@@MilkerMurphy both games are extremely ambitious, this is probably the best they could achieve without sacrificing scope.
Me a few years ago: Wow! The colossi looks awesome falling in slow mo!
Me now: Wow! Look at all those skipped frames!
I mourn the days we were enjoying our games and didn't gave a flying fluck about framerate or resolution...
Back when everyone worshiped slide-shows and thought composite cables were the bomb.
Objectified Cross Are they not the bomb?
No.
S-Video and Component out-class it.
And HDMI is over-rated crap that only looks better thanks to crippling by sony and microshaft to sell HDMI and moar DRMS.
Objectified Cross I agree, but as somebody who grew up in the early 2000s, I will always prefer the reliability and versatility of composite cables. The day when no television has those familiar red, yellow and white ports will be a sad one for me.
For me unless it's a CRT I don't care of Composite is gone.
The PS3 one is superior by all means, I understand that some people have nostalgia and stuff like that but I grew up on the PS2 too and I can say that I would choose the remake over the original any day.
It's remaster the remake it's ps4 ed
Kids= frame rate is terrible can't play
Adults= oh man I love this game on ps2
Lol understand the PS2 is like 16 years old already games are getting older on the Ps2
This game is fucking huge dude. It was way ahead of its time.
Camerello Cleef It was the best console ever because of its games and tech (for the time). A lot of games were never remastered for PS3, based on hardware, every console is shitty, but PS2 had a huge game collection
Camerello Cleef The PS2 had more games then the PS3 and XBOX360 combined, look harder
Camerello Cleef Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3, Black, The Mark of Kri, Dead to Rights, Final Fantasy XI, TimeSplitters, The Warriors, Burnout 3: Takedown, Rez, Twisted Metal Black, Dead or Alive 2, Manhunt, Viewtiful Joe, Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution, Devil May Cry, Gran Turismo 4, Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy, Psychonauts, Bully, Beyond Good and Evil, Soulcalibur 2, Jak 3, Katamari Damacy, Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves, Silent Hill 2, Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, God of War, GTA 3, MGS 2, Resident Evil 4, Final Fantasy X, GTA Vice City, MGS 3, ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, God of War 2, Kingdom Hearts, GTA San Andreas, and many more
+Camerello Cleef ps2 overrated???? What???? You do realise that the ps3 and future ps consoles owe A LOT of respect to the ps2 because it was the best console ever, great games, good controler and just enjoyable with friends or alone. Who the FUCK gives a SHIT about performance????? Oh yeah, only butthurt boys and graphics fanboys
Funny thing is when i originally played this on the PS2 back in the day i can't remember it being that choppy. The fact that they were able to pull it off is a massive achievement in itself. Im currently playing the PS3 remaster at the moment and really enjoying that, when im done with that i have the PS4 remake to play.
Ng ligava pra esse negócio de framer na época, naquele tempo, o gráfico do ps2 era uma maravilha, perfeição, só depois com o passar do tempo e das gerações que notamos defeitos que não enxergavamos na época.
If you don't count poorer frame rate and resolution of the ps2
PS2 specs are crap
@@bls3746 ok its 20 years old what u expect
@@flursfrost1152 I expect the shittest graphics and frame rates in the world which is exactly what I see in this video
@@bls3746 dude are you stupid? The ps2 was made in 2000 so obviously it lags like hell!
@@bls3746 Yeah 299mHz for a 2000 console is bad
I remember this coming out when I was 10 and there was just nothing like it. It didn't feel like a game, because there wasn't really a HUD or NPC's guiding you. It had both a boring (due to it repetitive nature) and exciting feel to it. Something pulled you back to play it again and it was mostly the unique atmosphere and that you didn't know what was going to happen.
Conclusion: this game was too epic for the PS2 to handle!
I don't understand how some people are saying the ps2 version is better, i mean 30 fps is not amazing but is a hell of a lot better than 14 fps. How can anyone object to playing a game they like at a higher resolution and better frame rate.
It is technically better but that means nothing when choosing a classic. For example GTA SA PS2 version is my favorite despite XBOX and PC versions being far superior in technical aspects but the PS2 has the atmosphere, the feeling and something special that other versions doesn't.
patrick22014 Translation: Nostalgia Googles
GTA SA graphics on PS2 made my eyes hurt it was so shit
Kaylied Gamer RGB at 60hz Videogaming even Shenmue 2 looks better than GTA SA when it comes to the characters and textures, but GTA was a good game though
GTA SA was imo so poorly realised graphically on the PS2 that I really could not stomach playing it... dire.
