Is the PS2 capable of 2D?

[Cinder6]

Or even the PS3, for that matter?

By "capable", I mean true 2D, instead of plastering sprites on invisible polygons. I know the PS1 couldn't do true 2D, but I'm not sure about the two successors. Anyone know?

[Kid Ice]

This is the first I've heard that PS1 can't do "true 2D". Assuming that's true, both the PS1 and PS2 had numerous retro compilations, so I guess "through emulation" would be one answer.

[Dangerboy]

Uh....the PSX and it's next of kin can all do true 2D...

Ya know, Guilty Gear....Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat....all lovely sprite based games...real honest 2D sprites.

[shadowkn55]

Uh....the PSX and it's next of kin can all do true 2D...

Ya know, Guilty Gear....Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat....all lovely sprite based games...real honest 2D sprites.

Not as well as Sega Saturn. If you play Street Fighter Alpha 2 on both systems, there is a world of difference.

[roushimsx]

Not as well as Sega Saturn. If you play Street Fighter Alpha 2 on both systems, there is a world of difference.

RAM is a motherfucker, isn't it?

[Cinder6]

What I've read is that the PS1 doesn't have the capability of doing 2D games in the sense that the NES, SNES, Genesis, Saturn, etc. could. It would emulate the behavior by using transparent polygons on a very wide, very thin vertical plane, then slap sprites onto them. This is obviously not the greatest way to do it, as you have the system doing calculations for polygons that are never even seen.

Here's where I first read about it, on VGMuseum (and it undoubtedly explains it better than I):

http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv-sotn/documents/nocturne-port.htm

It deals specifically with the Saturn port of Symphony of the Night, but goes into the details of the PS1's lack of real 2D capabilities.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Playstation consoles have been far from the most capable 2D machines, yet they have some of the most impressive and gorgeous games in the medium available. Look at Valkyrie Profile (PS1) and Odin Sphere (PS2).

On the 2D hardware front Saturn whooped ass on the PS1 and Dreamcast kicked PS2 in the grapes. Popularity and success (read: install base!) outstrips hardware design and capability.


What I've read is that the PS1 doesn't have the capability of doing 2D games in the sense that the NES, SNES, Genesis, Saturn, etc. could. It would emulate the behavior by using transparent polygons on a very wide, very thin vertical plane, then slap sprites onto them.

If this is indeed the case then it isn't dealing with spites at all. They're polygon textures. Lots of wasted effort and inefficient. Still better than a software sprite engine I'd imagine.

[djlr181]

Is it me or is that VgMuseum article completely BS?

[Icarus Moonsight]

Try SOTN on Saturn. There is lots of slowdown. I'm not sure if it's true but, it stands to reason. If the game was made in "true" 2D the Saturn version port would surely run better than the PS1 version. The Saturn being less capable at 3D than the PS1 means it chokes on the game. There is also the possibility of a botched port job though. They do happen.

[c0ldb33r]

There is also the possibility of a botched port job though. They do happen.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Of course we can't base opinions on a single game (either pro or con).

[G-Boobie]

I was under the distinct impression that the PS1 CPU was perfectly capable of handling 2D sprites as well as polygons. I guess I could be wrong, though....

The author of the article in question flatly states that, and I quote: "Please note that this is all theory and speculation". We could probably broaden that to include his '2D polygon' theory, which in pure programming terms, is the dumbest and least processor-efficient way to handle sprite animation I can think of.

Just for the record, I think the crap port of SotN to Saturn had more to do with the Saturn's notoriously difficult to program for dual CPU's. Think the Cell Processor troubles that developers are having with the PS3 and you won't be too far off.

G-Boobie, out.

[T-1000]

Look at Street Fighter Alpha 3 on the PS1. Aside from load times (which weren't bad at all) & a few missing frames of animation it was pretty damn solid.

[8-bitNesMan]

Look at Street Fighter Alpha 3 on the PS1. Aside from load times (which weren't bad at all) & a few missing frames of animation it was pretty damn solid.

