Post by: blueman on June 23, 2003, 02:22:35 PM
well Thanks everybody bye
Post by: Zeth on June 23, 2003, 02:48:11 PM
Post by: jmoe316 on June 23, 2003, 02:49:54 PM
X-Box > GameCube > PS2
Post by: Grey Ninja on June 23, 2003, 03:39:17 PM
It's really that simple. I am sure that you really won't believe me as Xbox has higher numbers, and PS2 has the lowest numbers when you look at a spec sheet, but I really don't care. This whole argument is just retarded. Each system will perform about as well as the others if properly coded. In the real world, this manifests itself in playable form all the time. I can easily show games on each system that look as good as the best available on others.
END OF STORY.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on June 23, 2003, 04:07:04 PM
Every system can basically produce the same if effort is put in. Just take a look at Gran Turismo 3 on PS2. Just look at it! I'm yet to see an Xbox game compete with it. And Xbox is meant to be three times better -_-
Post by: aoi tsuki on June 23, 2003, 05:06:27 PM
PS2 could debatably push more polygons than the GC, but the GC can texture them much better. Xbox can use shaders and effects like bump mapping much easier than the other two, although it's a bit wasteful in graphics processing, whereas the GC's components are harmoniously matched. Add in things like surround sound, and the gap between the system widens. i forget the specifics as i've shyed away from specs, but i think when it comes to in-game graphical performance, there's a definite system hierarchy.
Post by: DRJ on June 23, 2003, 06:23:39 PM
Post by: BlkPaladin on June 23, 2003, 06:24:57 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on June 23, 2003, 09:15:39 PM
Post by: ReallyScrued on June 24, 2003, 08:12:41 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on June 24, 2003, 09:08:29 AM
Post by: evilnate on June 24, 2003, 09:23:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
It's useless debating specs- it's all up to the developer, some of which are better than others. Most people will tell you that the PS2 is the weakest, but look at games like Ico- incredibly good graphics. A lot of people will also tell you the XBox has the best graphics, and while it has the best specs, that doesn't mean all of it's games look better than all of the Gamecube or PS2's games. Basically, some games look REALLY good and some games look REALLY bad- it's up to the people making the game as to which of those categories one specific game will fall under- it has very little to do with which console it's on.
Agreed. When people talk about which console is more powerful than another, they're talking about "headroom". It's generally agreed that the X-Box has the most headroom, but that doesn't mean that we'll ever see a game that takes full advantage of what it can do. Look at the N64. It wasn't until very late in that systems life cycle that we started to see games that took better advantange of the hardware, such as "Rogue Squadron" and "Jet Force Gemeni". Even then I'm not sure that we ever saw what the system was fully capable of. Out of the current systems, I think that the PS2 is getting the most of it's hardware, simply because developers have been working on it for longer. I think the best way to judge a system is by the last high profile games that are released just before the next system. The next Zelda, Metroid Prime 2, and Mario 128 should give you a better idea of the 'Cube's full potential, just like Halo 2 and Doom 3 will give you a better idea of the Xbox's.
Post by: ReallyScrued on June 24, 2003, 02:07:23 PM
Post by: alvinaloy on June 24, 2003, 02:51:56 PM
QuoteXbox has 64 MB shared RAM, which means this RAM is utilised by the software, games, video, etc. But on the other hand, GC has 48 MB dedicated video RAM.
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
The XBox has slightly more RAM, which could equal more texture detail. Still not enough for the likes of UT2003, though.
But ya, discussing specs is pointless. So what if a system has great graphics but not as many great games. Do you buy a system just to look at the gfx? Or to play the game? If you want to have great gfx, stick with a computer.
Post by: mouse_clicker on June 24, 2003, 03:10:41 PM
Now that's a pretty careless thing to say- graphics matter more to a good game than many people (well, Nintendo fans) acknowledge. Many games' atmospheres and ambience would be completely lost if the graphics weren't very good, and graphics really are integral to a great game. Graphics are what draw you into the game and immerse you in it's world. I'm not going to say graphics are mare important than gameplay- not by a longshot- but to completely blow them off isn't smart.
