Disappointed In Ps2...???

[Living-In-Clip]

Originally posted by Bozco
Im sorry Quddus but your an idiot, graphics dont even matter, gameplay does, and if the PS2 was maxed it wouldnt matter cause better graphics never meant better games

If graphics don\'t matter at all - then why do you and others get so excited about GT3\'s graphics, when it is basically the same as GT2, \'cept better graphics?

Let`s just wait for the performance analyser II to come out , then we will see how maxed out games look like.

Originally posted by QuDDus


You know what your the idiot because this thread is not to debate the quality of software you fool...it asking would you be disappointed in the graphics on ps2 so far...This has nothing to with gameplay...if you don\'t understand the question then I will let this one slide..and forgive you...but if you did understand the question and still posted this comment your an idiot.

Damn it little *****, your the dumbass here who asked about being disappointed about graphics, when graphics dont even matter, how the **** am I an idiot, I know what you asked and I was telling you that graphics doesnt matter so your question is pointless

and L-I-C I didnt get excited about GT3 cause of the graphics, I got excited cause it was looking to be a great game which it is

graphics are important  nomatter how hard you try to find a loophole.  If graphics were not a issue than why di anybody bother to make a 16 bit system.  Graphics serve an important role it just isn\'t everything, which is what I have seen lately.

Staying on topic.  

I do not have console envy I just am tired of seeing x-box  fanboys talking about superior graphics (which it should have considering the launch date) and using that as proof of it going to win the console wars which really won\'t start for months.  When I first read this the first thought that came into my mind is that a little fanboy wanted to start a fight .  I was wrong but thats what it looked like to me at the time.

I am happy with the turnout of the PS2 thusfar because I got my PS2 late in febuary and already knew the hype was wrong so I accepted that and when I got my games I was not expecting "toy story graphics" or anything like that.  When I played them I played them to enjoy them and not just to gawk at the graphics.  Plus I diddn\'t buy any launch games

Originally posted by Phil
Plus I diddn\'t buy any launch games

yeah you did dumbass

[Living-In-Clip]

If you don\'t care about graphics at all, then go back to the Atari days. Some of those games clearly had more gameplay then the games now\'a\'days. If you don\'t care about graphics, then don\'t even bother with GT3, because it is just a graphical update of GT2 really . You can keep saying graphics don\'t matter, but they do. Otherwise, you would have no problem playing games that look like crap. You wouldn\'t whine and complain when a game has a framerate that drops below 60. The list goes on and on.

Also, there is no reason to go calling people names.
How many times do I have to say that?

HEY! I\'m just here for the incredibly fun games coming out and those that are out now...... All these games are fun.... I think that the graphics are not too important......

I feel that graphics concerns are best left to the PC gaming market. Because quite frankly if you want better graphics performance from a game, you (the consumer) can go buy a better video card (in theory).  With the Console market, you just take what the developer gives you.  

   I do appreciate the graphical acheivements of each coming generation, but can we also see more Innovative gameplay.  I\'m not disappointed in the PS2.

I\'ve been disappointed since the beginning.  Ever since DOA2 and DOA2 HC came out,  the DC version came out in February of 2000, the PS2 version in November.  People still can\'t decide which looks better!

MDK2.  The DC version was clearly superior in graphics. (More textures, less slowdown and clipping)

Tekken TT.  While it looks good, what\'s with the backgrounds?  SC came out a whole year earlier on a less powerful system and people can\'t decide which looks better.  I think SC was put together with a little more care, just my opinion.

Now I know that games like Devil May Cry, Jak and Dexter, ICO, Virtua Fighter 4, MGS2, and FFX will offer different experiences.  These games are worth a PS2.  The PS2 is slowly waking up, but I really don\'t see it doing any thing revolutionary.

About the GT3 maxed out thing..

Well there was an artical about that.. Yamauchi-san said that the graphics will improve in GT4..
He just said that the physics in GT3 will prob. be the same as in GT4. Cuz they are as real as they get or something..

And if you read the maxed out artical he never mentions GRAPHICS, just physics..

PS2 is not maxed out.
Wait for PA2... We\'ll prob. see a HUGE diffrance.

Remember GT1?
Well it was the first game ever made with Preformance Analyser 1... Look at GT1 and the games before it..

Hmm,

Well *if* that\'s true......

If all action games look like MGS2 and DMC... That\'s FINE by me!!:)

If all fighters look like DOA... That\'s FINE by me!!:)

If all racers look as good as GT3... That\'s FINE by me!!:)

Then again, I know there are better looking games coming for the PS2... J&d, BG: DA, SH2, FFX, WA3..etc, etc, etc,  No worries here:)

yes i am disapointed thus far but i think ps2 owners have much to look forward to...the best is yet to come.

Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
If you don\'t care about graphics at all, then go back to the Atari days. Some of those games clearly had more gameplay then the games now\'a\'days. If you don\'t care about graphics, then don\'t even bother with GT3, because it is just a graphical update of GT2 really . You can keep saying graphics don\'t matter, but they do. Otherwise, you would have no problem playing games that look like crap. You wouldn\'t whine and complain when a game has a framerate that drops below 60. The list goes on and on.

Also, there is no reason to go calling people names.
How many times do I have to say that?

No I dont care about graphics, the only reason I buy a new system is to get the new revolutionary games, and GT3 is an upgrade of GT2 if you ask me, yes the AI is better, not much but is better, and there are more races and everything, and have you ever seen ME whine about graphics looking like crap or framerate dropping below 60, NO you havent, cause i never have, so I have no idea why your saying that, and I\'ll call names if I damn well feel like it

[Living-In-Clip]

Originally posted by Bozco


No I dont care about graphics, the only reason I buy a new system is to get the new revolutionary games, and GT3 is an upgrade of GT2 if you ask me, yes the AI is better, not much but is better, and there are more races and everything, and have you ever seen ME whine about graphics looking like crap or framerate dropping below 60, NO you havent, cause i never have, so I have no idea why your saying that, and I\'ll call names if I damn well feel like it

The frame rate was just an example. GT3 is far from revolutionary.  Yes, you have complained about graphics like everyone else including myself, I am not goin\' to look for threads that.

As for the name calling - its called mutual respect. Learn it, man.
You may disagree with his opinion, but there is no valid reason for you to call him names.

Graphics are very important, just like music and sound, because they help build up the atmosphere in a games, especially action and adventure games.

Some games do not need amazing graphics, such as 2D platformers (a\' la Mario) and top-down RPG\'s (such as the early Zeldas)  

I will say my point again...£300 is a lot of money. If you pay that large amount of money for a system that can only produce the same graphics as a £100 system, and the same gameplay as previous generations, then that is pretty sad. Anyway, if you want the best gameplay around, go get a SNES for £15. Sorted.