I still much prefer the Dreamcast version.

[Mr. Smashy]

Look at Street Fighter Alpha 3 on the PS1. Aside from load times (which weren't bad at all) & a few missing frames of animation it was pretty damn solid.

As much as I like Alpha 3 on the PS1, it's garbage compared to the Saturn version (which isn't really a fair comparison since the Saturn version uses the 4 Meg RAM cart).

I even prefer the Saturn version to the Dreamcast version.

[neogamer]

As much as I like Alpha 3 on the PS1, it's garbage compared to the Saturn version (which isn't really a fair comparison since the Saturn version uses the 4 Meg RAM cart).

I even prefer the Saturn version to the Dreamcast version.

That RAM cart helps! Great game, none the less!

[jajaja]

What do you mean with true 2d? Consoles like NES with 1.7MHz and 2KB RAM can do 2d, so clearly a console with like 1000 times more power can do 2d too :)

[studvicious]

It's all about the game engine.

[8-bitNesMan]

As much as I like Alpha 3 on the PS1, it's garbage compared to the Saturn version (which isn't really a fair comparison since the Saturn version uses the 4 Meg RAM cart).

I even prefer the Saturn version to the Dreamcast version.

I don't think we ever got a Saturn version of Alpha 3 stateside.

[roushimsx]

I still much prefer the Dreamcast version.

DC version was just the PS1 version with more frames and everyone unlocked, right? A bit of a bummer they didn't restore the sprite sizes. Always wish I had put a little more effort into finding the Saturn version back when it came out instead of sticking with just the PS1 and DC versions, though with compilation packs and modern emulation, it's all a bit moot anymore.

The SotN port on Saturn is just shameful. There's no excuse for a game getting slaughtered that much in the transition from PS1 to Saturn.

Some other 2D games came out better on the PS1, such as Donpachi and Dodonpachi.

[MarioMania]

Well at lease you have the CV3 musis & play Ritcher, Alcaurd & Maria

[8-bitNesMan]

@ Roushimsx: I remember playing both back in '99 - '00 and it seems like there were other subtle improvements as well. Been a while since I've played either but the PS was just too RAM poor to run any fighting games well IMO. The good old Dreamcast though was a true fighting game machine.

I never knew about the sprites on top of polys thing. I always assumed they were just regular old sprites. It seems redundant to have unseen polys underneath 2D sprites. What was the benefit of this approach?

[roushimsx]

Well at lease you have the CV3 musis & play Ritcher, Alcaurd & Maria

Maria's addition was even more of an afterthought than Richter's. They probably spent more time working on Axe Armor than they did with Maria.

[MarioMania]

At lease it was made for the Saturn...

[roushimsx]

At lease it was made for the Saturn...

That really means very little when the port is so poorly executed. Being glad that the crappy port ever saw the light of day is like being happy that the PS1 got a clunky, slowdown-ridden port of Little Big Adventure because, hey, Little Big Adventure rocks so obviously it's a good thing that there's a watered down console port, right?

(update: still upset over how LBA turned out)
(update 2: still upset Twinsen's Odyssey never got a console port)
(update 3: after how LBA turned out, it's probably for the best that LBA2 didn't hit any consoles)

[ProgrammingAce]

This means that doing 2D on the PSX is really just doing flat 3D.

You guys are basing this whole assumption off of an article that says this?

The concept that the PS1 can't do 2 dimentional sprites is, frankly, retarded. Having used the SDK for the PS1 (as well as PS2 and PS3) I can tell you that the system is quite capable of sprite manipulation. I can also tell you that no sane programmer would ever do what he suggested. You don't use a 3D engine to develop a sprite based game like castlevania, it's an insane concept.

The guy is confused even on the simple notion of "porting" over an engine from the PS1 to the Saturn. It's not as if there's some magical "convert to Saturn" button that devs press. It would be easier to start a new engine from scratch and use the existing media (sounds, graphics) then to try porting a PS1 engine to the Saturn.