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 24, 2003, 04:15:11 PM
But yes, games rather like Myst, as well as a few other genres, tend to require the best graphics possible.
Post by: Grey Ninja on June 24, 2003, 04:35:40 PM
Flipper bears little to no resemblance to a Radeon GPU, as ATI didn't buy ArtX until the GPU design was already taped out. Comparing Flipper to a Radeon is simply erroneous. However, since ArtX is behind the design of newer Radeons, there is a little bit of Flipper showing through, but it's still not much. Flipper != Radeon.
GameCube has no shaders, but the CPU is powerful enough to do such effects in software.
Most of the Xbox talk around here right now is correct though, as it's essentially a PC, and it's hard to screw that up. Comparing GameCube and PS2 to a PC is simply WRONG though. Don't do that.
Anyone who claims that they know which system is the most powerful and isn't a liscensed developer for all three systems is outright lying. That includes most people here.
I tend to believe people who make games for all the systems, such as Factor 5, who claimed that all 3 systems were about equal in power when it all came down to it. I tend to trust Factor 5 more than some guy on a forum with a keyboard and a spec sheet in front of them.
Now can we please quit discussing this? This very topic just annoys me.
Post by: kennyb27 on June 24, 2003, 04:41:22 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on June 24, 2003, 05:18:48 PM
Post by: Hemmorrhoid on June 25, 2003, 02:55:16 AM
You can really base this on developers work, take Starcraft Ghost for example, they said the Xbox version and GCN one will be almost identical, and the PS2 one will be cranked down a notch.
Post by: Bartman3010 on June 25, 2003, 03:15:24 AM
Beisdes, as its been stated a million times around here, specs mean diddly squat when it comes to getting a console.
Post by: egman on June 25, 2003, 04:56:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja
GameCube has no shaders, but the CPU is powerful enough to do such effects in software.
I thought the GC's TEV pipeline was essentially a pixel shader under a different name? As for vertex shading, it seems that the GC needs the CPU, though the cost appear to be minimal in games that have gone that route. Luigi's Mansion had a lot of moments where Gekko helped with the lighting, but the game runs consistently smooth (at least for a launch title).
Post by: KDR_11k on June 25, 2003, 07:46:20 AM
Grey Ninja: Thanks. Wasn't sure what ATI delivered there.
I'm not sure about the PS2's CPU being superior. In fact I've heard one cannot use vertex interpolation (i.e. skeletal animation only) because the PS2's handling of floating points is incredibly slow and it could not handle that many floating point operations (FLOPs, wasn't it?). To put that into perspective: Most older games (Quake 3 for example) use vertex interpolation exclusively and ran fine on P233 and older CPUs. Also the FPU was one of the aspects why Intel outperformed AMD for such a long time.
The fast shaders might be done by a good integration between GPU and CPU, which is one of the points where the PC(x86) tends to fail. I'm sure it would have a larger impact on an Xbox.
Noone forces you to use an existing API, but it makes things a lot easier. You can always go the low-level route.
Post by: mouse_clicker on June 25, 2003, 08:08:49 AM
No one is saying that JUST because a game has better graphics it's autmatically great- like I said, gameplay is still more important, but to have a truly great game all around good graphics are a necessity. I mean, which would you prefer- MGS with PSX quality graphics or the same exact game with Gamecube quality graphics (aka Twin Snakes). Konami had the gameplay down pat for MGS, and if you couple that with outstanding graphics you have one incredibly immersive game. But if the gameplay is lacking, the whole game is lacking- that's how important gameplay is.
Post by: Round Eye on June 25, 2003, 01:13:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bartman3010
You know, the PS2 and GC narent even 128 bits =) If I rmeember from specs, which I've heard from some (And I kinda trust them) that only the X Box was like 128 bits or something...or was it PS2?
Beisdes, as its been stated a million times around here, specs mean diddly squat when it comes to getting a console.
Bits of operation are not as important these days. Your proccesor achetecture, how fast your memory can be accessed, how quickly your video card card can talk to the main proccessor etc. are more important. The more operations you can run per second the less it matters how many bits of info per operation.
