Technical discussion on whether PC or PS2 had the jankiest games. (Yes, people really want to discuss this without any definition of 'janky')

[Phantom88]

At the segment when they're talking about the Witcher 1 remake, John again says something along the lines of "this feels like early 2000's PC game. Janky, old school feel to it". He said things along those lines in other videos. Im curious what he means exactly. Why does he single out PC games specifically. Makes it sound as if PC games of the time were somehow either low budget or inferior tech wise. Which they for sure weren't. I'd infinitely say "ps2 type of game", if i want to convey jank or low budget, not PC which was universally, each and every year at the top end of technology and budgets, after 3d cards came on the market. It wasnt console games that had the biggest budgets, which i have the feeling that John thinks they did.

I caught years before a comment of his on neogaf, from 2004 when Doom 3 launched and he was saying something along the lines of "this game is as polished or accomplished as any console game is, which is didn't expect it to be". Something along those lines. And reading that just blew my mind. It blew my mind that someone would look at Doom 3, since its 2002 announcement and not consider it the best looking game in the world. Which it was. And it blew my mind that ps2 games were the ceiling PC games needed to reach ? I know he's excessively enamored by consoles, but jesus. Doom 3 was the apex of presentation and graphical prowess, made by Carmack at the top of his game. Being shocked its "on the level of console games" is not something i ever expected seeing an opinion of

 

[Remij]

At the segment when they're talking about the Witcher 1 remake, John again says something along the lines of "this feels like early 2000's PC game. Janky, old school feel to it". He said things along those lines in other videos. Im curious what he means exactly. Why does he single out PC games specifically. Makes it sound as if PC games of the time were somehow either low budget or inferior tech wise. Which they for sure weren't. I'd infinitely say "ps2 type of game", if i want to convey jank or low budget, not PC which was universally, each and every year at the top end of technology and budgets, after 3d cards came on the market. It wasnt console games that had the biggest budgets, which i have the feeling that John thinks they did.

I caught years before a comment of his on neogaf, from 2004 when Doom 3 launched and he was saying something along the lines of "this game is as polished or accomplished as any console game is, which is didn't expect it to be". Something along those lines. And reading that just blew my mind. It blew my mind that someone would look at Doom 3, since its 2002 announcement and not consider it the best looking game in the world. Which it was. And it blew my mind that ps2 games were the ceiling PC games needed to reach ? I know he's excessively enamored by consoles, but jesus. Doom 3 was the apex of presentation and graphical prowess, made by Carmack at the top of his game. Being shocked its "on the level of console games" is not something i ever expected seeing an opinion of

I think you're looking into it too much. There was plenty of janky old school PC games of that era, and The Witcher was one.

 

[snc]

It blew my mind that someone would look at Doom 3, since its 2002 announcement and not consider it the best looking game in the world. Which it was.

I remember 2004 and most pc players were more impressed by Far Cry

 

[Phantom88]

I think you're looking into it too much. There was plenty of janky old school PC games of that era, and The Witcher was one.

There were janky games on every platform since gaming began. But John seems to single PC games out. He said almost exactly like this in other videos. Like i said, if i wanna claim janky games from the early 2000s, im gonna chose ps2 and its legion of extremely low budget games made on the boat. Im not gonna say PC games which looked better and higher budget than 90% of every console game of the era.

As i've said, the fact that he was mistified by Doom 3 stuck with me. I mean, Doom 3. Which in 2002 people could not believe something like that is possible or real. So i think he clearly thinks console games were higher budget, which they absolutely werent. And somehow, he might even think they're more accomplished tech wise ? I don't know.

I remember 2004 and most pc players were more impressed by Far Cry

yeah, Far Cry kinda came out from the left field a bit, since Doom 3 and Half Life 2 were the juggernauts at the time. But this trio of 2004, Far Cry, Doom 3 and Half Life 2 are some of my finnest memories of gaming ever. What spectacular experiences

 

[snc]

There were janky games on every platform since gaming began. But John seems to single PC games out. He said almost exactly like this in other videos. Like i said, if i wanna claim janky games from the early 2000s, im gonna chose ps2 and its legion of extremely low budget games made on the boat. Im not gonna say PC games which looked better and higher budget than 90% of every console game of the era.