I think the more likely issue is that using both main CPUs on the Saturn is a byotch with the official SDK. They probably gimped their Saturn engine to a single CPU and thus took the performance hit.

[sabre2922]

I thought the thread starter was is the PS2 capable of 2D?

My answer is Hell YES are you freaking CRAZZZZY!

I posted this on a similiar thread on the same topic:


"Streetfighter 3: third strike is one of the few DC games I still have (along with Shenmue) and I always luved the DC version until I played the PS2 version on the Streetfighter Anniversary Collection!:love:

I never believed that ANY PS2 version of a 2-D fighter could be superior to the Dreamcast version but I was wrong.

The PS2 Streetfighter 3 is as close to arcade perfect as Ive ever seen with all the frames of animation that was missing from the Dreamcast version (I never really noticed until I was able to compare the two up close) and far better hit detection among other things.


Also with all the great 2-D Fighter collections available on the PS2 it has really surprised me that I prefer the PS2 versions of at least 90% of 2-D fighters when compared to the Dreamcast or even my old favorite the Sega Saturn.

I also have the Capcom vs. SNK 2 wich is the same on BOTH the PS2 and Dreamcast.

The only 2-D fighter that I truly like on the DC better than the PS2 is Marvel vs. Capcom 2 but they are both great.
"

[bangtango]

I've seen various 2D games run pretty good on PS1 and PS2. I know it may infuriate a few people who aren't fond of those systems but the answer to the question in the original post and the subject line is Yes.

[G-Boobie]

You guys are basing this whole assumption off of an article that says this?

The concept that the PS1 can't do 2 dimentional sprites is, frankly, retarded. Having used the SDK for the PS1 (as well as PS2 and PS3) I can tell you that the system is quite capable of sprite manipulation. I can also tell you that no sane programmer would ever do what he suggested. You don't use a 3D engine to develop a sprite based game like castlevania, it's an insane concept.

I think the more likely issue is that using both main CPUs on the Saturn is a byotch with the official SDK. They probably gimped their Saturn engine to a single CPU and thus took the performance hit.

Yes, exactly. This is the same reason finding a good Saturn emulator is such a bitch(and also why Saturn titles aren't popping up on Virtual Console or Gametap...yet).

[Icarus Moonsight]

I was waiting for ProgrammingAce to chime in. :) Botched port it is then. For shame Konami.

[Cinder6]

I thought the thread starter was is the PS2 capable of 2D?

Yes, but it's predicate on whether the PS1 can or cannot. If the PS1 can, then the PS2 can, in my crazy line of thinking, so that's what the debate became.

ProgrammingAce, thanks for the info. I'd given that article more weight because of its source, but that doesn't mean everything, obviously.

Also, am I the only one on this site that actually prefers the Saturn version of SotN to the PS1 version? (And yes, I play it on the actual console, not on an emulator where you can reduce much of the slowdown.) I truly am insane...

[Kevincal]

Oh how the Sega fanboys LOVE to bash the Playstations 2d capabilities...LOL... Even though they are only SLIGHTLY worse than their counterparts... PS really aint that far behind the Saturn in 2d and the PS2 really aint that far behind the DC... *puts on Sega drone resistent fire suit :D*

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

The concept that the PS1 can't do 2 dimentional sprites is, frankly, retarded. Having used the SDK for the PS1 (as well as PS2 and PS3) I can tell you that the system is quite capable of sprite manipulation. I can also tell you that no sane programmer would ever do what he suggested. You don't use a 3D engine to develop a sprite based game like castlevania, it's an insane concept.

Just because there's sprite functions in the SDK, doesn't mean that the system is actually handling them as true sprites. I admit that I've never used or even looked at the PS1 SDK, but my understanding is that was rather high level compared to other console dev libraries, so it wouldn't surprise me if it had sprite functions that while looking just like regular tilemap functions to the developer were actually operating with a polygon engine.

Since by all reports they were so gung-ho on 3D from the start (unlike Sega), it wouldn't be entirely surprising if Sony developed the Playstation without a tilemap renderer, which is what you need to have for true console-style 2D.