Never was any game on PS2 that matched the quality of Shenmue series - even the PS2 Yakuza games were no match.
Only the PS3 / PS4 Yakuza titles surpass the graphics of Shenmue on Dreamcast :-)
I want a remake for this game. This is a masterpiece
+Arisato Minato Zuero Don't worry sony will obviously remaster this! Along with every game of a previous generation! Just hope they remaster it and not re-release it like they've done with beyond two souls.
+Joaquin Gaute "REMAKE" no remaster.
+Joaquin Gaute Beyond Two Souls on PS4 is remastered, dolt. Just read the digitalfoundry article about it or check the video.
what? It's the same graphics with the same frame rate (minimal graphic improvements)
Joaquin Gaute
No it's not, time for you to abandon this message thread.
Jeez, it's hard to think that at one point the PS2 was the only thing I played on...and now I consider 30fps to be barely playable.
TKoMEaP good luck on finding a cheap gaming computer that goes anywhere above 30 then
The PS2 did have a lot of 60fps games tho
I can't believe I enjoyed every single second of it on ps2! but seriously this game is a masterpiece and there should be a ps4 version
+Zack Tahiri W new gen graphics
+True Pride sotc is it come out you sure? because this my best game ever in my life I got the ps3 version.also is it sotc 2 come out on ps4? or is still continue project or there canceled the game?
...
Well dreams do come true... Oh yeah!
Holy shit congratulations!
for some reason I kinda like the shittier frame rate. seeing the ps2 struggle because of it awesomeness bring out the joy in me
best feeling ever ...
troy-grant Bèzuidenhout Indeed.
Playing MGSV on PS3 was a similar experience for me, so titillating.
so glad i found u....is the mgs 5 worth buying on the ps3?
Yuvi Singh It was for me. It's the exact same game, just with lesser effects and lower frame-rate. But like I said, there is something special about playing a game like MGSV on a 10 year old console.
The way the the trees react to those thundering footsteps always amazed me.
very silly question, but is this the ps2 disc being played in the ps3? or is there an actual ps3 version specifically for the ps3? thx
I like how it doesn't hardly change the art at all, it barely touches it just smooths it out and stuff.
Shadow of the colosus on PS3: The last of us: Remastered of its time
Yes. The exact same game with slightly higher resolution and better framerate, released for full price. Only with TLoU, the developers called it a "steal" for $50.
hristaki99 Actually, the remastered version contained the base game and all DLC at that point, making it cheaper than PS3 version if you were to buy the DLC
I got the PS4 version because I didnt had a PS3, that is good enough reason
Also, SotC doubled the framerate on PS3, from 15 to 30.
Marcuss2 No, PS2 was most of the time, 30FPS with some slight 20FPS drops and VERY rarely, below 20FPS. The PS3 version of TLoU is $30 and the DLC isn't at all worth $15 so you're basically paying $20 for a DLC that is just two girls shooting each other with a water gun or pretending to play a fighting game at an arcade. For $20, you could buy the Max Payne triology for actual shooting and one of the thousands of fighting games with actual people fighting, not a QTE with a girl's face in the background. If you just want more of the TLoU plot and it's not about the gameplay, you can watch a full walkthrough of the DLC for free on UA-cam.
hristaki99 I think that you just forgot that gaming isn't always about 'shooting' and 'fighting'. Games also tell stories. Journey, Flower, Dear Esther didn't have guns, but they did have all this emotion which could be fully percieved only while playing them. And this is WHY Left Behind is a game, and not a life action short film: because you become one with the characters while controlling them, thus absorbing the story on a whole new level. (sorry for responding to a 4 month old comment, and also for my bad english)
Please don't think i'm stupid people of youtube, but im a bit confused. Is there a version of sotc that came out on ps3 or is it just a ps3 patch ? Because i have never seen this game advertised for ps3 but i know xbox has a patch to play older games, so does that mean ps3 has one as well ?
You recommend me getting the remastered one since it has better visuals or should I try and get the original ones for ps2 just to experience the original game which may make it better just cause it is the original?
i cant express in words how happy i am that they remade this game!