As i've said, the fact that he was mistified by Doom 3 stuck with me. I mean, Doom 3. Which in 2002 people could not believe something like that is possible or real. So i think he clearly thinks console games were higher budget, which they absolutely werent. And somehow, he might even think they're more accomplished tech wise ? I don't know.


yeah, Far Cry kinda came out from the left field a bit, since Doom 3 and Half Life 2 were the juggernauts at the time. But this trio of 2004, Far Cry, Doom 3 and Half Life 2 are some of my finnest memories of gaming ever. What spectacular experiences

Yeah, one of my fav year in gaming history

 

[Seanspeed]

yeah, Far Cry kinda came out from the left field a bit, since Doom 3 and Half Life 2 were the juggernauts at the time. But this trio of 2004, Far Cry, Doom 3 and Half Life 2 are some of my finnest memories of gaming ever. What spectacular experiences

PC had a few flagship technical showpieces at the time, but it's hard to deny that the bulk of the higher quality and refined large scale games of the time were happening on console. PC had lots of very cool games, but lots came with jank that users put up with cuz it was worth it. This was definitely a real thing if you take off the nostalgia goggles.

Like, let's look at 2002. PC had some great stuff like MoH Allied Assault, Warcraft III and Morrowind and all, but consoles had Ratchet and Clank, Resident Evil HD, Super Mario Sunshine, LoZ Wind Waker, GTA Vice City, Metroid Prime, Splinter Cell, Kingdom Hearts, etc.

I dont mean to make this a dick measuring contest, just want to make the point that PC gaming was definitely still known for having plenty of ambitious, but janky games during the time. I mean, my inclusion of Morrowind here for PC shouldn't apply at all, since it itself was really dang janky in so many ways even for the time.

 

[BRiT]

I dont know, but a potential simple explaination...

That could be a simple statement that at the time the majority of console games shipped in their final state and did not have the concept of patches where PC was faster to embrace digital and the follow up patches.

 

[Phantom88]

PC had a few flagship technical showpieces at the time, but it's hard to deny that the bulk of the higher quality and refined large scale games of the time were happening on console. PC had lots of very cool games, but lots came with jank that users put up with cuz it was worth it. This was definitely a real thing if you take off the nostalgia goggles.

I don't think thats true at all. There was far more jank coming from console games, not PC. Console games were not more refined or large scale. Since budgets for the biggest games were comparable between pc and consoles, it doesnt even make sense that PC games would be inferior. Nevermind the fact that they looked light years ahead of console games visually. Wing Commander 4 had a budget of 10 million back in 1996. Gears of War cost the same in 2006. Riven had a budget of 20 million in 1997. Thats the same budget both Uncharted 1 and 2 had, in 2009

Like, let's look at 2002. PC had some great stuff like MoH Allied Assault, Warcraft III and Morrowind and all, but consoles had Ratchet and Clank, Resident Evil HD, Super Mario Sunshine, LoZ Wind Waker, GTA Vice City, Metroid Prime, Splinter Cell, Kingdom Hearts, etc.

And Ratchet and Clank or Resident Evil are supposed to be highlights next to Morrowind or Warcraft 3 ? Blizzard at this point in time in particular was probably the premiere gaming company in the industry, specifically because of the unparalleled polish and quality. None of the console examples you provided are ahead. In any way.

Battlefield 1942, Mafia, Neverwinter Nights, Dungeon Siege, No One Lives Forever 2, UT 2003, Age of Mythology, Soldier of Fortune 2, C&C Renegade and so on. There was zero console games on the market that could compare to UT 2003 or the scope of Battlefield or the polish of NOLF 2. Come on now.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

PC had a few flagship technical showpieces at the time, but it's hard to deny that the bulk of the higher quality and refined large scale games of the time were happening on console. PC had lots of very cool games, but lots came with jank that users put up with cuz it was worth it. This was definitely a real thing if you take off the nostalgia goggles.

