None. That one's just emulated. It's in SD too.General Shank-a-snatch said:Is there a huge difference between PS2 and PS3 version?
None. That one's just emulated. It's in SD too.General Shank-a-snatch said:Is there a huge difference between PS2 and PS3 version?
General Shank-a-snatch said:Is there a huge difference between PS2 and PS3 version?
Ehh, emulating PS2 games is still largely a crapshoot. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any cases where PCSX2 is outright better than an official HD re-release.nincompoop said:I wonder if these companies can get away with selling "Super HD" editions next gen that run at a full 1080p. Seems like lots of people will be happy to re-buy their entire collections every five years instead of just playing the PC versions/emulating the originals on PC which gives you all of the benefits of the HD "upgrades" and more.
salromano said:There is no difference. It's not an HD update, it's a PS2 Classic. Basically a straight port. But unlike HD updates, it's cheap. I believe God Hand is $9.99.
There is no ps3 version. It's just the ps2 version emulated. It's exactly like playing it on a ps2 or BC ps3.General Shank-a-snatch said:Is there a huge difference between PS2 and PS3 version?
General Shank-a-snatch said:I meant the image quality, if the difference is noticeable or not.
Wolfgunblood Garopa said:Sega could keep remaking Bayonetta every year, get rid of the tearing, give her a little more ass jiggle, whatever, and I'd buy it every time.
SotC can be run at 60 fps on PCSX2.Orayn said:Ehh, emulating PS2 games is still largely a crapshoot. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any cases where PCSX2 is outright better than an official HD re-release.
Loxley said:For the same reason I'm okay with Blu-ray re-releases of movies that I've already seen on DVD; it's an awesome experience and looks 10x better then it ever has (normally, at any rate).
Beyond Good & Evil HD was 10€ for me, not 50. Sly Raccoon Collection was something like 29€ for THREE games. These collections are generally really cheap, especially given the amount of quality gaming you get for said prices.Kraftwerk said:I mean, isn't it an obvious way to make money based on peoples nostalgia?
Hey, I know it is none of my business how others spend their money, but this just seems wrong. I see people complaining about DLC, sequels, limited edition bundles. But when it comes to HD remakes 99% of the comments are "OMG THANK YOU BASED GOD".
I myself said the same thing when I saw FFX HD coming to Vita / PS3. Then I said F* you square I already have 2 copies.
Nobody seems to say " Hmm, pay $50 for this HD remake (lol) or get it for $10 on craigslist"
Not exactly like it. When playing Godhand through PS2, there's no upscaling, so unless your TV can handle shitty source, you'll get an awful picture. In the case of emulation, you get a free picture scaling, so the game looks smooth even on big TVs - on all TVs, actually.H_Prestige said:There is no ps3 version. It's just the ps2 version emulated. It's exactly like playing it on a ps2 or BC ps3.
Remake it on Ps3...Wolfgunblood Garopa said:Sega could keep remaking Bayonetta every year, get rid of the tearing, give her a little more ass jiggle, whatever, and I'd buy it every time.
Any game that doesn't actually have improvements beyond resolution is better emulated. Not sure about the God of War games, but the Ico remaster is certainly a big enough improvement I'd go for the new version.Orayn said:Ehh, emulating PS2 games is still largely a crapshoot. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any cases where PCSX2 is outright better than an official HD re-release.
Exactly. With the jump to HD consoles, this is a logical move.Green Scar said:Yeah, I'm glad someone made the comparison to DVD/BD boxsets or remasters, because, um, it's the same thing.
nincompoop said:SotC can be run at 60 fps on PCSX2.
Right. The BC ps3 also has those same options. From what I remember it just slightly smooths out edges, but it would be hard to tell without a side to side comparison. It still looks very much like a ps2 game being played on a hdtv.LOVE & TRUTH said:Not exactly like it. When playing Godhand through PS2, there's no upscaling, so unless your TV can handle shitty source, you'll get an awful picture. In the case of emulation, you get a free picture scaling, so the game looks smooth even on big TVs - on all TVs, actually.
I'm speaking from my experience of using PS2 with my Bravia 40".
Official 16:9 support is still nice for the games that didn't originally have it, though.chaosblade said:Any game that doesn't actually have improvements beyond resolution is better emulated. Not sure about the God of War games, but the Ico remaster is certainly a big enough improvement I'd go for the new version.
Pretty sure stuff like Tomb Raider and Prince of Persia are the exact same as the PS2 games but in 720p, so you could do better with an emulator by running them at 1080p with AA/AF and (depending on your CPU) no slowdown.
Kraftwerk said:I mean, isn't it an obvious way to make money based on peoples nostalgia?
Hey, I know it is none of my business how others spend their money, but this just seems wrong. I see people complaining about DLC, sequels, limited edition bundles. But when it comes to HD remakes 99% of the comments are "OMG THANK YOU BASED GOD".
I myself said the same thing when I saw FFX HD coming to Vita / PS3. Then I said F* you square I already have 2 copies.
Nobody seems to say " Hmm, pay $50 for this HD remake (lol) or get it for $10 on craigslist"
Maybe it's just me. 'puts up nostalgia flame shield'
Nope, if your system is beefy enough and you don't have speedhacks enabled then it will run at 60. You can even download a video of it running at 60 if you don't believe.TheExodu5 said:Classic games with improved visuals and framerate that work on current systems for ~$20 a pop? What's not to love?
If they were charging the $50 you claim in the OP, there would be an outrage. However, that is simply not the case.
Correction: it still runs at 30fps, even if your framerate counter says 60fps. Also, there are most certainly issues, and it takes a really beefy system to even attempt this.
Even as someone with a 2500k @ 4.6GHz and a GTX 570, the PS3 version is still the best one for me.
It's not BS. It's no different than the same movie being sold on DVD and BD.Tylahedras said:I think this thread covers it pretty well, but yeah, basically if it's 20$ per title or less and it's got better visuals and trophies why the hell not?
Now if they are going to sell PS2 games on PSN for 10$ and I can get that same game off ebay for 10$ with a disc that's some stupid BS right there.
PS3 version has some slowdown not present in the PS2 version.General Shank-a-snatch said:Is there a huge difference between PS2 and PS3 version?
Kraftwerk said:Nobody seems to say " Hmm, pay $50 for this HD remake (lol) or get it for $10 on craigslist"
MoxManiac said:Because PS2 games are too ugly to be playable on HDTVs. It's as simple as that.
Are we talking about 60 actual frames per second because the original wasn't capped at 30, or 60 vertical interrupts per second? There's a distinction. Ocarina of Time runs at "60 FPS" but that doesn't change the internal ~24FPS framerate.nincompoop said:Nope, if your system is beefy enough and you don't have speedhacks enabled then it will run at 60. You can even download a video of it running at 60 if you don't believe.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZF4MZGZI -part1
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=M4UFBGFJ -part2
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=X0FN4FDG -part3
YupKraftwerk said:I understand what you guys are saying, but based on that logic:
Will you buy the new Super Enhanced ICO / SotC bundle in 2018 for your 8k resolution t.v?
Kraftwerk said:I mean, isn't it an obvious way to make money based on peoples nostalgia?