The thing is.... I played it last year on my 42" Bravia and on PS2... Still, enjoyed the hell out of it. It is a masterpiece indeed! :) Btw anyone remember the last staircase grab at the end? Amazing moment!! :D
Has anyone unlocked the 8th & 9th bonus box in the HD collection? If yes, how do you unlock them & what do they contain?
silky smooth 20fps
THUG_PRO sometimes it is wopping at super cinematic 14fps
14fps: yEEt
DAT PS2 FRAME RATE.
I'm gonna go ahead and say this. I could not play SotC on PS2. The framerate was horrid enough for me to flat out get rid of the game because I simply could not enjoy it.
The PS3 re-release, however, is indescribably better. The one major issue that previously butchered an other wise great game is finally gone.
I highly recommend getting the Ico/SotC collection rather than the individual games, that way you have 2 fantastic games for the price of one, you won't have to worry about lackluster framerate in SotC or have to witness the atrocious box art for the US release of Ico. :)
CunningCondor they look almost identical
Not when you actually see em on a TV screen. The difference for me was astronomical.
CunningCondor either way, neither framerate is acceptable for the type of game
PS3's framerate had little to no issues for me.
CunningCondor 30 fps is an issue
the game didn't feel that slow on a real PS2 for 2 reasons:
- it's locked to 20 most of the time for even frame pacing, because 20 is a divider of 60, so 20 feels better than 21 or 22 for instance
- CRT TVs + wired controllers gave us near-zero input lag, which helps to mitigate the choppiness
And the motion blur (or the similar thing they made a the time) makes the movements look smoother
So much improvement from the PS2 to the PS3: Higher resolution,higher frames per second,Blu-ray discs that could store much more information in just a single disc,wireless controllers with motion sensors AND no more Memory Cards (THANKS GOD!!!) ,better network,less loading screens,characters with MUCH more human-like movements,much better graphics,BIGGER Open-Worlds,etc,ect...The only thing that I think the PS3 lacked were games as good as the PS1 and PS2 ones....I mean,the PS3 DID HAVE GOOD GAMES,but not so good as the PS2 in my personal opinion,I always wanted to play games like Jak&Daxter,Spyro and Crash Bandicoot with PS3 graphics...I hope the PS4 era to be better,I HOPE!!
Naugthy dog had carried PS3
They mastered PS3 and today is the most powerfull console besides ps4
There were none loading times with Shadow of the colosus, even on PS2 version
Right, and PS3 also got hacked more, had servers crash, had more defect systems, was more expensive, had less artistic and masterful games(which you mentioned), sometimes actually had longer loading times, and wasn't that big of a jump in terms of content or graphics considering Grand theft auto san andreas on the ps2 has the most content than any grand theft auto game. the Ps3 was awesome, but had a lot more problems than ps2
DrearierSpider1 I honestly don't like the majority of PC games (By the way,games like Shadow of the Colossus are not available for PC nor Uncharted or The Last of Us)...Sorry,I don't want to offend your love for PC,but until one could play EVERY game directly from a TV like we do with movies,then consoles are still the way to go..Plus,when it comes to graphics comparison,consoles are only SLIGHTLY weaker than PCs.It's not like if you compare an "Atari 2600 vs a Nintendo 64",and sometimes,I have even seen games where the console version looks better.
this is really a good remaster. Ps2 version has a lot of aliasing effects that are so ugly playing
today in hdtv's. Ps3 version is really brilliant!
Tiago Benetti no your wrong
Your and his thumbs up speaks for itself who has been proven wrong.
Tiago Benetti and now there is a PS4 version
@@sageninja7260 yeah, and I'm sure $ony will rema$ter it in 8K for P$5 - lol
@@TheKayliedGamerChannel-UA-cam after the announce of a useless moneygrabber remake of The Last of Us, I wouldn't be surprised.
Although I will admit that the PS2 version's frame-rate immersed you much more, the PS3's frame-rate is a pretty "colossal" improvement.
it's unvelievable and very impressive how PS2 can even run this game!
So is the one on ps3 the new remastered one that comes with both games? I'm thinking of getting it although in a way I wanted the original version on ps2 just cause it is original but I may get the ps3 one.
This is the most mentally delayed comment section on the entire internet. Turn back while you can.