Yeah, as an old fuck PC gamer this is my recollection too. There were definitely unique experiences you could get on PC that you couldn't get on consoles and some impressive technical showcases, but by and large the polish wasn't quite there in a lot of titles.

PC games were often more expansive in scope and just attempted 'more', but in terms of art design, animation and just the overall cohesiveness of presentation, I'd say console games were, on the average, more 'polished' then.

 

[see colon]

Yeah, as an old fuck PC gamer this is my recollection too. There were definitely unique experiences you could get on PC that you couldn't get on consoles and some impressive technical showcases, but by and large the polish wasn't quite there in a lot of titles.

Yeah, some games, especially from back then, my friends and I called "PC games", but you can't hear how we said it, cause we used a voice. The Witcher was a "PC game". So was S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

 

[Cyan]

Yeah, some games, especially from back then, my friends and I called "PC games", but you can't hear how we said it, cause we used a voice. The Witcher was a "PC game". So was S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

generally eastern European developers are all about the PC, and that's noticeable in their console ports. They try but, it's in their culture, they are PC oriented.

 

[Seanspeed]

I don't think thats true at all. There was far more jank coming from console games, not PC. Console games were not more refined or large scale. Since budgets for the biggest games were comparable between pc and consoles, it doesnt even make sense that PC games would be inferior. Nevermind the fact that they looked light years ahead of console games visually. Wing Commander 4 had a budget of 10 million back in 1996. Gears of War cost the same in 2006. Riven had a budget of 20 million in 1997. Thats the same budget both Uncharted 1 and 2 had, in 2009




And Ratchet and Clank or Resident Evil are supposed to be highlights next to Morrowind or Warcraft 3 ? Blizzard at this point in time in particular was probably the premiere gaming company in the industry, specifically because of the unparalleled polish and quality. None of the console examples you provided are ahead. In any way.

Battlefield 1942, Mafia, Neverwinter Nights, Dungeon Siege, No One Lives Forever 2, UT 2003, Age of Mythology, Soldier of Fortune 2, C&C Renegade and so on. There was zero console games on the market that could compare to UT 2003 or the scope of Battlefield or the polish of NOLF 2. Come on now.

You just named a ton of janky ass games, but I'm getting the impression that the makeup of this forum in general wont be conducive to people being reasonable on this front.

Some of y'all are obviously going to die on the sword that PC gaming wasn't full of jank during the time, even when it just was.

This is just sad platform warrior stuff at this point.

 

[Phantom88]

You just named a ton of janky ass games, but I'm getting the impression that the makeup of this forum in general wont be conducive to people being reasonable on this front.

Some of y'all are obviously going to die on the sword that PC gaming wasn't full of jank during the time, even when it just was.

This is just sad platform warrior stuff at this point.

No, i named a fraction of some of the higher end games that any console on the market at the time could not even dream to achieve. I didn't say PC gaming didnt have jank, i was saying that the notion that ps2 of all things was some high end offering of polished games is hilarious and twilight zone worthy. Every platform had janky games. PS2 in particular has 90%+ of its library filled with the cheapest trash. For every God of War you had 100 barely functional games running at 15 frames. But PC did not have more janky games than consoles, nor did it have a few high end games here and there. Polish, today as it was then, is a matter of time and money. Since consoles had much worse hardware and the money and time was the same on consoles as it was on PC, where did this magical polish came from ? Are we seriously putting ps2 games against Epic, id, Blizzard, Westwood, Ensemble or Relic at their peak ?

 

[Remij]

@Phantom88

I think it's ok if we have different opinions on this.. but even if both console and PC equally had the same amount of janky games.. that still doesn't mean John is out of line with what he's saying. The Witcher 1 can easily be described as one of those janky PC games from the past...

