The PlayStation 2 is officially finished

The console itself was okay, graphically it was the least impressive of the last 3(4 if including Dreamcast), the online was outclassed, the DVD playing was cool and controller wasn't much better than the PS 1. I never understood the shape thing, just always seemed unnecessary and kind of stupid. Plus wasn't it weaker than the Xbox/Gamecube? I know several multiplatform games had issues on it that weren't on the others. What did the PS 2 did have over other systems was its library and backwards compatibly, which is what really gave its edge.

It was definitely weaker overall. The graphics were better when it came to the other 2.

It did have online over the GCN, but other than that... it had no real advantages. It did have a really good slew of games, though.

Also, it should have been discontinued way earlier, but I'm kind of happy about this. This means we don't have to worry about new PS 2 games, or for that matter, the usual shovelware that tends to come up. PS 3 does have a better slew when it comes to quality(and less games due to that, unsurprisingly).

Also, the online didn't even work well on the Slim. :|

PS 2 may have had shovelware, but unlike the Wii, it's overshadowed by the good games well enough that they are ignorable on a casual glance.

edited 7th Jan '13 12:31:00 PM by WaxingName

Oh man, the PS 2. My most bought console so far. I got one when Final Fantasy X came out, then I bought a Japanese PS 2 so I could play imports. Once the two fatties died, may they rest in peace, I got two slims shortly after they died, one US and one JP again and they still work now. I still play them today.

R.I.P. PS 2. Thanks for all the wonderful memories and games.

I'll admit I'm a little saddened by the news, but the system has had a good, long run. I'm glad I got one when I did, and I hope I can still get years of mileage out of mine.

I've heard this criticism of the Playstation's controllers before and never understood it. What's wrong with them?

@Waxing Name: Remove all the PS 2 Shovelware that was ported to the Wii. Does the Wii still have as much Shovelware? Not so sure about that.

I still don't see how the PS 2 is better. It's oversaturated, and should've been gone way earlier, to give the PS 3 actual time to shine. It's why the PS 3 had game issues, they still were heavily concentrating on an outdated system.

Nintendo nor Microsoft had this problem. Which is why I like their newer systems far more than the PS 3. They made sure to have new games for the new system, and not ignore it for an outdated one(that lacked better features anyway).

The PS 3 was able to shine even with the PS 2 active. All the attention went to it even though the PS 2 was kept alive only because it was still selling steadily.

This. Why criticise Sony for continuing to make money? If anything, I think the PS 3 should've been pushed back a year rather than can the PS 2 early. That doesn't make any sense.

These sound like excuses to me. How about "the PS 2 is better because it had the best games"? I mean, for Playstation fans the only edge that the Gamecube had over the PS 2 was a few Resident Evil exclusives (unless the grew up with Mario, in which case it would've had a few more) and there was really no reason to buy an original X Box.

edited 7th Jan '13 12:52:34 PM by Guest1001

No, I don't think it had the best games either. Final Fantasy? Kind of dropped the ball after IX. X was good, rest were kind of meh.

Still found better games for the other systems.

A lot of those games, mainly the crappy Shovelware, shouldn't have existed anyway. 2 years ago, it should've been gone, or atleast a year ago. The PS 3 did not shine because they refused to give it games for quite a while, still concentrating on the old outdated system. That's really the only problem that ever came up with getting the PS 3 out fully. And that's it. Games were still amazing on the PS 3, price was fine(to a degree).

I'm still glad it's finally dead. I liked it back when it was still new, but it needed no new life for a very long time. I'm just glad they finally are concentrating on the PS 3 and Vita right now. Not the old outdated systems that were far from perfect and had tons of crap too.

Someone's never heard of Team ICO, Okami, Devil May Cry, Ratchet And Clank, Jak, God Of War, god, so many great exclusives that I can't name them all. And I didn't even own this console, I only played it at other peoples' houses or at those demo stations in stores.

My PS 2 came with a demo disc that actually had a version of Basic on it. I was even able to code Pong into it using the controller. It took a while.

Saying the PS 2 is bad because of shovelware is also rather silly. The reason it got so much shovelware is because it was selling so much better than the other systems, same as the Wii. If the Game Cube or X Box had been outselling the other two, then one of them would've had all the shovelware.

I'm also glad the system remained popular well into the next gen. Persona 3 and 4 leap to mind as two outstanding games that came out late in the system's life.