I tried to warn you :'(
Edit:
"for some reason I kinda like the shittier frame rate. seeing the ps2 struggle because of it awesomeness bring out the joy in me"
fucking WHAT
"Man, I'm really enjoying Breath of the Wild, the scaled-back graphics and framerate that help it run on the Wii U really help me appreciate how awesome this game is" - No one, ever
yes sir......you did. now i take my leave trying to forget everything i have just read.
Bobert Daniels cmon man breath of the wild runs on a handheld what do ya expect
yes, hahaha
This is one of the only PS2 games that does benefit from an hd makeover.
It's pretty sad some of those HD remasters on PS3 were actually *worse* than the originals on PS2, like the glitchy Ratchet & Clank Trilogy.
No it doesnt.
If you are trying to get the platinum trophy from this game, the FPS of Ps3 makes a good job of messing with the difficult of this trophy, in the third colossi in order to get the time attack trophy, you need to kill the colossi in a short time, but because of the FPS of the Ps3, he simple moves to much, so you need to make some absurd tatics, almost a glinch to kill him in time.
You need to jump at the same time the colossi stands his wood and make a giant jump to his head, I tried like 3 hours.
ThePreciseClimber I played through the Ratchet and Clank trilogy and I encountered very little glitches, you just need to make sure your disk is clean, or play them as downloaded games
Silent hill too.
they got rid of the mist somehow and now you can see enemies from miles away.
destroys the game completely!
TheStrangerFromThe Forest I have every game, even the PS3 remasters
literally the only time i discoverered what blur effect was and was amazed by it
Considering this game released all the way back in 2005, it’s insane how much they were able to fit into a console like the PS2. This was towards the tail-end of the 6th console generation, so the devs knew the PS2’s capabilities and limitations inside out.
I've been tinkering with the settings in PCSX2 emulator for hours, trying to get it to run smoothly... Only to find out it's been actually perfectly emulated all along :|
I just got done streaming the PS2 version on my PC today and even that, with 5x resolution, 16x anisiotropic filtering, and mipmapping, STILL looks a lot worse than the PS3 remaster. That's Bluepoint's first effort, just wait til we all see their second effort in full.
Dentro del menú en la barra de progreso, ve a donde se encuentra el engrane, y cambia a 720pHD.
Más que los gráficos, el framerate es el que cambia, se percibe que al momento de estar atacando al coloso, el ps2 baja hasta 14, lo he notado (Lo he jugado ultimamente en PS2), mientras que en PS3 se mantiene.
When I played it on PS2 (after PS3 came out) I just thought to myself "wow, this isn't really that far off PS3 graphics! This is amazing!" (perhaps besides the aliasing)
And 1080p
This is one of my favorite games of all time.
I just love cryptic, mysterious nature of this game. Does anyone know if there's any other games like this?
I'm wondering the same thing! The new Zelda game kind of gives me a shadow of the colossus vibe if you watch some of the gameplay trailers for it.
prey for the gods
Journey is the only game that gives me a similar feeling, except for ico of course. Looking forward to The Last Guardian.
'cryptic, mysterious nature' dark souls comes to mind, although its a completely different type of game, lol
Metroid Prime
I love playing video games in 60fps, but if i were to choose either the PS3 version or the PS2 version, i'd go for the PS2 version because it has that epic, cinematic feeling.
Wise words. I still dig out my Sega Genesis and Gameboy to play all the classics. Even (especially) those I didn't play as a kid.
My PS2 died in 2004 and I decided to go with the 360 over the PS3 when its price tag in the US was announced (unfortunately at like the same time Halo 3's teaser came out and Lost Odyssey was confirmed to be Xbox only), so I never got to play SotC. Got a PS3 in 2009 but only got a chance to play Demon's Souls and Infamous before that one died.
Does it emulate well on a modern gaming PC, or should I buy a used PS2/PS3? The word "modern" here being within the last three years or so.
While I do appreciate the sharper image and clarity brought by the HD collection, it's clear to the point of being distracting. On the PS2, when a texture was loading in from the low resolution texture, it was more subtle. On the PS3, it's low resolution and then POP! HD texture. It's VERY distracting. I also appreciate the increased frame rate, but the lower frame rate seems really epic.
That´s because they reduced the bloom effect on most cases, this effect helps to hide the transition from low resolution to high.
