Thread: Really Random thread

You'd dare to compare the graphics of the PS2 games to ACiT and ITN!?

Sure the PS2 games had amasing environments and level designs, but the PS3 games (to me) had incredible graphics. The term "graphics" being representative of all things visual, from framerate and resolution to objects polygon count and texture detail.

Yes, I would.

There are various things in the PS2 games that make them graphically better than the PS3 games.
Excluding character models, everything looks much nicer in the PS2 games because it was very flat and square, therefore eveything felt really welcoming. The PS3 games have too many slopes, twisted paths and craters.

Other things that were better in the PS2 games were the ships/creatures/fireflies that were put in the levels to make them feel more alive, the in-game animations and some models were much better and they didn't overuse the jungle ruins setting.

EDIT: I also think that the only Ratchet model on par with the PS2 ones so far is ItN.

Well, i was just refering to the HD quality, not the art style–ps3 excels that one.

Well, i was just refering to the HD quality, not the art style–ps3 excels that one.

Except it doesn't and I just wrote a message on why that is emoji

There are various things in the PS2 games that make them graphically better than the PS3 games.
Excluding character models, everything looks much nicer in the PS2 games because it was very flat and square, therefore eveything felt really welcoming. The PS3 games have too many slopes, twisted paths and craters.

Other things that were better in the PS2 games were the ships/creatures/fireflies that were put in the levels to make them feel more alive, the in-game animations and some models were much better and they didn't overuse the jungle ruins setting.

EDIT: I also think that the only Ratchet model on par with the PS2 ones so far is ItN.

Well I guess you just like lower quality stuff. But the fact of the matter is that the PS3 games do have much more attention to graphical detail. Looking for the best shots of the first 3 PS2 and PS3 games led me to finding some stunning shots from all 6 games, but in none of them could I choose the PS2 games as better looking.

User image vs User image


User image vs User image


User image vs User image


I know they aren't the best shots (especially the R&C3 one) but I'm too lazy to find some good ones. And I know these are still images, but I don't think that matters so much.

Actually the fact that they're still images does matter.
A lot of the great looking levels in the PS2 games looked great because of all the stuff that was moving, something that was lost with the jump to the PS3.
In still images it's obvious the PS3 games will look better, but in movement and especially when playing I think the PS2 games have the advantage.

Something that I also like about the PS2 levels (especially in GC and UYA) is that they feel like 2D drawings brought to 3D.

User image
User image
User image
User image

That's because of the "pixelated" art style of the Ps2 genre, vs the matte style of the ps3 era.

Actually the fact that they're still images does matter.
A lot of the great looking levels in the PS2 games looked great because of all the stuff that was moving, something that was lost with the jump to the PS3.
In still images it's obvious the PS3 games will look better, but in movement and especially when playing I think the PS2 games have the advantage.

Well the only memorable ones on the PS2 were the:

- Pterodactyls that were repeated over and over
- Massive swarms in the skies of Blackwater City and Pokitaru
- Tankers on Orxon and Aridia
- Equipment on Eudora
- Boats in Canal City
- City ships in Metropolis and Megapolis

Anything else in those games were just really similar to the above points.

On PS3 they decided to have more static environments, and control their ship backgrounds a little more:

- City Ship density increased in levels like Metropolis and Igliak
- Missiles striking down upon the planets of Metropolis and Igliak
- Pterodactyls return, however are used to a slightly lesser extent
- Levels like Cobalia have different sections with different flying objects. Some being effectively "space worms" with cool animations (don't deny it) and the spaceport area having slow travelling ships
- Enemy invasions in games like ACiT have ship clusters, and fire into the environment, as opposed to levels like Pokitaru


Personally, I like the PS3 games' dynamic environments more. I'll acknowledge they have a lot less of them, but at least they have more variety.

I feel like the PS3 games had better graphics in almost every case (there is the odd planet here and there that fails to impress on PS3) but the PS2 games had better level design.

That's because of the "pixelated" art style of the Ps2 genre, vs the matte style of the ps3 era.

I never considered the PS2 games to have a pixelated art style. Infact I never even considered them low quality. The PS2 R&C games had incredible graphics for their days.

But I think I would agree that the PS2 games went for a more a crtoony art style, while the early PS3 games went for a more realistic art style.