Who said I didn't hear of it? Oh, right, you're wrong. Please do not assume about me. I don't see that any different from any other system. One thing I do actually see is that the other companies made sure to kill the earlier system to sell their new one to make the money they spent back. Which I fully agree with.

And no, it should not have lasted that long. If they had slowed it down when the PS 3 was released, they could've easily made the PS 3 better. It didn't sell because they wouldn't kill the earlier system. The shovelware came in, and it was bad. The Wii's Shovelware is mostly from the PS 2's anyway. That system was done in by a weaker system, oddly enough.

So yes, I am glad it's dead, and they couldn't have pushed the PS 3 to gain their money back because they didn't concentrate on it. It's that simple; The PS 3's weakness was that they wouldn't kill the PS 2 early enough.

The only reason the PS 3's early output was slow was that its hardware was really difficult to develop for, which was a big complaint that every single developer had about the PS 3, especially Valve. I don't think the PS 2 had anything to do with it other than the fact it was selling steadily.

edited 7th Jan '13 1:12:53 PM by WaxingName

No, it did. Once they started getting the developing ready(as in, they figured it out), the PS 2 was still getting new games for a very long time. So, who's going to spend more money on a system with a small slew of good games over a system that has a ton of new stuff and costs a lot less money?

The PS 2 slowed the PS 3 down, pretty much. It also did hurt the Wii. A lot. There's a very small amount of Wii Shovelware that was made exclusively for it. Most of it was PS 2 Shovelware ports. So it effectively hurt two systems badly.

This is why I wanted to see it gone earlier.(atleast by a year) Once they marked the PS 3 down in price, it was selling rather well. We also got tons of new games that were rather amazing. ...And they still had to deal with the outdated system taking away sales. It wasn't smart business procedure to keep it up as long as they did. I'm not saying the PS 2 shouldn't have been still there while the PS 3 was, just not as long, that's all.

edited 7th Jan '13 1:19:20 PM by Hydronix

The PS 2 is dead... Long live the PS 2.

Shame that they're so easy to damage though, my 2 means of playing PS 2 games at the moment are both unlikely to last more than 5 years down the road. (Launch PS 3 + Fat PS 2.) Are those Slimlines any good? I thought I heard that they had issues gouging scratches into discs.

Support for the console should remain for as long as the system is still popular. The demand for the PS 2 remained high even into the next gen, so Sony kept manufacturing the things. The only thing anyone should be blaming the lack of success of the PS 3 on is the fact that it's kind of a shitty console.

edited 7th Jan '13 1:19:59 PM by Talby

I'd say IX was where they dropped the ball before picking it back up again with X. That was outstanding and X-2 was remarkably good too. I ache for that kind of attention to detail in my RPGs. From the mini-games to the combat, they both seemed so complete, you know? I disliked XII and never played XI, so ... whatever ...

But boiling an entire system down to just Final Fantasy isn't doing the system justice. Gran Turismo 3 is still the finest racing game I've ever played. To this day, the Timesplitters games are underrated gems and far superior the blandness of Halo, in my opinion. ICO & Shadow Of The Colossus, Okami, the Metal Gear Solid games, the Grand Theft Auto series making its transition to 3D. Hugely exciting times for Playstation fans. I would mention Tekken too but honestly, I think its peak was on the PS 1. Although having said that, Tekken Tag Tournament was universally loved.

That's not how I remember it. Delayed in Europe, high price point.

As for the games, look at all the criticism modern gaming gets. It's been homogenized into a few select genres. I was thinking about this recently. They're taking fewer chances than they did back on the PS 1 and PS 2. The chances that developers took weren't always successful but I think back to some of the 6/10 and 7/10 games that were on previous consoles and it makes me sad to think that just because they weren't multi-million selling titles that we won't see the likes of them again. I'm thinking about games like Dead Ball Zone and Silent Bomber on the PS 1 and Shadow Of Memories and The Bouncer on the PS 2. They weren't all great but I'm happy that those chances were taken rather than developers not take them at all. Yet would we ever see titles like those again? Well, I can picture Silent Bomber as a downloadable game maybe ...