I was 16 when i played this on ps2 i didn't even know about frame rate back then and i still had fun playing it
how am i a fucked up loser i was 16
+Keyzer söze Leave the kid alone, you're the real loser here.
Can I use a snippet of your video?
that think You did with splitting the screens gave me an idea. Multiplayer mode!
It was a game for the PS2 of the year two thousand with graphics of a console that would come out 6 years later. It was like playing a game of the future in the present. It was a game that does not match the time it premiered.
One of the best Playstation games if not the best.
Not true. Just to notice, PS2 was using 480p resolution while in 2000, most PCs where already using 720p for gaming.
@@szkworc2008 ur sayin that like he cares
@@syahrizkyathaullahanandisa9814 he does not, someone who read this yes
This game came out in 2005, just 1-2 years before the PlayStation 3, not 6 years
@@szkworc2008 that just isn't true lmao, the PS2 was a lot stronger than high end PCs at release. Even the Xbox couldn't handle a majority of its games at higher than 480p.
I'm gonna be one of the few who actually considers the framedrops to make the creatures more epic. I mean it's not better on a playable standpoint but when your computer has a hard time rendering these beasts it does give them.. something mystical I guess. Never bothered me anyway the framerates.
That same thing I agree with ya.
I thought so too when I originally played the game, however it really starts to not matter and you can look past it easily and see just how amazing this game is, laggy or not.
is ur ps2 pal or ntsc?
This game was so epic. I never felt so attached to a game as I have with this one. I know it sounds homo but this game is an experience like no other. Anyone who didn't play this game should do so. Trust me you won't regret it. Plus its got the best soundtrack in video game history IMO.
Agro looks beutifoul...
I think you mean the feel was more better cause of the render speed (which was choppy but yes felt a slow-motion to it) which gave it a better feel to you. However the PS3's speed cleans it up and makes it more fast paced, which may or may not be to your taste. Am I right?
i remember having this on ps2 and never felt like it was 20fps unlike on pc when a game get under 28 fps i immediatly notice it, how comes on consoles when the fps are in the 20's it doesnt feel as sluggish as on pc?
The only bad things about the PS3 version is that there is quite significant pop-in because of the game having to load higher-resolution textures and I've noticed Wander shakes around A LOT more, which can make the game, particularly the time attack modes, more frustrating.
Sorry if i've got a bad English, but that's true, Wander shakes A LOT MORE in PS3 version than in PS2, and makes the game really frustrating, i really can't believe while playing that i can barely beat the second colossus because of those shakes
Konnor Games
Your English is fine :). But yeah, I think the worst offender would have to be the 3rd colossus, especially on the hard mode time-attack. I was on the verge of ripping my hair out fighting that guy. It's really a shame, too, because it's incredibly unsatisfying when you beat a tough enemy from pure luck alone, rather than actual skill.
I personally like how the PS2 version is more "choppy" It almost made it look more cinematic, and like it was moving slow cause the Colossi were so huge. So, I just think it made it look more dramatic, and one of the little details that made this game SO cool.
I wish they added some nice self shadows, ambient occlusion and some nice Depth of field effect to the PS3 version to give it a next gen look... but they didnt, although the PS2 has kind DoF effect trick not to show the low polygon view it gives a slight edge in terms of camera stick and I like it...
is it possible to run this at 60 fps in rpcs3?
This is the best game on the ps2.Frame rate and graphics dont matter when you have such a masterpiece.
the Playstation 2 could hold its own..
That's totally cool and respectable. I watched through and I can see exactly what you mean by it having looked really intense and epic, but I think it would have helped to have played the ps2 version originally. I've only ever played the ps3 one, and it's really cool how they made it look so much cleaner. Comes down to preference I guess.
I like how the Ps3 one now has that slow-mo thing when you deliver the final blow :)
The ps2 does have the slow mo thing. I should know bc I have played and completed this game loads of times on the ps2
And we will now have a remaster for the PS4. Thank you Sony.
It's not just you! I feel the same. It actually gives a more cinematic effect to the game. This same thing happens with MGS3, it plays at 60fps on the HD version, but on PS2 it runs between 30 and 22, average of 25, almost like films, which are 24fps. Me and you and many other people love that 24fps cinematic effect this creates. I say games should give you the option of playing at 24fps!!
