Arcana Heart

[Tails]

Anyone know if this PS2 game works on the PS3?

[Seahawk]

PS3 Slim = NO

All other PS3 models = Yes, with varying degrees of compatibility. Game will only work if the regions on the system and disk match.

[Tails]

Mine says PS3, instead of playstation 3, is that the flat?

[Seahawk]

PS3:
http://www.freewebs.com/feminho/sony_playstation_3.jpg
PS3 Slim:
http://stickfly.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/PS3Slim.jpg

Sounds like a slim one.

[Tails]

Yeah got the slim.. damn it.. no way to fix it?

[yoshi_star10]

Sad, i didnt really know there were different looks to them, i know there are different amounts of memory in different ones but i though they were all the same, i know the ones with the highest memory have the backwards compatibility with ps2 and 1, ours just works with 1

[Dudebro]

PS3 Slim = NO

All other PS3 models = Yes, with varying degrees of compatibility. Game will only work if the regions on the system and disk match.
I heard that backwards compatibility is actually very rare in the newer model PS3s(slim or not). I remember people rushing out to buy a certain model before it was discontinued because it was supposedly the last model to support it.

[Seahawk]

Yeah got the slim.. damn it.. no way to fix it?

Nope, unless Sony does something about it.

I heard that backwards compatibility is actually very rare in the newer model PS3s(slim or not). I remember people rushing out to buy a certain model before it was discontinued because it was supposedly the last model to support it.

I think you are confused.

PS3 slim has no backwards compatibility at all.
Early PS3 units had the PS2's Graphics Syntesizer and Emotion Engine built into the hardware, so emulation was 100%. Updates allowed the PS3 to do upscaling and progressive scan on PS2 games.

Later PS3s (fat ones before slim) had PS2 components removed from their boards. PS2 emulation was done in software. My friend has one of these, emulation is pretty good.

And yes, when Sony announced it was cutting PS2 emulation, people did rush out to buy them before they went out of stock. My friend was one of them =P.

[Dudebro]

So how am I confused? You say the emulation is pretty good and completely absent from the slim, doesn't sound like it's reliable at all to me.

[Seahawk]

So how am I confused? You say the emulation is pretty good and completely absent from the slim, doesn't sound like it's reliable at all to me.

Well, I meant you just said "very rare" in newer models, when it is only the slim model that does not have it at all. All fat PS3 models have it, whether its in hardware or software.

In my opinion the software emulation is not bad at all, on my friends PS3 we haven't run into any issues with playing PS2 games on it, in fact it is better because you can play them at 720p resolutions.

[Dudebro]

I take back saying very rare then. I only said it because everything I've read or heard implies PS2 emulation is a crapshoot at best and non existent at worst.

Is there a known list of PS2 games that work on PS3 or do the customers have to buy it and see what happens?

[Seahawk]

I take back saying very rare then. I only said it because everything I've read or heard implies PS2 emulation is a crapshoot at best and non existent at worst.

I think those reports are from other confused people who are confused about the different fat models having hardware or software emulation. Also some people take emulation too seriously and want nothing less than 100% emulation accuracy, so everything they say will be negative.

Is there a known list of PS2 games that work on PS3 or do the customers have to buy it and see what happens?

I know there were lists of this when Sony was doing all of the component shuffling around, but I don't know if they still exist. For the most part this is a moot issue because fat PS3s are no longer in production.
If you buy a used fat PS3 then likely you are buying it and seeing what happens. In any case this would be better than no emulation at all.

[Demon-Mask]

From what I know, only the earliest PS3s had PS2 and PS1 compatibility right out of the box. Otherwise you have to have custom firmware and a homebrew emulator for PS2 and PS1 on it, correct?

All I know, is that it was a pretty dumb thing for Sony to do, but at least it keeps the used PS2 game prices down.
When the Wii came out, used game prices for Gamecube games actually went up a bit because more people wanted Gamecube games than before.
If PS3s could still run PS2 games, more people would buy PS2 games, lowering the supply, and with an increased demand, prices would have to go up. Stupid Supply/Demand economics.:curse:

[Seahawk]

From what I know, only the earliest PS3s had PS2 and PS1 compatibility right out of the box. Otherwise you have to have custom firmware and a homebrew emulator for PS2 and PS1 on it, correct?

I guess I should summarize here.

ALL PS3s support PS1 games.
ALL FAT PS3s support PS2 games.

EARLY FAT PS3s had PS2 emulation in hardware.

LATER FAT PS3s had PS2 emulation in software, via an official firmware update from Sony. You do not need unofficial firmware or custom emulators to play PS2 games.

All I know, is that it was a pretty dumb thing for Sony to do, but at least it keeps the used PS2 game prices down.
When the Wii came out, used game prices for Gamecube games actually went up a bit because more people wanted Gamecube games than before.
If PS3s could still run PS2 games, more people would buy PS2 games, lowering the supply, and with an increased demand, prices would have to go up. Stupid Supply/Demand economics.:curse:

This was all probably does in a desperate attempt to reduce cost and increase PS3 sales. PS2 was still very strong at the time at launch, so selling both systems separately was more profitable.

Now though, PS2 is pretty much dying/dead, so Sony has shifted focus to selling PS3 stuff only. I'd guess that PS2 emulation is a pretty low priority, and will be less so as gamers move on from PS2.

[Demon-Mask]

Okay, thanks for the summary.
Makes a whole lot more sense now.

Thanks to their attempt to keep PS2 going strong then, I can buy cheap, used PS2 games.

