PS2 Will Never Compete Graphically With Xbox...End of Story (56K Warning)!!!!

More like the never ending story. If the last six months have taught us anything it should be you can\'t judge system power based only on screen shots. Now that everyone will soon be able to see the real deal in action on actual TVS the only real purpose pics like these serve is to gauge things like ‘should I be interested in game X\' not ‘behold the graphical superiority of console X\'.  Since a couple of you characters still think screens like these weigh in as proof of something or other, I\'ll offer a few reactions to them.

I notice most of the shots are only of single figure in motion. Why are all those pics either dark, drab, or washed out, with nothing in between?  Fatson posts a beautiful brightly lit Outcast2 shot and it gets labeled weak. Talk about blatant fanboys, some of you xbox fans have that label tattooed on your foreheads.
 
We all obviously don\'t view screens with the same attitude so what was the point starting a thread like this again? To make yourself feel better because lately  xbox has disappointed some of those who have finally seen it running? Get used to it. Why bother trying to convince people that haven\'t been wowed by the xbox so far that one day they will be, it just makes the console look weaker, IMO.

MGS2 is/will be 2nd generation. A year has already passed for PS2, a year and a half for Japan. It doesn\'t matter when the graphics engine was built for it, it matters when it is released.

where does it say that from that date on this and that game is one generation ahead? It doesn\'t make sense. It might not be based on how many titles have been developed so far, but I really doubt it that the generations are determend on when the game is released. If so, please prove me wrong.

and GT3\'s textures suck, it\'s prowess is in it\'s precision cars and great lighting effects.

no, they might suck in comparasment to games soon available on other systems, but for PS2 at the moment, I wouldn\'t say that they suck. The cars are very detailed (check the textures on the rally cars), and so are landscapes (especially Tokyo) and buildings. Good textures == good variety and good quality. GT3 might lack them in a lot of stages, but seing that Tokyo stage (so does Rockymountains) looks good, I think developer Polyphony just got lazy towards the end and that time pressure was a factor aswell.

and GT3\'s textures suck, it\'s prowess is in it\'s precision cars and great lighting effects.

Would you say Ferrari\'s textures suck? Just curious, cause GT3 has better textures. I plopped both in to compare. GT3 doesn\'t have astounding textures, but they don\'t suck.

On topic, those graphics for the X-box look spectacular. Though if history repeats itself (IF) it won\'t affect the PS2. The most powerful system never wins the war remember? Oh well, either way, I will win the war.

/ dm /

Yes, I agree too, the PS2 can\'t match xbox graphically--those are stunning.  While I agree with the spirit of your post, I think you should go away because you are just a little troll that likes to show off xbox\'s pretty graphics and rub them in the faces of PS2 owners.  Really, you have no real reason to be here.

I think showing GT3 as a graphical showcase isn\'t a good idea because any current system can slap a shiny texture on a blocky object (that\'s what a car is) and make it look realistic.

Outcast is a better example, but I\'m not sure about it.  We know too little about that game to really say anything definite.  The newer games coming out for the system are a better indication.

I think showing GT3 as a graphical showcase isn\'t a good idea because any current system can slap a shiny texture on a blocky object (that\'s what a car is) and make it look realistic.

I am guessing that about 95% of a game is build out of "blocky objects" as you call them. GT3 has cars, SWAT: GST has walls. The only unblocky thing about FPS in comparasments to Racers are the humans. If racing games would be that simple, I think we would be seing far better stuff then we are now. BTW: I wasn\'t using GT3 as any showcase or anything, but about texture quality and how it has improved since launch. The PS2 biggest flaw (well it isn\'t, just hard to overcome) is the small VRAM, which more and more developers are slowly going around.

Oh dear God... a more powerful console can produce better graphics???  Someone grab the kids and run!  It\'s the end of the world!


*yawn*

Thank gawd PS2 has a large user-base to protect its future, because if it didn\'t, it would be already over.

Oh.. of course.  I mean, it doesn\'t matter that the system has great games and an amazing lineup on the near and far horizon, right?  No, that doesn\'t matter.  It\'s all about graphics.  

:rolleyes:

Everyone knows Xbox will have better graphics, I mean the machine is a full year a dn1/2 older then the PS2 anything less would be a complete failure

BUT I 150% disagree with you naive assanine statement that the PS2 could never comepte with Xbox graphics. If you actually took your head out of your rectum you would easily see that a few games already do compare graphically and this is before SOny\'s performance analyzer\'s and other tools become available.

You underesimate the little black box


I guess what is really up Direct-Xlads\' ass is the fact the PS2 is doing extremly well,


None the less its good to see some intersting games coming out for Xbox that are not ports from other machines,

When are these games scheduled for release. I\'m guessing late or mid 2002

Originally posted by datamage

Oh well, either way, I will win the war.

/ dm /

if history repeats itself...you will lose the war !!

Yeah ps2 is doomed!!!!!!!  GT3 graphic suck!!!!!!!!!!  Yeah whatever graphics don\'t win wars, games do.  Oh yeah befor e you judge ps2 graphics you might want to look at the VF4 ps2 trailer then come back and tell ps2 graphics suck.  Nice try........:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well I agree ps2 just can\'t touch xbox graphically. Only game that comes a little close is MGS2.

You guys under estimate the power of the black box

I do agree that Xbox games will always be better looking, but it will not be dwarfed in the way a few of you\'s deem it will.


Look at FFX, Drakan II and BG: DA those games are pretty sweet graphically and Outcast looks nice as well.

Figure on SOny\'s performance analyzer and a few other tools to make their debut in early 2002 and we will see another significant increase in the PS2 capabilities during gen 3 and 4

Also looking deeper into the PS2 tells me that its 3 processor main CPU has the ability to a few more things simulataneously then Xbox

Although Xbox\'s harddrive does offer it some intriguing extra\'s as well.

Xbox should get the majority of its power tapped easier and sooner then the PS2 obviously, so seeing these awesome XBox screens doesn\'t surprise me, but actually makes me wonder what took so long for this type of media to be shown to us.

I can\'t wait to get an Xbox.


but in all honesty its the GC that doesn\'t look so appealing

Originally posted by ddaryl
but in all honesty its the GC that doesn\'t look so appealing

D\'oh!  Right out of left field, too.

From the context I assume you mean graphically.  Well I know Res Evil 1 is a rehash, but you have to admit that it\'s pretty.



Click here for 28 RE1 (on GCN) screens

See?  GC can be visually appealing, too.

-Eik

Originally posted by Eiksirf


url]

See?  GC can be visually appealing, too.

-Eik

so you\'re admitting that the gamecube is not appealing in the graphical department?
good call.

Originally posted by lestat


so you\'re admitting that the gamecube is not appealing in the graphical department?
good call.

Uh, no, I\'m admitting that it is, as evidenced by the 28 screenshots I linked to.

Bad call.

-Eik

lestat, re-read his post? are dyslexic/blind?

Ddaryl, most likely, was talking about GC\'s graphics, and GRAPHICALLY, GC blows everything else I have seen with RS:II and RE1.

Quit being such a troll.


Eric Jacob