RalliSport Challenge review!!1

oh so NOW you see the blur?  
further away from the camera and EVERYTHING past a few feet is very different my friend.

jaggies?  thats a console curse, im desensitized to them, but my Geforce returns me to reality

yeah, saturn was 399$, and i bought one day one

Yeah but the blur has to be there.  Everything cannot be crystal clear when seen from a mile away.  As you get closer to an object it increasingly becomes more detailed--this is real life I\'m talking about here.  The same thing happens in this game.

Again, I have to say you are the only one that says this.  Every other review has nothing negative to say about it, and no one on any forum anywhere else has mentioned this.  Maybe it\'s just you.

But again, why so picky with the xbox?  There are hundreds of graphical problems with PS2 titles. Bah!

That comment about the price was directed at ooseven\'s ridiculously flawed logic, and revisionist historical perspective.

picky with the xbox?

cause its "teh PS2 killer"

seriously, reviewers dont nit pick cause every review would be 4 pages long [they\'re lazy], and its hard to gives games 9\'s or 9.5\'s when blur and graphical shortcomings come to attention

im just a disgruntled gamer thats VERY hard to satisfy, thats all

two years in console marketing and development gets us blur?  no excuse

There are hundreds of graphical problems with PS2 titles. Bah!

two year older technology and hardware, thats to be expected
see my /me gets [insert game here] threads in the main forum
youll see my complaining about PS2 games left and right

Originally posted by mm
do we really need 5 pages of posts debating wether or not you see the blur?

Heh, why not, that debate lasted years when the N64 was concerned.  Alas, I think I lost my last pair of vaseline-smeared eyeglasses. :rolleyes:

-Eik

Originally posted by Watchdog


That comment about the price was directed at ooseven\'s ridiculously flawed logic, and revisionist historical perspective.

oh yeah i mean i realy must stop b"tching about that and just hand over the 51% price increase as well as 51% of my Soul to Bill Gates 666

:rolleyes:

i know i must hand over £300 alone for the console just to make some people in here happy

WRONG

i an\'t going to shell out that amount of  money on a console were i only HALF like 1 game (HALO) and even then i get motion sickness everytime i play it....

"something intresting happens and the frame rate drops and i lose my lunch"

not what i call Gaming FUN

Ive got a PS2 and an Xbox and I reckon you\'re being overly harsh on Halo ooseven........ its a fookin brilliant game

Originally posted by TheGeezer
Ive got a PS2 and an Xbox and I reckon you\'re being overly harsh on Halo ooseven........ its a fookin brilliant game

each to their own

i think its a great...apart from
frame rate problems and No online Gaming or Support.


infact if there was a few more titles like this then i would consider getting a Gates box

I didn\'t say anything about your yastes, just your baseless argument.

_____
frame rate problems and No online Gaming or Support.
_____


And how many PS2 games boast a perfect framerate and on line gaming?

Zero.

Yet another argument completely void of logic.

Well done.

That\'s not good enough, mm.  The PS2 was hyped just as much as the xbox.  Where is this emotion engine that can power thousands of unique individuals thta display realistic emotions (GTA3??!?) and huge, detailed environments?  Where is this machine that was supposed to be a security risk?

And reviewers didn\'t mention it because it\'s not a graphical shortcoming.  It\'s persepctive and I and everyone besides you thinks it\'s one of the best looking games ever.  And reviewers did nit pick pointing out that the mud looks terrible and the boundaries are too tight--they are not above looking for something negative to say.  And even if it was a graphical problem, the xbox still has the best image quality of any system.  And it\'s by a good margin too.

You can\'t pick on the xbox because it was hyped, because all systems have over-the-top marketing.

You completely dismiss xbox games for MINOR graphical problems, then herald a game like GTA3 as the best game evar!!  That\'s no good.  Games released for the xbox now do indeed look 2 years better than games released for the PS2 after the same time frame.  Not to mention better than games released for PS2 now.


And I\'m going to call you on it everytime.

but how can you compare 1999 hype to 2002 hype

technology gets half as small and doubles in speed every 18 months, no?

ico > rallisport when it comes to graphics

And how many PS2 games boast a perfect framerate and on line gaming?

tony hawk 3.  not bad for a three year old console, huh?

i dont really try to compare graphics between thr two.  the xbox should be more capable of beating PS2.  its not, though.  who do we blame, M$ or developers?  look at the sales charts.  xbox consoles and games sales are depressing.  only a fool would say the xbox cant beat the PS2 in graphics, but when will we see it?

Originally posted by mm

ico > rallisport when it comes to graphics

ICO has like a whole 4 textures...and it\'s got that blur thing going on sometimes.  You know, the one you say plagues the Xbox.

Originally posted by Rikku


ICO has like a whole 4 textures...and it\'s got that blur thing going on sometimes.  You know, the one you say plagues the Xbox.

THE SUMMARY !
---------------------
so i guess what your ALL saying is that (mm included)

ICO ...4 textures :rolleyes:


Kicks

Ralisports @ss ?

....not bad for a 3 year old console

No wonder the Japanese won\'t buy the Flop Box...

rikku, :rolleyes:

cant think of anything more witty at the moment
but that will suffice

but i see you didnt even contest that with its "4 textures and blur" still indeed beats rallisport

thank you, drive thru

mi thinks this all a bit silly really..... think Ill go get drunk instead, then things actually will be blurred

It\'s definatly the developers, not a technology flaw.

Trilinear filtering has been around ever since the TNT2 era, and was greatly improved upon during the GeForce 1/2 days. GF3 technology should be able to do Trilinear filtering with little to no performance hit, knowing it\'s a GPU, and that X-box got a PIII 733 under the hood.

I think it\'s evident that it isn\'t fair comparing PS2 to the X-box in terms of visuals. Again, your compairing 99-2001 technology, not a fair compairsen.

But, back in the day when we had those little N64 vs. PSX wars, that was bold, because Nintendo developed a console that had horrendous texture support and the majority of their games looked like ass needless to say (save the words on the more decent games) compared to PSX titles. There simply wasn\'t any excuse for subpar texture support when you have a 2 year edge over your competition.

Then, they go ahead and release a RAM pack, upping the texture memory from 4MB to 8MB. How innovative! Making up for their shortcomings almost 2 years later. You could say N64 got ownt by the PSX :rolleyes:

ICO is a game dependant on a limited color base and texture set.  The scope of space and gameplay is much smaller.  There are no physics, or high powered animation or numerous high poly objects.  

It looks good for what it is, but that\'s it.  It isn\'t the graphical powerhouse that RS is.