True or false, the suggestion Playstation 1 not doing true 2D is not news to me, it's what I've always heard about the system. That doesn't make it correct, but this article is not the only source for the info, that's for sure. I'm surprised most of you never seem to have heard it before.

The thing is, using a polygon engine to handle graphics in 2D is neither insane nor inefficient like you guys are saying. In fact, it makes a lot of sense to handle it that way on 3D hardware and in some ways it's better than a true tilemap mode. As long as you're careful in how you use it, it shouldn't be noticable to the end user at all, either.

For instance, I'm pretty sure the Dreamcast doesn't have a tilemap renderer, but nobody talks trash about its 2D games, do they? And I know *FOR A FACT* that many 2D games on the DS are using a polygon engine--and this despite the fact that the DS actually does have a true tilemap mode. Using the polygon-based 2D engine on the DS allows you to get around some of the hardware limitations of the tilemap mode like the number of onscreen sprites and some of their special effect properties.

So, if the Playstation was using a polygon-based sprite engine, I don't think that would be some sort of logical proof that it's 2D games would *HAVE* to be inferior to the Saturn's 2D games. The fact that they were for the most part is more likely due to the fact that the Saturn just had very very advanced 2D capabilities, so whether the Playstation was using polygons to do 2D or actually using a tilemap renderer, it couldn't do as much either way. It's just too bad that a) Sega didn't offer developers a complete SDK in order to help them better take advantage of these capabilities and b) gamers at the time didn't seem to want 2D much so very few developers put the effort into making the amazing 2D games the system was capable of.


...word is bondage...

[ProgrammingAce]

I'll offer it to you this way...

The PS1 had several different rendering modes for working with sprite images. Each of those only takes in X and Y coordinates. Layering was done through order of operations. If the PS1 actually used polygons instead of working with the sprites, then the functions would have just taken a Z coordinate instead of using timing and transparency for layers.

The framebuffer itself only holds 2 dimentional data, it goes from (0,0) to (1023,511). Even in the 3D rendering modes, the vertex data is transformed to a 2D matrix before being applied to the framebuffer.

The rendering pipeline goes like this:

- Cache image.
- Manipulate off screen in buffer in 2D space.
- Blit to framebuffer (blit is a fancy term for apply). Framebuffer only holds 2D coordinates, so 3D data must be transformed.
- Send framebuffer off to the video encoder. Video encoder only works in 2D, it's too far upstream to worry about rendering modes.
- ???
- Profit.

Considering the framebuffer works with 2D space (which is completely different then how it works in modern systems), i'm not sure where the system would secretly transform your sprites into polygons.

I can see where the confusion would come in, it is possible to have layered effects for 2D screens, things like parallax and the like. But when you get down to it, everything on the system is transformed to 2D coordinates before being blitted to the framebuffer.

I'll stop short of saying that the PS1 is incapable of doing "real" 3D, that isn't really the case either. I guess in the end, your TV can only process 2D images so there has to be a 3D - 2D conversion somewhere... It just happens to be further upstream on the rendering pipeline then you would expect when it comes to the PS1

[Juganawt]

The PS1 could handle true 2D without the need of "flat polygons". Whoever told you that was blowing smoke up your ass.

it could handle 4000 8×8 pixels at any one time, and ran things like parallax scrolling under emulation.

it was nowhere close to being as proficient with 2D as the Saturn was, thanks to it's lower resolution and smaller amount of RAM, but it could still pull it off without the need of flat polys.

Same with PS2. It can handle true 2D, but it handles it badly due to the strange (and frankly, stupid) setup of the PS2's GPU, and therefore is nowhere near as good as Xbox's, Gamecube's, or even Dreamcast's 2D handling abilities.

Notice that any multi platform 2D game looks much, MUCH worse on PS2 when compared to the same game running on DC, Xbox or Gamecube, even if the game has multi-pass rendering enabled.

Basically PS1 & PS2 can both "do" 2D, but nowhere near as good as any other system released around the same times as they were.