Current Events > PS2 games that were gimped compared to their Xbox counterparts.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I remember Max Payne being one.
---

Psychonauts
---

burnout revenge?

I felt like Xbox got the better Soul Calibur bonus character.
---

Max Payne is the best example, though I only knew the PS2 versions as a kid and I loved them still.

I actually thought the PS2 San Andreas was way better, the cars looked so bland on Xbox and the game crashed all the time.
---

Fatal Frame 2 on Xbox has a ton of extra costumes and, most importantly, FPS mode which is the best experience in the series

EffectAndCause posted...

I actually thought the PS2 San Andreas was way better, the cars looked so bland on Xbox and the game crashed all the time.

The worst part about the Xbox port was the driveby controls were mapped to the black and white buttons so you have to gnarl your hand into a claw to do it
---

I was disappointed the Xbox version of GTA 3 had no gore cheat due to the new pedestrian modeling.
---

Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne. No autosave feature, very washed-out graphics, serious framerate issues, sluggish controls and generally not very fun to play.

To a lesser extent, XIII.
---

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. PC and Xbox got the good one, PS2 and GameCube got the shitty one. They were basically different games.
---

Resident Evil 4 was gimped compared to the GC version.
---

It didn't matter. PS2 is what made money.
---

The significantly more powerful system played the games better? You don't say?
---

super monkey ball deluxe had awful performance, load time, and visual downgrades that made it undeniably inferior to its xbox counterpart

For some reason Sonic Heroes immediately sprung to mind.
---

Zack_Attackv1 posted...

It didn't matter. PS2 is what made money.

It does matter.
---

Banjo2553 posted...

For some reason Sonic Heroes immediately sprung to mind.

Thats the other way around: the PS2 version gimped the rest.
---

Splinter Cell is the main one I remember, because PS2 couldn't do volumetric light and shadows
---

Solid Sonic posted...

Banjo2553 posted...

For some reason Sonic Heroes immediately sprung to mind.

Thats the other way around: the PS2 version gimped the rest.

?
---

Banjo2553 posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

Banjo2553 posted...

For some reason Sonic Heroes immediately sprung to mind.

Thats the other way around: the PS2 version gimped the rest.

?

So the story goes that originally Sonic Heroes was developed for just the GameCube and Xbox using a custom in-house engine. They were approached by Sony (who had the market share at the time by way of the PS2) and were basically issued an ultimatum: either produce a version of Sonic Heroes for PS2 or lose publishing rights on the platform entirely. Because Sony was just too big to ignore at the time, Sega had to rewind their development and port the entire project to Criterion Games' (the developers behind Burnout) RenderWare framework as they would have lost too much time and money rebuilding their existing asset to be fully multi-platform. The result is a lot of poorly coded physics and controls because they had to develop the game on a less purpose-built game engine.
---

Zack_Attackv1 posted...

It didn't matter. PS2 is what made money.

Insecure Sony fanboy spotted
---

I'd imagine most multiplat games worked better on the Xbox than the PS2, the PS2 came out like a year earlier and had weaker hardware.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

Banjo2553 posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

Banjo2553 posted...

For some reason Sonic Heroes immediately sprung to mind.

Thats the other way around: the PS2 version gimped the rest.

?

So the story goes that originally Sonic Heroes was developed for just the GameCube and Xbox using a custom in-house engine. They were approached by Sony (who had the market share at the time by way of the PS2) and were basically issued an ultimatum: either produce a version of Sonic Heroes for PS2 or lose publishing rights on the platform entirely. Because Sony was just too big to ignore at the time, Sega had to rewind their development and port the entire project to Criterion Games' (the developers behind Burnout) RenderWare framework as they would have lost too much time and money rebuilding their existing asset to be fully multi-platform. The result is a lot of poorly coded physics and controls because they had to develop the game on a less purpose-built game engine.

Huh, interesting. It's funny that even then the PS2 version still ended up being the worst one.
---

splinter cell was like a completely different game on xbox vs ps2
---

Splinter Cell and Max Payne had to make huge concessions but most of the games ran at half the framerate and lower resolution it seemed like. The Xbox version of Mercenaries I remember running like straight butter compared to the Ps2 one. And the 007 games ran much better as well.
---

Banjo2553 posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

Banjo2553 posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

Banjo2553 posted...

For some reason Sonic Heroes immediately sprung to mind.

Thats the other way around: the PS2 version gimped the rest.

?

So the story goes that originally Sonic Heroes was developed for just the GameCube and Xbox using a custom in-house engine. They were approached by Sony (who had the market share at the time by way of the PS2) and were basically issued an ultimatum: either produce a version of Sonic Heroes for PS2 or lose publishing rights on the platform entirely. Because Sony was just too big to ignore at the time, Sega had to rewind their development and port the entire project to Criterion Games' (the developers behind Burnout) RenderWare framework as they would have lost too much time and money rebuilding their existing asset to be fully multi-platform. The result is a lot of poorly coded physics and controls because they had to develop the game on a less purpose-built game engine.

Huh, interesting. It's funny that even then the PS2 version still ended up being the worst one.

Why Shadow the Hedgehog ended up equally as garbage is another matter, however. Its clearly built using the same framework but one whole game later and virtually nothing was improved about the experience. Its why I consider it worse than Heroes.
---

GregShmedley posted...

I feel like the Xbox versions of the GTA games had better graphics.

Well, it's interesting to note that Sony had agreements with Rockstar to have timed exclusivity rights for that whole generation, which presumably gave Rockstar more time to work on the Xbox version of the game. I do think 3 and VC looked better, but I think they did something with San Andreas (increased the draw distance or did something with the anti-aliasing) that made it look strange.
---

Hexenherz posted...

GregShmedley posted...

I feel like the Xbox versions of the GTA games had better graphics.

Well, it's interesting to note that Sony had agreements with Rockstar to have timed exclusivity rights for that whole generation, which presumably gave Rockstar more time to work on the Xbox version of the game. I do think 3 and VC looked better, but I think they did something with San Andreas (increased the draw distance or did something with the anti-aliasing) that made it look strange.

From what I've heard, the Xbox version of San Andreas did not feature anti-aliasing. While the lack of anti-aliasing was easy to ignore on the PS2 version, the Xbox version would look very jagged, especially when playing in 480p resolution.
---

ultimate reaver posted...

Fatal Frame 2 on Xbox has a ton of extra costumes and, most importantly, FPS mode which is the best experience in the series

EffectAndCause posted...

I actually thought the PS2 San Andreas was way better, the cars looked so bland on Xbox and the game crashed all the time.

The worst part about the Xbox port was the driveby controls were mapped to the black and white buttons so you have to gnarl your hand into a claw to do it

wasn't ff2 for xbox released later? that's like complaining the ps2 version of re4 was better when that was released way later
---