Not like the old days where the proccessors where all running at basically the same speed, and if you double the bits then you would double the speed of operations.
Anyways who cares about graphics, its all about the gameplay.
Post by: mouse_clicker on June 25, 2003, 01:46:13 PM
"Anyways who cares about graphics, its all about the gameplay."
Have you read *anything* I've said, or do you just naturally skip my posts?
Post by: The Matrixter on June 25, 2003, 05:11:50 PM
Post by: The Matrixter on June 25, 2003, 05:15:29 PM
http://www.us.playstation.com/hardware/PS2/SCPH-30001.asp
http://www.nintendo.com/systems/gcn/specifications.jsp
Look, I think this should I at least give you some ideas...........................
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 25, 2003, 05:20:46 PM
Post by: HolyPaladin on June 26, 2003, 06:07:07 AM
All BS and figures asside, looking at the end results you see on the screen, there is not much difference between what Xbox is capable of and what GCN can do. People like to throw PS2 in there as being close, too, but it isn't. The main problem with proving that is that most developers develop first for PS2 and then port to Xbox, GCN, or both as an afterthought without any real significant improvement. That leaves you with something looking much the same across all three, in spite of the fact that GCN and Xbox can do way more. Developers push PS2 to its limits, but rarely do near as much as they can with GCN or Xbox.
Realistically, all specifications sheets and whatever asside, it probably comes out like this: If you had some sort of measuring scale with which to measure the graphics they can put onto your television screen, with this scale going from 1 to 10 and having Xbox as 10, the chart might look like this:
Xbox 10
GCN 9
PS2 7
Post by: mouse_clicker on June 26, 2003, 09:12:20 AM
Holy: Except that an XBox game could be a 7 on that scale of 10 while a PS2 game could get a 9 because it's developer knows the system better. It's pointless to rate systems' graphics because it's the developer that's the one who decides how good the graphics are. And no one will EVER push a system to it's limits- we'll move into the next generation before any of the 3 major systems get maxed out.
Post by: Shadow Fox on December 23, 2003, 05:15:33 AM
QuoteActually OpenGL is the primary tool most GCN devvers use for porting over Maya/3DS Max models to GCN in low-level, realworld polygonal models. This much is in the very Factor 5 interview on the Rogue Leader disc, and there's much more about OpenGL manipulating Flipper LSI at warioworld.com.
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja
*sigh* Unless someone can prove to me that GameCube uses OpenGL, I will call you a bloody liar. (or uninformed) As far as I know, GameCube uses its own proprietary API, PS2 makes you program your own API, and Xbox gives you DirectX. I seriously don't know how this OpenGL talk got started, as I have only heard it around here.
In fact, Codewarrior specifically created it's own compiler for GCN use via Direct X 8, so even Xbox code can be ported easily to GCN, creating shaders and the like on-the-fly.
QuoteExactly. Finally someone here knows the difference between ex-Silicon Graphics work, and a low-end, consumer-based GPU.
Flipper bears little to no resemblance to a Radeon GPU, as ATI didn't buy ArtX until the GPU design was already taped out. Comparing Flipper to a Radeon is simply erroneous. However, since ArtX is behind the design of newer Radeons, there is a little bit of Flipper showing through, but it's still not much. Flipper != Radeon.
QuoteThat, and Flipper LSI is not completely fixed function, as there is direct coding if of the API, and some direct effects (such as vertex shaders) already pre-recorded in newer GCN dev-kits. Factor 5 has also mentioned several hardware shaders developed in Flipper LSI for Rogue Leader- doing things previously thought to be possible only on Xbox and PC's capable of running Aquanox at full power.
GameCube has no shaders, but the CPU is powerful enough to do such effects in software.
QuoteXbox is a PC in that it bears the same horrible 133mhz front-side bus that PC's were plagued with for years versus quicker Macs, plus the HUGE bottlenecks with the 1GB/sec CPU to GPU bandwidth, 10GB/sec texture bandwidth vs only 6.4GB/sec to pull them from main memory, the cost of 16MB of that 64MB of RAM just to create a damn Z-buffer, and several other nuances.
