Tried Xbox yesterday...

[BizioEE]

Originally posted by seven
and if not MGS2, then definately Jak and Daxter.

I don\'t agree!

Originally posted by BizioEE


I don\'t agree!

ofcourse not..

We didnt expect anything else. :rolleyes:

[BizioEE]

Originally posted by fastson


ofcourse not..

We didnt expect anything else. :rolleyes:

we? who?...you:D

J&D is not so great in texturing...and I\'m not the only one who thinks so...

Jak and Daxter isn\'t really the graphical marvel that everyone makes it out to be.  It looks good, but it is not jaw-dropping, and no one I know walked by and gasped like they first saw it.  It\'s definitely fun (although there were too many jumping puzzles and Daxter was DAMN annoying), but I don\'t get all this graphical hype it gets.  Take away the draw distence and there is nothing revolutionary about it.

Originally posted by Watchdog
JTake away the draw distence and there is nothing revolutionary about it.

Just like any other game then?
I mean you take away one factor and it isnt really good anymore.

what game have you ever really made you stop and say damn and what not

i mean the graphics all look the same mostly now a days to me becuase its almost as though devs arent trying to out do each other as much and the only differences will be little details here and there

when i played halo i wasnt like wow look at those graphics - i just had fun playing the game

Fastson,

With all due respect, a lot of the textures in MGS2 just flat out sucked. Hell, when I got to the top of the \'Big Shell\' I thought I had crossed over to some Jet Set Radio dimension. They are definitely not horrible, but not great either.

Besides, Bizio was right. In terms of power and effects, the PS2 destroys the DC. I was merely talking about the quality/variety of textures and resolution/image quality. I guess you can say this is all IMO.

[Bobs_Hardware]

Originally posted by Watchdog
Jak and Daxter isn\'t really the graphical marvel that everyone makes it out to be.  It looks good, but it is not jaw-dropping, and no one I know walked by and gasped like they first saw it.  It\'s definitely fun (although there were too many jumping puzzles and Daxter was DAMN annoying), but I don\'t get all this graphical hype it gets.  Take away the draw distence and there is nothing revolutionary about it.

my jaw literally dropped..

the textures, and image quality, are as good as almost any other game i have ever seen, it is sharp, clear, and locked in at 60fps, animations are supurb, and sometimes i was actually sitting there thinking "this looks just like a CG movie" (albeit when the camera was zoomed out a bit)

take into account that the draw distance is NIL, and it is my personal pic for best graphics on PS2 and more than competes with any other game i have ever seen

IMO i guess  

and its not the draw distance that is revolutionary, the draw distance is just the graphical marvel that comes with the realisation of the COMPLETE world, renderred at any one time

and it is a far better system than "warp >>> level >>> warp back"

I just don\'t see it, the textures aren\'t that great really, just brightly coloured.  Lighting is nothing extraordinary either.  The characters are nicely rendered though.  The cut scenes are pretty bad as far as cut scenes go.  When you get elevated and can see larges expanses of a level, that is great, but really there is nothing else.

[Bobs_Hardware]

Originally posted by Watchdog
I just don\'t see it, the textures aren\'t that great really, just brightly coloured.  Lighting is nothing extraordinary either.  The characters are nicely rendered though.  The cut scenes are pretty bad as far as cut scenes go.  When you get elevated and can see larges expanses of a level, that is great, but really there is nothing else.

to each his own i guess  

Absolutely--and to clarify, it is by no means a bad looking title.  It also could be the fact that it\'s cartoonish and optimistic; I\'ll not hide the fact that I prefer "grittier" looking games.   I think it may also be the style of the graphics--like the game play, they didn\'t take any chances or innovate anything.  It\'s healthy portions of Crash, Sonic and Mario rolled into one which isn\'t a bad thing, but nothing noteworthy either.

[Bobs_Hardware]

but yunno.. just for the sake of arguement  :p

i just pretty much have to point out how great it does look  



you take into account the amount of detail and texture quality in this ONE ROOM, which, IMO competes with pretty much any other game (although it is a bad capture and the game looks 100x better in motion), THEN you take into account that the ENTIRE world is renderred with lots going on, plenty of animations and interactions.. you cant deny that whether or not it fits into your personal tastes, it is a great looking titles!

i just went to post a picture of the draw distance.. but.. it just.. says that all of them are Insider..    after i had just been looking at them..

/me waits for xbox zealot to point out lack of bump mapping

[BizioEE]

Originally posted by mm
/me waits for xbox zealot to point out lack of bump mapping

dear mm you can\'t have everything...PS2 is a good piece of hardware,but it\'s far to be the dream machine dev were waiting for...
This console is great in pushing polys,in physics and collision-system(if you don\'t waste power to add,for example,bump via software and other effects) but is really weak in texturing due to the lack of multi-pass-rendering,texture compression and Bumb via hardware!  This makes me a XBox zealot? PS2 Games prove this...after two years they can\'t beat DC in this department!

i restrict myself from geting invloved in hardware debates, so i guess i got nothing to add

plus its hard for me to say anything bad about the DC, my true console love.  to say it beats PS2 graphically is absurb tho.  imagine VF4 on a DC.  *shudder*