Is it true that PS1-2-3 games run more stable and well optimized

>>387119838
That's because companies push realistic graphics and "muh cinematic experience" that consoles can't handle.
Back in PS1-PS2 times, there were PC exclusives that had amazing graphics but were never ported on consoles.

>>387119838
It's always shit. On PSX GTA and GTA2 were downscaled to run properly, Rayman 2 had smaller levels.
PS2 had it the least shitty imo, many games in its early life were having solid framerate, but graphic fidelity was low. See Project Minerva, Oni, Operation Winback. Games weren't eye candy, they just had vast levels with nice draw distance, but it still looked plain. In mid-life of PS2 devs tried to put as much details and clutter as possible, but then frames went down again, and it remained low for PS3 and PS4 era, since it's more cinematic that way. Also more corridor games, since smal confined spaces render better when adding fuckton of detail.

>>387119838
Most PS1 games ran like utter shit.

>>387120056
>That's because companies push realistic graphics and "muh cinematic experience" that consoles can't handle.

i'm sure you mean that consoles are underpowered pieces of crap that can't handle modern graphics, right?

>>387122727

Depends how you look at it i suppose. Theres no way for consoles to achieve "modern graphics" with stable performance whilst also maintaining a competitive console price point.
I do think this emphasis on hyper realistic graphics is pointless. Games like that never age very well.

>>387120364
Gran Turismo 3 was the best thing I had ever seen when it launched

>>387122727
Who cares about graphics if game is shit?
Devs waste money and resources on realistic graphics and just copypaste mechanics from other games.

The resolution was completely shite back then

>>387123589

And that's precisely why consoles hold back the industry, they are underpowered compared to nowadays technology. And the next generation will be too. Look at the fucking Switch.

>>387123676

If the game is shit, the game is shit. Graphics have nothing to do with that. It's like BotW, the game is good but it would be 10x better with better graphics and a more stable fps

Nope. If you went back to play PS1, 2 or 3 games, you'll find plenty of games that run sub30fps. Most even run below 20fps. It's why most console players think 60fps isn't worth it or is just a meme.

>PS3 games
>stable and well optimised

>>387119838
Because they cared less about graphical fidelity and more about actually making games look good. Spyro and MGS2 still look fantastic.

A more recent example would be Mirror's Edge. It still looks better than the majority of new games.

>>387123889

>And that's precisely why consoles hold back the industry

The industry would be no where near where it is if it wasnt for accessible hardware. If consoles were always trying to match high end pcs the industry would have died years ago.


>If the game is shit, the game is shit. Graphics have nothing to do with that.
> the game is good but it would be 10x better with better graphics

So do graphics make games better or not senpai?

>>387124665

No need to have a 2000$ pc to run modern games in high/ultra quality.

Also
> good gameplay + good graphics > good gameplay + bad graphics

So yes, they do.

>PS1 games being well optimized
Silky smooth 15-20 fps

>>387124832

>No need to have a 2000$ pc to run modern games in high/ultra quality.

But little billy and poorfags are more likely to afford a $200 machine that plays every new game out of the box than spend $600 on a pc that requires troubleshooting and manual updates.

Whether you like it or not, normies and children are keeping the industry afloat.

>>387119838
They were almost always worse than the competition, performance wise but nobody counted pixels then.

Like the OG X and the 360 ran almost everything much better and people still bought PS2-3s

>>387125132
>$200 machine
In what world?

>>387125532
I bought a brand new xbox one s with 2 games and 2 controllers last month for £170

>>387125532
Not your third world shithole lmao

>>387126632
*gasp*

>>387119838
>MGS2 - PS2's flagship game - steady 60fps with groundbreaking graphics
>Any PS4 game - jumpy 30fps at meh graphics

File: PCHardware4.png (31KB, 451x397px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 451x397px

>>387125132
>But little billy and poorfags are more likely to afford a $200 machine that plays every new game out of the box than spend $600 on a pc that requires troubleshooting and manual updates.

Why do these people never take into account how much money they blow on games? PC. even if it is more expensive initially, will pay itself over easily if you buy smart and there's never a lack of sales on PC.

>>387128975
Same reason people buy phones on contract.

>>387119838
back then developers put all those "cinematics experience" into FMV sequences instead of the actual gameplay

well

>>387119838
It always amazes me how console friends pay full price while knowing that they will play at half the frames. I mean, you have a ps4, and you pay 60 bucks for tw3 or say dark souls 3, how do you cope with the fact that you paid full price for half the frames?

>>387119838
Yes, everything new is terrible and everything from the good old days was great and games even gave you blowjobs when you beat them.

>>387132215
>''I started gaming with a 360 :D''