Most of the Xbox talk around here right now is correct though, as it's essentially a PC, and it's hard to screw that up. Comparing GameCube and PS2 to a PC is simply WRONG though. Don't do that.
The only commendation that I see in Xbox is it's vastly superior DSP- there is no other console audio chip like it, let alone many consoles out there with a Dedicated audio chip with AC3 digital encoding. GCN can come close in the number of 3D voices (128 realworld, according to Factor 5), but the difference between analog and digital is no comparison.
The harddrive is great, but as we've noticed, not too many developers have used it creatively as a GAMING utility. Imagine what Nintendo or Sega would have done with this type of advantage...it's sad to see Microsoft not jumping the gun of creativity yet until it's too late (PS2 HD/PSX/PS3/GCN2).
QuoteRead my mind. Exactly what I've been saying for what- 2 years now? I like this guy...
Anyone who claims that they know which system is the most powerful and isn't a liscensed developer for all three systems is outright lying. That includes most people here.
I tend to believe people who make games for all the systems, such as Factor 5, who claimed that all 3 systems were about equal in power when it all came down to it. I tend to trust Factor 5 more than some guy on a forum with a keyboard and a spec sheet in front of them.
Now can we please quit discussing this? This very topic just annoys me.
Sorry about bringing the topic back up, but there were some things I needed to clear up in the first quote about Flipper LSI's true abilities. Let me tell it; I think the thing sets records for being the most powerful graphics subsystem to do realtime T&L, PLUS be an audio and I/O chip all-in-one...
Now will somebody please stalk Microsoft until they give me the goods on what they're REALWORLD polygon performance specs are?
-Official Ninja of PGC
Post by: Renny on December 23, 2003, 07:18:07 AM
Post by: bubba23 on December 23, 2003, 08:44:11 AM
Post by: nolimit19 on December 23, 2003, 11:23:23 AM
Post by: Shadow Fox on December 23, 2003, 01:10:41 PM
One would think with the SNES vs Genesis mentality that PS2 was the most powerful console graphically...how weird technology has become...
-Official Ninja of PGC
Post by: Rellik on December 23, 2003, 01:13:07 PM
And to whoever said that DirectX was easier than OpenGL...
Post by: Grey Ninja on December 23, 2003, 01:35:53 PM
Shadow Fox, it's very nice to have you here. I am personally very sick of arguing with people who don't seem to get that there is more to creating power than clock speed alone. I know that you are probably more knowledgable with the hardware than I am, as I am a programmer dominated by the software, so I am going to step aside for you. If you would like to educate people, that's fine with me. I'll back you up. But I don't really wish to fight this anymore myself.
But I will have to look into that OpenGL stuff you mentioned. I don't look at the official dev tools, but I will try to read about what is in them from 2nd hand information.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 23, 2003, 02:06:31 PM
Post by: Selochin on December 24, 2003, 09:36:18 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 24, 2003, 11:24:37 AM
Sorry about that. It could be, actually, but I don't think it is. Moral of the story is don't believe everything that you read.
Post by: Grey Ninja on December 24, 2003, 01:41:22 PM
Athlon 64 just came out a few months back right? You know what's so special about it? It's 64 bit. The problem is that the only OS that is made for a native 64 bit CPU right now is Linux, so Microsoft is scurrying like a swarm of cockroaches to prepare a 64 bit version of Windows XP.
Now. The Xbox uses a variant of a 733MHz Celeron processor. If it was 256 bit, why would the Athlon 64 be such a big deal?
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 24, 2003, 01:56:55 PM
Quote
he problem is that the only OS that is made for a native 64 bit CPU right now is Linux, so Microsoft is scurrying like a swarm of cockroaches to prepare a 64 bit version of Windows XP.
Hahaha, that's hilarious!
Post by: DrZoidberg on December 24, 2003, 02:15:08 PM
which console has the best wire colour, now that's a debate we should move into.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 24, 2003, 02:16:42 PM
Post by: DrZoidberg on December 24, 2003, 02:18:55 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 24, 2003, 02:25:47 PM
They plan on having the PS3 be a permanently online console and combining the processing power from all the consoles to run your games, which you will download.
