PSP Impressions

[thop]

Did they complain about specifics anywhere?

Please see the quotes in one of my previous posts in this thread.

 

[-tkf-]

Hmmm

(edit by playasia: 2hours is simply not true due to the fact that we tested the unit with brigthes settings longer then that and it was even not fully loaded!)

 

[thop]

Yeah but they don't have any games, just the UMD video demo disc

 

[PC-Engine]

Then we can easily compare GCN load times vs PS2 load times...it's annoying.

In a PSP thread?

We already established that there are games on both platforms that suffer from long loading times, yet there are also examples of efforts with ultra-fast loading times. Hardware really isn't the issue, making any attempt to compare GCN with PS2 or even PSP base-less... one could even call it trolling.

Most GCN games load very fast. Most PS2 games load very slow. PSP sounds like it's following the PS2 route. Doesn't matter if it's the fault of the developer or the hardware. What matters is that it's happening more on SONY platforms and that gamers expect better in this day and age. If you disagree then don't bother responding. It's not a requirement.

 

[Ty]

If we're going to throw out comparisons shouldn't we have some data to back it up?

Also, to be a better comparison, shouldn't we be comparing the same game on the different platforms because otherwise we could be comparing Mario Party 6 with GTA - San Andreas and I think we all know which should require more loading time.

 

[PC-Engine]

If we're going to throw out comparisons shouldn't we have some data to back it up?

Also, to be a better comparison, shouldn't we be comparing the same game on the different platforms because otherwise we could be comparing Mario Party 6 with GTA - San Andreas and I think we all know which should require more loading time.

We only need to compare the same games if we're trying to narrow it down to hardware or software and that's exactly why nobody is comparing specific titles. We only care about the end result which points to SONY platforms having long loading times in games as the norm which again is unexceptable in this day and age.

 

[mech]

Anyone else sick of PC-Engine and his anti-Sony bias?

Back on topic, I'm very interested in seeing final battery figures.

I'm also interested to see what load times really are like (rather than these "estimated" times, where they didn't even use a stopwatch), and whether that improves as time goes on. I'm willing to bet that yes, it will.

 

[Ty]

We only need to compare the same games if we're trying to narrow it down to hardware or software and that's exactly why nobody is comparing specific titles. We only care about the end result which points to SONY platforms having long loading times in games as the norm which again is unexceptable in this day and age.

Well my first point is, where is the data for your assertion? I don't have a PS2 and admittedly I've never been bothered by the load times by my GCN. GTA3, however, takes a bit of time on my Xbox. So I was just wondering if you had some data for us.

Secondly, if you don't compare the same game then you're guilty using of skewed data because then you could easily be blaming the design choice of the game rather than a real problem that could be overcome with some optimization. In other words, if GCN only had Mario Party-esque games, then I'm sure every load time for it would be ripping fast, but no one wants Nintendo to only have those types of games, right?

Yes, loading times should be as small as possible, but there are tradeoffs and the design of the game is one factor that can influence this. Therefore that's why I was suggesting that the comparison of the same games should be made to really see if the PS2 really does take longer to load for some reason.

 

[PC-Engine]

Anyone else sick of PC-Engine and his anti-Sony bias?

Instead of rushing to label people maybe you should address the issue instead with your own rebuttal. Look at Ty if you need a role model.

Ty, I think it's common knowledge that most PS2 games takes longer to load than most GCN games. Ask any game who has played many games on both platforms. PS2 load times are closer to DC and PS1 load times than GCN load times. Regardless comparing the same titles on both platforms doesn't really prove anything either especially when the target platform is PS2 for said game. GCN has 16MB of ARAM which I doubt is useless in caching game data.

 

[Ty]

Well I've never heard of this common knowledge before but I don't follow PS2 stuff very well.

I also don't know what difference it would make for loading times if a game's initial platform was the PS2 or GCN or Xbox.

 

[-tkf-]

Anyone else sick of PC-Engine and his anti-Sony bias?

Instead of rushing to label people maybe you should address the issue instead with your own rebuttal. Look at Ty if you need a role model.

Ty, I think it's common knowledge that most PS2 games takes longer to load than most GCN games.

So you have any actual facts to back that statement up?

Based on same games on all 3 platforms, what kind of difference are we talking about? 1 or 100 seconds?

Or are you talking about Nintendos own games versus 3rd party games?

From the guys that seem to know their shit (ie actual facts) it does seem like the GC has any advantage when it comes to treansfer speeds in hardware terms.

 

[mech]

Anyone else sick of PC-Engine and his anti-Sony bias?

Instead of rushing to label people maybe you should address the issue instead with your own rebuttal. Look at Ty if you need a role model.

I trawled through way too many threads today with people battling with you back and forth while you set forth your anti-Sony agenda, it's really getting tiresome. It'd be nice if you could just try and be a little more objective - if I try to argue against your points it'll only make things more frustrating, because it's clear no one can change your opinion of all things Sony.

 

[PC-Engine]

I also don't know what difference it would make for loading times if a game's initial platform was the PS2 or GCN or Xbox.

Target platform can make quite a difference. PS2 doesn't have 16MB of ARAM for caching/buffering data so if a game targeted for PS2 then ported to GCN without utilizing GCNs 16MB ARAM then you'll likely get the same loading times.

From the guys that seem to know their shit (ie actual facts) it does seem like the GC has any advantage when it comes to treansfer speeds in hardware terms.

Which is only relevent if we're pointing the finger at hardware which we aren't. We know a turtle is slower than a rabbit, we don't care why. Regardless transfer speeds is not the end all be all in determining loading times. PS2 has very little buffer memory compared to GCN not to mention poor texture compression format. Compression allows GCN to load more data in the same amount of time or the same amount of data in less time.