Not only were there hidden gems on previous consoles that you seem happy to shrug off — Shadow Of Rome sticks out in my mind, a Capcom sleeper hit (that we'll also never see the likes of again) that had some of the best hack-and-slash gameplay I'd ever played — but even the average games had elements worth salvaging. I can't help feeling like gaming now, even without such focus on multiplayer, DLC and the constant battle against the used game market, has lots all of its charm. We're just left with a ton of FPS games, some third-person open-world shooters that all share the same cover systems, a ridiculous attitude from developers and a certain audience of gamers alike that games need to be "gritty" and Japanese developers (annoyingly) doing everything they can to appeal to Western audiences. Although that did give us Dragon's Dogma and Dark Souls, so I can't complain about that too much.

edited 7th Jan '13 1:27:50 PM by Guest1001

The lack of the PS 3 sales is still due to the PS 2 having better new stuff.

And both were equally bad in specs or features anyway. I've read and played the systems. I see no glaring differences, except the PS 3 has clearly better graphics and processing. Same weaknesses, except the PS 3's only is better? The only thing it lacked was concentration on it(which is understandable at first, while the company's figured out how to produce games for it, but once that happened, there was no excuse not to give it more attention).

The PS 3's only weakness was its price, and that's it. That's the only reason why the PS 2 could easily sell more in the first place. Also, the PS 3's online is far superior and is very easy to setup. Any version. Slim, Fat. Also, they both had new games. I stand by the "new games on a cheaper console sells easier, regardless of pure quality in itself".

I in no way buy that the PS 2 was a better system in any possible way outside of price. That's really the only strength it had since the PS 3 had developers(as in, as soon as the PS 3 had developers, the PS 2 had nothing but price over the PS 3). Rest is hogwash to me. And IX was still great. X was fine. X-2 wasn't bad either. XI was unplayable if you couldn't get online(which the PS 2 Slim had severe issues with). XII was a bit better, atleast.(although some did not like them removing any form of turn-based battling, so it had some issues here and there. And others, but I won't get into that)

edited 7th Jan '13 1:30:51 PM by Hydronix

The PS 3's weakness was its lacking early output. The PS 2 may have had better games early in the Seventh Generation, but if the PS 3 had better early output, it would have killed the PS 2 no matter how good its games were.

And system updates, game updates and game installations forcing a new buyer to wait a very long time before actually getting to play a game on their new games console. Lack of backwards compatibility is one of the biggest strikes against the PS 3 that there is. Oh, and saved data is tied to an online account. So if you copy it, depending on the game, it may not allow you to overwrite the saved game. Which sucks if you're anything like me and didn't realise this when you played through an entire single-player game without signing in, backing up your saved games as you go, and your console breaks ... only for you to find out when it's returned that you're being recognised as a different user and can no longer save. I'm looking at you, Final Fantasy XIII.

In other words, we're being dictated to about what we can do with our own saved games.

Once again, as soon as they could develop games for it easily, there's no reason to keep the PS 2 at full power if they cared about selling the PS 3. Keep that specifically in mind here.

The only thing the PS 2 really had over it once that happened is price and nothing else. Everything about the PS 3 was better. It had equally good games, better graphics, better online(easily), better processing power, didn't have any actual issues as is.

So, no, the PS 2 could've been discontinued before the Shovelware became a big thing, and gave it a proper burial where it was mostly good stuff. Now it's about half and half. I still own a PS 2, but I'd be lying if I thought it was the most amazing system ever, or anywhere near better than the PS 3.(outside of price) One thing to note, is of course usually the newer system is better, but in this case, it's just far better as is. It lacked a spotlight, and I agree, it took a bit to get strong due to being hard to develop for. I do not agree it was weak on its own merits, only because it had to battle with a cheaper system with equally good games.(it should be obvious who would win in that scenario)

Yeah, none of those bothered me as weaknesses. Especially when the Wii and 360 was no better whatsoever. So... can't agree at all. Even compared to the PS 2, they weren't glaring problems at all. Atleast to me. And even if we take that into account... nope, still seeing the PS 3 as overall superior.

edited 7th Jan '13 1:37:00 PM by Hydronix

It will always come down to how good the games are, and in that respect, the PS 2 blows the PS 3 out of the water.

Yep, this is the case.

I don't want to seem too down on modern gaming but to me, it feels like the PS 2 had a lot of fantastic hidden gems as well as a stream of great mainstream titles too. With the PS 3 (and other consoles) it kind of feels like all the good titles are hidden gems.

edited 7th Jan '13 1:41:33 PM by Guest1001

Oh.

... oh.

That's... sad.

Really, really sad. When I read that title, I honestly felt a sting deep in my soul, like an old, dear friend finally passed away.

So goes down the console who had the best, most incredible and touching games in history, IMO.

Relevant :

• Salutes with teary eyes *

Goodbye old friend. You will never be forgotten.