Does the PS3 outperform the PS2, playing PS2 games? A lot?

July 11, 2008 8:31 PM

Does the PS3 outperform the PS2, playing PS2 games? A lot?

So I fouled up and got the PS3 model that doesn't play PS2 games. This turns out to have been bad. I'd like to play PS2 games. I'm trying to decide between 1) selling my current PS3 and upgrading to the better version, or 2) buying a new PS2.

Option 2) is cheaper.

What I want to know is, does the higher-end PS3 do a better job on PS2 games than a new PS2 would?

Are there major graphical improvements?

Can the PS3 sometimes play PS2 games in HD (um on reflection this seems pretty improbable. . . )?

posted by grobstein to technology (16 comments total)

Refinement: the only other PS3 models on sale are the (new, not 2006) 60gb model and the 80gb model, both of which emulate the PS2 in software. So answers should compare the PS2 game performance of a PS2 versus a PS3 doing software emulation.

Thanks!
posted by grobstein at 8:36 PM on July 11, 2008

First, different PS3 units have different capabilites. The discontinued 60GB units actually had a PS2 processor inside of them and could play all PS2 games. 80GB units do software emulation and can play about 90% of PS2 games. The 40GB units can't at all.

The PS3s that can play PS2 games do upscale into HD. But it doesn't actually look that much better. The anti-aliasing is better and that's about it. As a not-especially-graphics-savvy gamer, I think I would be able to tell the difference between a PS2 playing a game and a PS3 upscaling the same game, but the difference would be minimal. Between a PS3 upscaling a PS2 game and a PS3 playing a native PS3 game, there's no comparison.

In conclusion: If you just want to play PS2 games, definitely buy a PS2. They're dirt cheap now. Used ones are even dirtier cheap (dirt cheaper?).
posted by svolix at 8:40 PM on July 11, 2008

Oh, also: if you buy a PS2, pay an extra $20 and buy component cables for your AV connection instead of using the composite cables that come with it. THAT difference is pretty plain to see for anyone with working eyes.
posted by svolix at 8:42 PM on July 11, 2008

Is the PS2 cheaper just comparing it to the PS3 price? Or is it also cheaper than the upgrade?

If it's cheaper than the upgrade, then I'd say to just get the PS2.

If it's just cheaper than the PS3 price, I'd have to think about it. But I think I'd still want both systems. Mostly for the option of being able to take one with me and still leave something there for others to play with.
posted by theichibun at 9:01 PM on July 11, 2008

Ah, upscaling. Here's a series of comparison shots done by IGN. More info on the PS3's upscaling here.

As svolix said, any comparison really should be between an 80 GB PS3 and a PS2 + component cables. (Assuming that your TV can accept component inputs and you have room to connect them; I don't believe there is an HDMI cable for the PS2.)

As far as I can tell, a new PS2 plus the component cables would cost you $119, and the difference between a 40GB and an 80GB is $100. If you can return your 40GB, I'd do that, but if you can only sell it, then the depreciation probably makes getting the PS2 + cables better.
posted by sachinag at 9:09 PM on July 11, 2008

Crap, I didn't see that you already had a 40GB. I'm with sachinag on this one, then.
posted by svolix at 9:14 PM on July 11, 2008

I have the 60GB with hardware emulation and I can't even tell the difference. If it's cheaper to get the PS2, do that.

It's not impossible that some software/firmware update down the road will add some great post-processing tricks to the PS3's emulation system, but until then the difference is negligible. At least to me.

> Can the PS3 sometimes play PS2 games in HD[?]

Some PS2 games have "Progressive Scan" modes -- which will work on a PS2 or a PS3.
posted by churl at 9:23 PM on July 11, 2008

One maybe-important note: you can mod a PS2 (either with a modchip or using a softmod, though I don't know how well the latter works for slim PS2s). You can't mod a PS3 yet. So playing PS2 games from other regions is out of the question for the PS3. This may or may not affect your decision.
posted by chrominance at 9:37 PM on July 11, 2008

Buy the PS2. Software emulation will be the same, or slightly worse in some cases. As well as being cheaper to buy the PS2, it can play ALL PS2 games, where the PS3 can only play most games.
posted by Joh at 9:39 PM on July 11, 2008

The PS3 will never be faster or better than the PS2 at playing PS2 games. PS2 games are coded to use the PS2 hardware exactly as it is, they don't benefit from faster or better hardware.

PS1 games aren't significantly different on the PS3. The biggest difference is that you can turn smoothing on. Also, the controllers are hard to switch from analog to digital mode. That makes Gran Turismo 1 unplayable. GT2 was smarter about setting analog mode for you, so it is still playable.

Selling your PS3 is a bad idea. The only model with full hardware emulation is the now-discontinued 60 GB model. All of the newer models have varying degrees of software emulation or none at all. The 60GB model was hot and noisy. A PStwo is silent.

Oh, also: if you buy a PS2, pay an extra $20 and buy component cables for your AV connection instead of using the composite cables that come with it. THAT difference is pretty plain to see for anyone with working eyes.

And if you are cheap, use the component cables from your PS3 on your PS2. The multi-AV cables are cross compatible from the PS1 through PS2 to PS3. Obviously HDMI cables won't do anything for a PS2.
posted by b1tr0t at 10:01 PM on July 11, 2008

The PS3 will never be faster or better than the PS2 at playing PS2 games. PS2 games are coded to use the PS2 hardware exactly as it is, they don't benefit from faster or better hardware.

Why not? The PS2 did better at playing PS1 games.
posted by delmoi at 10:28 PM on July 11, 2008

If you have a widescreen TV you might benefit from playing PS2 games on a PS3. As far as I know there is no way to have a PS2 game fill an entire widescreen TV unless you tell the TV itself to distort the image. (When I figured this out I was pretty furious...my Westinghouse HDTV doesn't have a horizontal stretch feature.)
posted by spamguy at 12:21 AM on July 12, 2008

I would get a real PS2.

The real PS2 plays all PS2 games.
The 80GB PS3 does not.

The real PS2 correctly uses all PS2 controllers.
The 80GB PS3 does not.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:48 AM on July 12, 2008

As far as I know there is no way to have a PS2 game fill an entire widescreen TV unless you tell the TV itself to distort the image.

I'm pretty sure that PS2s have a setup option to configure video output for widescreen TVs. Some games, like Gran Turismo 4 even support HDTV output.
posted by b1tr0t at 9:34 AM on July 12, 2008

I'm pretty sure that PS2s have a setup option to configure video output for widescreen TVs. Some games, like Gran Turismo 4 even support HDTV output.

I'm aware of that option and have it set to 16:9. As many other people on the Internet have experienced, it doesn't do a thing.

In the course of re-researching, though, I discovered that I should be using component cables for purposes of allowing progressive scan, not the Sony-supplied RGB ones. I always wondered why my games failed to recognise that. Off to Circuit City!
posted by spamguy at 12:09 PM on July 12, 2008

The cables supplied by Sony are composite cables, not RGB, and are incapable of delivering a signal other than 4:3 SDTV. You really need those component cables.
posted by b1tr0t at 12:42 PM on July 12, 2008