I trawled through way too many threads today with people battling with you back and forth while you set forth your anti-Sony agenda, it's really getting tiresome. It'd be nice if you could just try and be a little more objective - if I try to argue against your points it'll only make things more frustrating, because it's clear no one can change your opinion of all things Sony.

Well I'm not asking you to change ones opinion. In fact that's not the point of a discussion board. That's the problem with a lot of people here. When they fail to try and change another person's opionion and fail, they get worked up. If you fail because you don't have a solid argument or missed the point, just agree to disagree. Devil's advocate isn't necessarily a bad thing. You might learn something from it.

 

[Phil]

Ty, I think it's common knowledge that most PS2 games takes longer to load than most GCN games. Ask any game who has played many games on both platforms. PS2 load times are closer to DC and PS1 load times than GCN load times. Regardless comparing the same titles on both platforms doesn't really prove anything either especially when the target platform is PS2 for said game. GCN has 16MB of ARAM which I doubt is useless in caching game data.

I think you are taking this "in average" non-sense a bit too far. In average PS2 will have the worst graphics, the worst loading times, the worse gaming experience because it is subject to many more bad-attempts by low-budget games it being the number #1 console by an insane lead.

On the contrary, and this goes also for the graphics departments - there are developers that push the envelop and others that simply don't want to bother. It should be clear that the little support Nintendo has, is certainly filled with more quality developers that just concentrate on the Nintendo hardware alone and therefore take also loading times into account - opposed to the PlayStation 2 which is has the support of many multi-platform games and are to large extend not optimized for graphics or loading times. There are examples of games from developers though that do push the envelop on a graphics-scale but also feature little to no-loading times. Examples are the Jak games (Naughty Dog), MGS2, ZOE (Konami), Burnout 2, ICO... the list goes on and on.

The mear fact that those games do exist, shows that loading times can be very much related to the effort put into eliminating those. Some developers do care, others don't. As long as Nintendo doesn't have the software-library nor the support of game-developers comparable to the PlayStation 2, it makes comparing the two by in avergae very difficult as the latter will naturally suffer by the more support it's getting. Strictly on hardware, both are well capable of doing little to no loading times at all - so why bother bringing up a GCN vs PS-hardware(s) discussion up in a thread about the handheld PSP?

How about you open up a new thread once Nintendo gets the support of those games that do have long loading times on PS2 or simply as much support to effectively compare averages and get to some kind of conclusion. Until then though, it's nothing more but a claim that has no weight in a thread it doesn't even belong in. Move on!

 

[PC-Engine]

Ok let's just agree to disagree then. Let's wait and see if this PSP loading issue becomes a problem. So far the extended loading time issue of console like PS1 and DCare trickling over to PSP games already. Not a good sign.

 

[Phil]

Ok let's just agree to disagree then. Let's wait and see if this PSP loading issue becomes a problem. So far the extended loading time issue of console like PS1 and DCare trickling over to PSP games already. Not a good sign.

True - and I am wondering if it's coppled with the rather low-bandwidth from the optical drive together with cutting down access to it all together in order to keep battery time up. :?

BTW; Any notice on how long those loading times were? Loading times haven't been an issue for me this generation, but I do recall some endlessly long ones back in the days of PS1. There are also games though that had little to no loading times as well...

 

[ultimate_end]

We know a turtle is slower than a rabbit, we don't care why.

Some people care. What is a human being if we do not ask why?.
.
.

.
.
Anyway...

Looks as though battery concerns are really hurting PSP. Aside from the software side of things, if battery was not a concern we would have an 4x UMD drive (44Mbit/sec). Load times would be cartridge-quick on PSP.

I have been waiting so many years to see a disc based portable games machine (preferably in the Playstation family). I wonder, are we yet ready for this technology? I hope we we are. I hope we are...


Phil... according to IGN, initial load times were 10-20 secs, e.g. 16 secs for Ridge Racers. Using "Mississippi" counting ofcourse. I prefer "Locamotive", but anyway

 

[Refreshment]

Just going by experience, withouth getting technical, the GC games i have played load faster than the PS2 games i have played.

Soul Calibur 2 loads are faster in the GC and XBOX, the PS2 loads slow in comparison.

 

[Teasy]

For the people asking for data on load times. Here's a GameCube vs PS2 load time comparison, all times in seconds (obviously )

Harry Potter - Prisoner of Azkaban:

GC:

Bootup - 32
New game - 13
To Hogwart's - 10
Fat Ladies Hall - 12

PS2:

Bootup - 44
New game - 18
To Hogwart's - 14
Fat Ladies Hall - 15

Spiderman 2:

GC:

Bootup - 14
New game - 15

PS2:

Bootup - 27
New game - 15

Madden NFL 2005:

GC:

Qualcomm - 21
Soldier Field - 21.5
Raymond James St - 21

PS2:

Qualcomm - 29
Soldier Field - 29
Raymond James St - 29

MVP Baseball 2004

GC:

Bootup - 32
Stadium Load 1 - 8
Stadium Load 2 - 7.5
Stadium Load 3 - 7.5

PS2:

Bootup - 65
Stadium Load 1 - 17
Stadium Load 2 - 17
Stadium Load 3 - 16

I didn't go through and choose these games to show a load time difference either. These were just the first four games I checked at IGN. So if I continued I'd guess that the pattern would be the same. Consistently longer load times for PS2 when compared to GC.

 

[Phil]

Teasy, thanks for providing some data. However, those games are multi-platform games - which, wouldn't be fairly optimized for loading times (not to mention that EA's games often have quite long loading times on PS in general) anyway. I'm pretty sure the pattern wouldn't be as consistent anymore if we were to see numbers on games that incorporate special loading schemes (Jak series) I'm sure results wouldn't be as consistent.