- City Ship density increased in levels like Metropolis and Igliak
- Missiles striking down upon the planets of Metropolis and Igliak
- Pterodactyls return, however are used to a slightly lesser extent
- Levels like Cobalia have different sections with different flying objects. Some being effectively "space worms" with cool animations (don't deny it) and the spaceport area having slow travelling ships
- Enemy invasions in games like ACiT have ship clusters, and fire into the environment, as opposed to levels like Pokitaru.

This is exactly my main problem with the PS3 graphics (or not so mmuch the graphics but the levels), all those points only apply to 4-5 levels out of every PS3 R&C game because they decided they wanted to have more nature filled planets, which in my opinion not only look really lame but also have really lame level design.
On PS2 most levels were set in cities or factories and even when the occasional nature level hit, because of the simple art style, the levels looked artifficial which I vastly prefer.

i dont know man, All 4 One had some GREAT nature levels. But in TOD, city levels seemed to be the only high points. At least A crack in time had the best of both worlds…literally!

I was pointing out how the PS3 games expanded on the PS2 games' dynamic environments. But… if you insist

Kerwan - Hover Things, Missiles, Warships, Civilian Ships
Cobalia - Basilisk Leviathans, Civilian Ships
Kortog - Civilian Ships
Fastoon - Pterodactyls
Voron Asteroid Belt - Incredible static background
Mukow - Rain, Civilian Ships
Nundac Asteroid Ring - Basilisk Leviathans, Space Rocks
Ardolis - Pirates
Rykan V - Civilian Ships
Rykar Star Cluster - Incredible static background
Sargasso - Pterodactyls
Kreeli Comet - Snow, Pirates
Viceron - Warships, Civilian Ships
Verdigris Black Hole - Incredible static background
Jasindu - Pirates, Missiles
Ublik Passage - Piartes, Space Sharks, Space Rocks
Reepor - Nothing
Igliak - Missiles, Warships, Civilian Ships
Fastoon - Hover Things, Warships, Civilian Ships


All very fitting to their levels if you ask me. And this is the total list of things to expect in the levels (keeping in mind there are about 3 different classes of civilian ships)

1. Pterodactyls
2. Snow/Rain (barely countable)
3. Missiles
4. Warships
5. Civilian Ships
6. Hover Things (Very rare)
7. Space Sharks
8. Basilisk Leviathans
9. Pirates
10. Space Rocks

I know that, I was trying to stray away from the background ships for now and wanted to focus more on level themes, which are a big part of the graphics department.

You're associtating graphics with the ammount of detail that each level has, but there's more to it than that.
When have the PS3 games ever done things like these?
User image

The PS3 games generally are very graphically generic (with a few exceptions of course) which is another big reason for me to prefer the PS2 games.

Yeah, but THAT level is a one of a kind, so not the best argument. I wonder if the new ps4 game will combine the CG art of the ps2's, with the matte style of the ps3's. That would be awesome!

Yeah, but THAT level is a one of a kind, so not the best argument. I wonder if the new ps4 game will combine the CG art of the ps2's, with the matte style of the ps3's. That would be awesome!

I meant crazy setpieces in general, I guess I could've used a better example since that IS a one of a kind level as you said.

That's kind of funny, because I always considered that Obani Draco to be a one-off stunning level, like Metropolis or the space missions in ToD.

It's not like there aren't many PS2 levels that rely entirely on flying ships to make the levels feel alive.

If I ignore the whole PS2/3 thing and just list levels I found dull


Umbris
Quartu
Oozla
Tabora
Gorn
Marcadia
Rilgar - R&C3
Fastoon
Mukow
Ardolis
Sargasso
Vapedia

Now this is getting very personalised, but that's PS2 7 and PS3 5. So in terms of dull levels, to me, the PS2 games are a little bit on the heavy side. Levels that are overwhelmingly beautiful would follow a slightly larger list, but be a bit more even with them both probably being about 10/10.

It may seem like I like the PS3 games more, but as I said before, gameplay is very important as well.

Yeah, but THAT level is a one of a kind, so not the best argument. I wonder if the new ps4 game will combine the CG art of the ps2's, with the matte style of the ps3's. That would be awesome!

What is CG (computer graphic) art, and how does the PS3 not have this?

I do think it would be cool to see a good mix of old and new gameplay/visuals.

well, a good mix, but who knows? Maybe they'll use a totally different art style.