John is primarily a console gamer sure, but there's nothing wrong with that. His experience with games can also differ from yours at that time for tons of reasons... doesn't make him wrong, or you wrong either. Consoles have janky games too, for sure.

But I just don't agree with any implication that John is somehow picking on PC here...

One man's jank is another man's jewel

 

[see colon]

The Witcher 1 can easily be described as one of those janky PC games from the past...

Honestly I think this isn't a point that can be argued. The Witcher 1 is a janky game.. It's real claim to fame is that it's got a great story and atmosphere with lots of choices you can make throughout, but the actual gameplay is a clickfest like Diablo but with a less intuitive camera angle and timing based combos.

Honestly if I was going to pick a game that was ripe for a modern remake, Witcher 1 would be on my short list.

 

[Phantom88]

@Phantom88

I think it's ok if we have different opinions on this.. but even if both console and PC equally had the same amount of janky games.. that still doesn't mean John is out of line with what he's saying. The Witcher 1 can easily be described as one of those janky PC games from the past...

John is primarily a console gamer sure, but there's nothing wrong with that. His experience with games can also differ from yours at that time for tons of reasons... doesn't make him wrong, or you wrong either. Consoles have janky games too, for sure.

But I just don't agree with any implication that John is somehow picking on PC here...

One man's jank is another man's jewel

The Witcher 1 is for sure a lower budget game, yeah. Cd Red had to ask Bioware for a small desk at their booth in 2004, at E3. They had a poster and a PC to show the game. There wasnt much money. Not contesting that W1 is made with a lower amount of money. What i found weird is how John singles out, multiple times, PC games in particular, when frankly, during the ps2 era especially, PC games were so much more advanced that it doesnt make sense. A lot of people have fond memories about ps2 as a platform preciselly because of the deluge of mid tier games that were wilder than the usual mold of AAA releases.

I don't think John is picking on pc gaming or that he has something with them. I just find it weird that he associates the platform in the time where it had the most advanced games with something low tier. And that impression he had back in 2004, about Doom 3 where he was surprised that it reaches console levels. He explicitely wrote that he didnt expect that.

You look at a recap of E3 2002 and Doom 3 conquered the entire expo that year. The most unreal and shocking visuals anyone had ever seen. The polish and high quality of the game radiated since reveal until release. It was one of the most hyped games ever at the time. You look at how ps2 games looked at the time, how they felt, how they played and to think something like Doom 3 is bellow. It was just something unusual to read as an opinion when the game was this gigantic release at the bleeding edge of tech

E3 2002 - E3 Guide - IGN

E3 2002 belonged to one game and one game only -- DOOM 3 from id Software. There had been lots of rumblings about id releasing a new Doom game with a new and

www.ign.com

 

[techuse]

The Witcher 1 is for sure a lower budget game, yeah. Cd Red had to ask Bioware for a small desk at their booth in 2004, at E3. They had a poster and a PC to show the game. There wasnt much money. Not contesting that W1 is made with a lower amount of money. What i found weird is how John singles out, multiple times, PC games in particular, when frankly, during the ps2 era especially, PC games were so much more advanced that it doesnt make sense. A lot of people have fond memories about ps2 as a platform preciselly because of the deluge of mid tier games that were wilder than the usual mold of AAA releases.

I don't think John is picking on pc gaming or that he has something with them. I just find it weird that he associates the platform in the time where it had the most advanced games with something low tier. And that impression he had back in 2004, about Doom 3 where he was surprised that it reaches console levels. He explicitely wrote that he didnt expect that.