"The goal of motion pictures is not to recreate reality, it's not even to show reality. I want to suck you into the world of the story, suspend your disbelief and make you forget about yourself and your life and just be in the moment of the film.
By not showing enough visual information, we force the brain into filling in the gaps... it draws you in even more. It's part of how you let go to the point where you can laugh or cry or feel tense or afraid or elated."
Naim Sutherland
It is a pack of Ico and SotC for PS3, available on PSN or in disk
There's something way more charming about the PS2 version. I am not to sure what it is though.
It probably has something to do with association of time with the framerate. When Wandr stabs the colossus you get the slowdown. It feels good for some reason.
Ratchet and Clank had a very similar thing going on which I thought was cool too. The drops remain in the PS3 versions of R&C though, it's a shame that they don't in SotC if it does the slowdowns too.
Jared Prymont This is exactly what I felt Lords Of Shadows 1 framerate to have very weird,indescribable charm to it... I mean I HATE when games stutter and lag like no tomorrow but there something about LOS1....its oddly charming in a way which is hard to put in words.
It is exactly because of the 20-15 fps drop for both SotC and LOS1 giving you the illusion of "cinematic" experience when in reality it is a hardware limitation. I've always hated this "cinematic" excuse from developers to hide hardware limitations but i have to admit for this particular game, the colosi falling at 20-15 fps on PS2 is way more "special/cinematic" than the stable 30 fps port for some odd reason. And that is coming from a PC player right here :)
Tetra Digm It's a matter of opinion. You don't expect to find any sense in it when you have a different one. Some people find the fps drops to be "cinematic" especially when the colosi falls. Most console players don't even know what fps means especially in the PS1 and PS2 eras. Ocarina of Time runned at 19 fps on the N64 and nobody really cared.
This Game on Ps2 is like GTA V for the PS3
Este es el juego más ambicioso de la PS2, simplemente la consola no da mas ya llego a su límite absoluto.
Retrofan 99 Si, increible lo q pudieron lograr los creadores del juego con la ps2 en sus tiempos.
nice, great to see games like that to have HD remake
Yes it is. ICO and Shadow of the Colossus have been released on one disc as HD remastered classics for the PS3.
This was cool to see. I always wondered why the PS3 version felt off. There is something really epic feeling when the game drops in the teens because there is too much happening on screen. Sometimes smoother isn't better. Same goes for the added resolution and sharpness. I prefer the gritty feel of the lower res PS2 version. I just like softer images. I don't understand this obsession with sharpness, clarity and high frame rates. Those are all technically "better" things, but you have to admit a lot of the nuances and feeling are lost because of it.
+Zidane Steiner I just will never understand the people who like the soap opera, high frame rate look. Not for me.
12FPS MASTERACE
You're seriously saying you would rather play a game at 14fps than 30fps? Come on man
***** No, but I am saying that when the game drops to 14 fps during these epic moments in the game, I feel that it adds a layer to the gameplay that make it "feel" better. When your brain has to work to fill in the details, you are left with a more immersive experience. If this wasn't the case, then reading books would be incredibly stupid, yet everyone who reads a book says it is better than the movie adaptation 100% of the time.
Daniel Marinho I also thought Battlefield 3 on the 360 was better than BF4 on the PS4. I like the lower frame rate, it feels more immersive. I never had issues with getting precision kills. If I was playing Doom, then yeah give me 60fps, or Mario, 60fps. But for many games like Uncharted, atmospheric shooters, non e-sports titles. 30fps is preferred.
It always seems impressive that the PS2 actually had great power, so many games hold up well. Even with HD collections on PS3, these games don't really change that much. Sony definitely knows how to make a good console.
2011, Has this channel been around that long?…
Excellent comparison!
i actually liked the way the ps2 lagged xD. Call me a mazohist but in my eyes it looks "more realistic"
+sasamaster How is it "more realistic"? lol if your eyes are doing this in real life, seek medical help immediately dude.
I played it on PCSX2. Graphic and FPS are much better than PS3 remake.
Alisa Li yes i do . yes is better pc master race XD
Alisa Li and ridiculously hard to run for what it looks like
***** no lo creo
Maytize It is true
Alisa Li Bullshit. It still has a lot of shadow and bloom scaling problems and you still have to disable them to get rid of it.