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 24, 2003, 02:36:21 PM
Post by: Shadow Fox on December 24, 2003, 06:01:13 PM
QuoteI believe this guy is talking about the Xbox GPU being 256-bit, in which he's slightly correct- both the GCN and Xbox graphics engines are 256-bit, but the actual GPU's themselves are 128-bit cores.
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja
I assure you it's not. I don't know how to explain this without using too many technical terms, so I will just say this.
Athlon 64 just came out a few months back right? You know what's so special about it? It's 64 bit. The problem is that the only OS that is made for a native 64 bit CPU right now is Linux, so Microsoft is scurrying like a swarm of cockroaches to prepare a 64 bit version of Windows XP.
Now. The Xbox uses a variant of a 733MHz Celeron processor. If it was 256 bit, why would the Athlon 64 be such a big deal?
So, 128-bit graphics, 32-bit/64-bit console...confusing, no?
-Official Ninja of PGC
Post by: Grey Ninja on December 24, 2003, 06:50:17 PM
Post by: Renny on December 24, 2003, 09:53:05 PM
Post by: ThePerm on December 25, 2003, 07:13:40 PM
Post by: thUnd3Rm0nk3y on December 27, 2003, 10:35:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja
GameCube has no shaders, but the CPU is powerful enough to do such effects in software.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the TEV confirmed to be a color combiner? And a pixel-shader is just a cute name for a color combiner.
There was a thread at the Beyond3d forums about the GCN's TEV with a dev getting pretty close to breaking some NDA's and revealing some sexy info about the GCN.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1603&highlight=tev
Post by: manunited4eva22 on December 27, 2003, 10:42:37 AM
As for the Athlon 64 mess and all, There is proof, as well as intel stating, that they have an x86-64 variant already ready (it's built into the next Processor, Prescott, which is due in Feb) so if Intel wasn't involved in the delay with microsoft and windows xp 64 bit edition, then microsoft is unusually slow, even for themselves.
Post by: KatanaBladeX on December 27, 2003, 11:19:11 AM
However, PS2 can mass more polygons (see ratchet and clank) and Xbox has superior sound (Dolby 5.1 in game).
But just play the games.
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on December 27, 2003, 02:57:06 PM
I agree with Grey Ninja. Specs tend to be...misleading. I mean, truly, PS2's graphics engine is the worst, but I don't think I'm the only one who's checked out FFX. It exceeds anything I've seen on the GC (no offense, Ninty, ur still my fave), and matches up with Xbox's beautiful Ninja Gaiden. Think about it. Good programmers can turn a sucky console into an okay console. It averages out. Of course, bad programmers can turn a sucky console into a suckiER console, but let's not get into that.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 27, 2003, 07:54:49 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 27, 2003, 08:01:16 PM
Post by: Shadow Fox on December 27, 2003, 09:10:41 PM
QuoteSuper-ditto.
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
In my opinion, Resident Evil 4 blows everything else at out the water. And technically speaking, Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike do, too. FFX looked great at the time, but it's been surpassed. Halo looked very comparable and in my opinion Metroid Prime looked better. Ninja Gaiden certainly looks great, but I think Halo 2 looks better, and that's using less polygons. Like I said, though, Resident Evil 4 is just leagues ahead of everything else- it looks much better than REmake or RE:0, in my opinion, and it's all realtime.
And to KitanaBladeX, PS2 cannot push more polys than GCN, as it's theoretical peak is 66 million polys per second with no light and gouraud shading. GCN's LSI is capable of 90 million polys per second with 1 light and gourald.
Plus, Ratchet and Clank MAY surpass 10 million polys/sec, while a GCN game surpassed this AT LAUNCH- often at 60 frames per second, to-boot.
Let's just put it this way: PS2 and GCN/Xbox are leagues apart- if not for the major inclusion of a GPU in the newer consoles as opposed to Sony, along with many other effects (hardware multitexturing/lighting/shadowing/etc).
It's kind of hard to say a non-T&L graphics engine melded into a CPU is in any way superior to a true GPU with loosely fixed and programmable T&L engines.
