Um.. here\'s a point I think just about everyone missed out on. (After all, do you really expect me to read all that garbage?) What if a better way of doing AA comes out in the next few years? FSAA is good, but you do get some lost preformance since it essencially just blurs the screen so that the little jaggie lines aren\'t individually visable.
So what if, in two years, a new form of AA comes out that results in NO texture detail loss or at least has some better options than what FSAA can provide. The PS2, by not having AA done in Hardware, can impliment this new technique easily while the Xbox will stuggle to emulate it through software. This is why the PS2 is designed the way it is... flexibility. Not just for the programmers whim, but for the future. Yeah, it might be a pain in the neck now.. but todays folly could be tomorrows genious.
Now, not to say that Sony didn\'t **** up. I think a much better idea would have been to up the power just a bit and give the designers the option to use hardware effects if they want. However Sony dosen\'t think that way. They want the PS2 to be reveloutionary, and allowing developers to become lethargic in their design practices might have set a full understanding of the machine back a few years... and thus they\'d loose the advantage of time they have now before the NGC and Xbox launches.
Not only that but (to the best of my knowlage) Sony plans to keep the basic PS2 archetecture for use in the PS3 and possibly the PS4. By making developers learn the system now, they are teaching them how to program for the longterm future of the Playstation line.
Oh, and don\'t give me any crap about the textures. That horse has been beaten to death, and like AA.. some eliet games excell at textures while most others fail. The PS2 can do awesome textures.. much more than a meesely 4mb could possibly do by conventional thinking.. but it\'s all in the implimentation.