[Dudebro]

I doubt everything I hear is from other confused people. Without a list of what works and what doesn't it's hard to tell if the PS2 emulation is reliable or not though. Either way it doesn't matter to me since I still own a PS2 and I don't own a PS3. Also the game in question looks like another relatively obscure anime title that probably wouldn't be supported anyways.

[Tails]

So no PS2 games work on slim? Heard .hack ones worked..

[Demon-Mask]

Maybe you heard that hacked PS3 slims can play PS2 games.

[Tails]

it was on wiki

[Dudebro]

You could just buy a used PS2. At least then you'll know for sure any PS2 game you get will work.

[Tails]

true, but that's 3 systems.

[Demon-Mask]

it was on wiki
You mean wikipedia?
Wow, it's not like I could go edit a page right this instant to say that Hitler was actually hired by the U.S. government to fake the Holocaust while American soldiers really just went in and shot all the Jewish people, and Paul McCartney is dead, and that Kennedy got assassinated by Fidel Castro.

[Dudebro]

Go and try it. We've gone through this before and you will look foolish if you claim wikipedia is unreliable like that.

[Demon-Mask]

I know, it is possible for me to do it, but the changes wouldn't stick all that well with all the people who have nothing better to do than to clean up wikipedia.

Plus there is the whole Subtle troll vs. Obvious troll thing.
Something like that would be an obvious troll, while saying that the slim model PS3 has some compatibility that it doesn't would be much more subtle.
Saying that just those games are compatible isn't all that likely to raise any red flags with the people that fix wikipedia all day, because there are some things that are harder to check up on.

Plus, I don't know how to screencap, so no one would be able to see that it was actually up for a few minutes even.:p

[Dudebro]

You don't have to be so negative about wiki or it's contributors. Many people see it as a great resource and they volunteer their time to help out. What's bad about that? Don't believe all the crap you hear about wiki, it's awesome. Yes some minor stuff slips through the cracks but that happens in books and other media too. People are just critical of wiki because it's high profile.

[Tails]

Why do you think I'm asking here DM? I'd trust word here more than Wiki, but it GIVES ME HOPE.

[Demon-Mask]

You don't have to be so negative about wiki or it's contributors. Many people see it as a great resource and they volunteer their time to help out. What's bad about that? Don't believe all the crap you hear about wiki, it's awesome. Yes some minor stuff slips through the cracks but that happens in books and other media too. People are just critical of wiki because it's high profile.
I actually like wikipedia, I just don't understand why someone would spend so much time on maintaining the site. It is a good thing that they do, and they are often given less credit than they deserve. There are some things I do fact check if I read it on wikipedia though, high-school teachers drill the idea that "wikipedia is pure crap" into your brain from day one.

Just like tails, I'd fact check something that could potentially end in me spending money on something that is a lie.

Other than that, if it doesn't seem off, then chances are it isn't off. I go with it most of the time.

[Dudebro]

I just don't understand why someone would spend so much time on maintaining the site
Who says any one person spends long hours maintaining it? From my understanding a new edit will send an alert and one of the wiki editors will see it. It's not like they're constantly refreshing pages looking for alterations. That being said that's my assumption of how it works, someone like Kong would know more about it.

Also teachers that condemn wiki outright are just being morons. They should be telling students to double check sources if it's being used for something important, which you should be doing anyways with or without wikipedia. It sounds like your teachers are either lying to make their job easier some how or they are just ignorant.

[Kugyince]

Wiki itself is not a creditable source nor in it's current form could ever be a creditable source. It's only academic use is through the citation of other sources which are creditable.

[Dudebro]

Yeah but doesn't being a resource that contains credible sources make it credible? If a source is bad you just ignore it. It's not like it's conservapedia or creationwiki, those are just straight up made up and/or heavily bias.

[Kugyince]

Yeah but doesn't being a resource that contains credible sources make it credible?

No, it doesn't.

[Dudebro]

I can accept that but do you agree it's not something to be dismissed as useless for academic research? I don't know of any other resource that's so all encompassing and alive(constant updates and editing).

[Kugyince]

I can accept that but do you agree it's not something to be dismissed as useless for academic research?

I don't think anyone's dismissing is outright. It certainly has it's uses. I think DM was overplaying it a bit.

[Demon-Mask]

Also teachers that condemn wiki outright are just being morons. They should be telling students to double check sources if it's being used for something important, which you should be doing anyways with or without wikipedia. It sounds like your teachers are either lying to make their job easier some how or they are just ignorant.
I know, just condemning something for the fact that it has the potential to be wrong, doesn't mean it is a bad source.
It has it's uses, and it normally cites where the information comes from, meaning you can always check the source of the information on there for it's credibility.
I do think the teachers are trying to make their jobs easier, because to check if wikipedia has correct information, you have to check a bunch of sources that are cited on the page.

[Kong]

Wikipedia has been proved to be more reliable than any other encyclopedia. If you can cite Britanica, then why not the more accurate, updated, thorough Wikipedia?

Answer, because the person doing the citing can also write the wikipedia article.

The Internet is the single greatest research tool ever invented. Search Engines are the best research tool on the Internet. Wikipedia is the second greatest.

But that is all it is, a great research tool. It is not an original source. You should use WP to find info, but do not cite it, find WP's source and cite that. Most WP articles list their sources so they do the work for you.

Your teachers are failing you if they tell you to not use or trust Wikipedia at all. Next time they tell you that ask if you can use the less reliable Britanica.