Shadow of the colossus on PS2
AKA: Search for bright light on dark unknown object controlling grey unknown object, all in glorious 512x224 and amazing music.
/Sarcasm/
Marcuss2 512x448i* not 512x224
The "sky-jump" on the third collosus is almost impossible to pull off with a higher fps.
is it just me or does the ps2 look more cinematic than that of the ps3's version?
LOL 20fps so cinematic
more like super 8
No you are right because the PS2 version is more blurry. Because of that the backgrounds looks more like a cinematic scene from a movie in case the ps3 version is very clean without depth of sharpness. Some mountains or other things wich is far away have better textures and looks sharper but this kind of this far away feeling is gone. the PS2 version makes this better. mountains and colossuses looks bigger and more massive. Cause of that the world looks bigger and not like a clean plastic texture.
Marc Antoine thanks for pointing that out for me.
"depth of sharpness"
The PS3 version unfortunately lacks the Depth of Field effects.
Finally a guy that gets it, I was looking for your comment for about an hour. Human kind has hopes! Cheers.
According to Fumito Ueda's interview when the game released, the low framerate of this game was intended.
He said he didn't want SotC to be similar to other games which are running at high fps
Source of the interview? Honestly that sounds really lame and a really bad excuse for the low framerate.
anyone know the song at 0:30
OST No.6 - Sign of the Colossus
My ps2 is super overclocked ...i am playing @ 50 - 60 fps all the time.*
*I thought that it was more than obvious but i guess some people need help....THIS IS A JOKE!
+ALXD1974 The game is locked at 30 fps dude...
+TacatingOcoZ Que delícia, cara!
Isaque Darbelly haha
If you look up reports and research how the human eye can see things it is almost impossible to tell the difference between 25-27 fps from 30-35 fps. The game when it came out on the ps2 is almost basically how other games looked that had the same play style or graphics. If you're complaining about how you couldn't stand how the games fps was then you must have never played doom or medal of honor when they were old and lacked good fps.
melanie finch I enjoyed this game when it came out and I still enjoy it now, even after small tweeks in the fps. It's all about character. And I know most people probably couldn't play it cause it hurt their eyes but that's mostly because of the fuzzy graphics. I played Doom all the time, you think that fps didn't mess up my eyes, but it didn't stop me cause the game was fun and multiplayer.
There's actually quite a difference between 25 and 35. I've been playing the witcher 3 on PC a lot recently, and my fps will usually stay at slightly above 30, but in some instances it will drop to the upper 20's and I notice, instantly, there is a HUGE difference, for me it becomes almost unplayable after the fps drop, it just feels off.
+melanie finch It is individual. For me example I can see difference between 25-30 or 27-30... when I have 30 and it drop to 25-27 I can see the game is somehow slower and that I notice and I can know now that it dropped some FPS.
also makes the hair more realistic looking since it's blurrier and looks less pixelated :) the many reasons I wish my ps2 still worked...
There is a story, it's just really small and simple, but then the task of actually finishing the story is big, in a big world with big bosses. You just don't see the amazing feel of this game, the mystery of "what big boss will be next and how to defeat him". The puzzle of figuring out how to kill the bosses, and explore the big open world.
Don't get me wrong here, but if I had to chose, I would pick the PS2 version. Now the HD remake has better graphics by all means, but the slight choppiness of the original makes it feel more like a classic.
Nosferatumiamor Except that they fucked over with the physics engine and if you play on hard mode time trial on the HD remake now it's pretty much fucking impossible.
***** Well I use my PS2 disc on a PS2 emulator. It works pretty well.
***** This.
They ruined Wander's grip. I'll never prefer this cruddy demake over the original
Howl Pendragon How did they ruin Wander's grip, it seemed fine to me?
PurpleShield Gaming The grip just ends too fast, if you'd play the time trial hard mode you'd notice it.
playstation2 4 life
the motion blur did hide the framerate drops though!
this game is amazing, im happy to say i still own my ps2 copy of this game and am actually playing it as i type this and watch youtube. the hd version was a nice thing for them to do, it meant that people who never got a chance to play the ps2 version could now play the game, i wish they would do a remake, maybe keep everything the same as the original, but make the land bigger and add more colossi and bring the graphics up to next gen standards. just to see what it would look like