Irrational thought PS2 was "a pain in the butt"

Irrational Games never released a game on PlayStation 2, and this might be the reason why - the BioShock creator thought Sony's console was "a pain in the butt" to develop for.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
wat6342853d ago

I would have to disagree a bit there, as there are a ton of games on the ps2.

But then again, its crappy gpu might have stopped them there.

zootang2853d ago

Alot of people thought the PS3 was a pain in the butt.

rafaleon2853d ago (Edited 2853d ago )

And? Still a lot of people thinks PS3 sucks, so? I don't understand what you've tried to do in here putting PS3 in PS2 article.

zootang2853d ago


PS3 sucks!? You obviously don't own one.

raztad2853d ago

Pain in the butt =/= sucks.

I think he meant that PS2/PS3 are alike. Hard to develop for but with potential.

I have read developers stating PS3 is actually easier to develop for than the PS2.

skyblue142132852d ago (Edited 2852d ago )

Apparently ps3 console exclusives say otherwise, and not only talk the talk but walk the walk. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

About the article:
"Irrational" is the key word of this article, and the first word that comes to mind concerning this article. The huge ps2 game library alone refutes the claim that the ps2 was hard to develop for, because if the ps2 was so hard to develop for then why was there so many games developed for the console? When developing games every console or pc has development problems in one way or the other, what do you expect irrational games that developing games for various platforms will be easy?. Again the key word is "Irrational" of what I can think of to sum up this article.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2852d ago
MNicholas2852d ago (Edited 2852d ago )

has not played

God of War

gypsygib2852d ago (Edited 2852d ago )

It had good graphics, but like PS3, Sony could achieve the same or better graphics and design it to be more developer friendly.

PS3 has taken a huge hit this gen because MP still often looks worse despite the thing being more powerful. PS3 came out a year later, every game should look better, all they needed was a PC architecture with more ram and a better graphics card than 360, or just a better card. The thing did cost Sony over $800 to manufacture. Devs could have used primarily the same code for 360/PS3/PC and PS3s added power would automatically present itself graphically without added fuss and expsense.

Rai852853d ago

The PS2 was not meant to be shoved in the should make games on that...of course you get pain in the butt

xg-ei8ht2853d ago

Not Irrational, apparently - the team stuck to releasing PC games until the launch of BioShock on Xbox 360 in 2007.



All_4_One2853d ago

Well, you missed out on reaching out to the biggest fanbase of any console, ever. How stupid of you. It`s not like I care, I played well over 150 amazing PS2 games and didn`t miss you one bit :)

BabyTownFrolics2852d ago

sounds like you took that personally

i really dont understand the visceral attachment people make to consoles

Shaman2853d ago

PS2 was DEFINITELY the hardest platform to develop for.Its gpu was such a crap that it was almost indescribable,it did not even have vertex units,all that work was done on VUs from EE.Harder to develop than ps3,definitely.

DigitalAnalog2853d ago

And yet we hear more complaints of developing on the PS3 then it was on the PS2.

-End statement

Godmars2902853d ago

It was the most popular platform for its time by a wide margin. To say in hindsight you couldn't be bothered to make a game for it, especially when you also weren't touching the other consoles, were only known for making a FPS which are in no way common today, does not make you sound smart.

Show all comments (28)