You look at a recap of E3 2002 and Doom 3 conquered the entire expo that year. The most unreal and shocking visuals anyone had ever seen. The polish and high quality of the game radiated since reveal until release. It was one of the most hyped games ever at the time. You look at how ps2 games looked at the time, how they felt, how they played and to think something like Doom 3 is bellow. It was just something unusual to read as an opinion when the game was this gigantic release at the bleeding edge of tech

E3 2002 - E3 Guide - IGN

E3 2002 belonged to one game and one game only -- DOOM 3 from id Software. There had been lots of rumblings about id releasing a new Doom game with a new and

www.ign.com

It had the most advanced games but they typically had poor animation/modeling and overall art design. They also had clunky controls and lacked polish. The jank was very real.

 

[Nesh]

I wasnt a fan of PC games of that era. I would say that they were dictated mostly by first person shooters, third person shooters with weird controls and western RPGs/Adventure games. And those RPGs mostly lacked personality and character. You felt that you were fiddling with programmed mechanics instead of a game with characters and an engaging story.
Overall they lacked immersion.

With a console game you could get in immediately, start playing and organically learn the deeper mechanics. With PC games its as if I had to study how the programmers intended me to play the game.
I would say console games had the legacy of Super Mario Bros. And the reason I mention Super Mario Bros, it is because it had set a profound standard in videogame design, where the game's first level, without you even knowing, is moving you through a tutorial and immediately the game feels familiar. Console games used to give depth through minimalism. Making the best out of simple controls. Whereas depth in PC games was built through complexity.

Games that come to mind using this genius game design, were MGS1 and MGS2, Klonoa and Devil May Cry. This is one of the reason's why I couldnt enjoy Splinter Cel as much as I did the MGS series. Splinter Cell's design was built around the paradigm left from PC gaming. With MGS, characters and the story felt one with the game, mechanics were simple but gave a huge range of choices. Splinter Cell's story and character felt like an excuse for a game to exist with more complexity built into the controls.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And Ratchet and Clank or Resident Evil are supposed to be highlights next to Morrowind or Warcraft 3 ?

Highlight of this recent technical discussion. Remind me, what are the IEEE units of measurement being applied here to compare jankiness? I still use 'jank per cubic inch times star sign' (that's Troy jank, not avoirdupois) and find it hard to convert to the scientific measurements being aplied here to compare Morrowind, an open world game, to Ratchet and Clank to prove superiority. Obviously I'm missing a trick because a number of people feel this is a sane and useful comparison to make in this technical discussion thread...

 

[Nesh]

I don't think thats true at all. There was far more jank coming from console games, not PC. Console games were not more refined or large scale. Since budgets for the biggest games were comparable between pc and consoles, it doesnt even make sense that PC games would be inferior. Nevermind the fact that they looked light years ahead of console games visually. Wing Commander 4 had a budget of 10 million back in 1996. Gears of War cost the same in 2006. Riven had a budget of 20 million in 1997. Thats the same budget both Uncharted 1 and 2 had, in 2009




And Ratchet and Clank or Resident Evil are supposed to be highlights next to Morrowind or Warcraft 3 ? Blizzard at this point in time in particular was probably the premiere gaming company in the industry, specifically because of the unparalleled polish and quality. None of the console examples you provided are ahead. In any way.

Battlefield 1942, Mafia, Neverwinter Nights, Dungeon Siege, No One Lives Forever 2, UT 2003, Age of Mythology, Soldier of Fortune 2, C&C Renegade and so on. There was zero console games on the market that could compare to UT 2003 or the scope of Battlefield or the polish of NOLF 2. Come on now.

Er.....Is it really worth comparing "costs" as a metric? We should better compare the same genres. Because I dont see how for example a fighting game like Virtua Fighter 3 which was fucking revolutionary back then at the Arcades could ever need the same budget for example as FF7.
Which btw was released in 1997 and had a "development budget estimated between $40,000,000 (equivalent to $68,000,000 in 2021) and $45,000,000 (equivalent to $76,000,000 in 2021)" which surpasses all the examples you mentioned on a much weaker hardware. Graphically and technically everything was better on VF3. So costs arent really a metric that can be used
I would say the consoles were technically more interesting because of how much and in how many ways old hardware were pushed to deliver.