The PS2 does have the best realworld fillrate, but what's 1Gtexel/sec if you're only running the core at RISC 297mhz and downright laughable texture-read bandwidth?
In my own way, I kinda wish PS2 had flopped, so developers wouldn't be wasting more time fighting the damn thing with code, and instead produce more quality games on Xbox/GCN.
Just think...how many titles could Capcom have completed in the time it took to complete Onimusha, or Square with FFX?
-Official Ninja of PGC
Post by: Uglydot on December 28, 2003, 03:20:32 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 28, 2003, 12:25:38 PM
BUT IT CAPTURES HI-REZ VIDEO LIKE REBECCA CHAMBERS HAS *NICE* SHORTS.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 29, 2003, 09:15:23 AM
Post by: Saturn2888 on January 19, 2004, 07:42:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I'm not sure, but I think both the XB and GC are based on OGL1.x GPUs. The GF3/4 can only go up to OGL1.3, while ATI's r200 can do OGL1.4 (I think those are the PC equivalents of the XB's and GC's GPUs). Although I've heard the opposite I'm quite confident the GC can do pixel shaders (up to PS1.4), as the water in Super Mario Sunshine seems to use refraction shaders (looks a lot like the corresponding benchmark in 3DMark 2001). The XBox has slightly more RAM, which could equal more texture detail. Still not enough for the likes of UT2003, though.
Umm... ??? ATi didn't dev. the GCN hardware, it was ArtX who got cornered by ATi and bought out. Dude, the R200 is probably not on the GCN hardware and if u didn't know, GCN prob. doesn't use OGL either and Microsoft would use DirectX8.1 on the XBox not OpenGL bc Microsoft wants more money for their DX8.1 API which is widely avalible comparing to DX9
Post by: KDR_11k on January 19, 2004, 08:09:39 AM
Post by: Chode2234 on January 19, 2004, 08:11:59 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 19, 2004, 11:30:45 AM
Post by: Shadow Fox on January 20, 2004, 01:52:57 AM
QuoteBoth GCN and Xbox readily have DX8 AND OpenGL sdk's, and they are primarily used during third-party frontends for importing dynamic models and such.
Originally posted by: Saturn2888Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I'm not sure, but I think both the XB and GC are based on OGL1.x GPUs. The GF3/4 can only go up to OGL1.3, while ATI's r200 can do OGL1.4 (I think those are the PC equivalents of the XB's and GC's GPUs). Although I've heard the opposite I'm quite confident the GC can do pixel shaders (up to PS1.4), as the water in Super Mario Sunshine seems to use refraction shaders (looks a lot like the corresponding benchmark in 3DMark 2001). The XBox has slightly more RAM, which could equal more texture detail. Still not enough for the likes of UT2003, though.
Umm... ??? ATi didn't dev. the GCN hardware, it was ArtX who got cornered by ATi and bought out. Dude, the R200 is probably not on the GCN hardware and if u didn't know, GCN prob. doesn't use OGL either and Microsoft would use DirectX8.1 on the XBox not OpenGL bc Microsoft wants more money for their DX8.1 API which is widely avalible comparing to DX9
GCN's DirectX8 support stems from its Codewarrior ISA and several programmable features herein, and OpenGL 1.1 and later can directly manipulate the Xbox programmble T&L units.
-Official Ninja of PGC
Post by: AMac2002 on January 20, 2004, 12:04:14 PM
Xbox: Xbox is best, then Gamecube, then Ps2
Gamecube: PS2 is worst, then Gamecube, then Xbox, but the difference isn't noticeable between those two
PS2: Graphics dont matter
Post by: VoodooMerlin on January 20, 2004, 01:31:10 PM
If you took an informal poll, most people would agree that the PS2 is the weakest system. Sure.......check out Jak n Daxter or FF10. Not so weak after all.
There are game developers out there that can't do jack with the most powerful hardware and then there are developers that can work magic with less powerful hardware. It all comes down to the skill of the individual developer.
I like the PS2 answer "graphics don't matter". To a certain point, okay, but how many times have I heard THAT over the years? I've played a lot of video games and while I appreciate a good story as much as the next guy, even after playing 12 hours a day every day, I'm still a graphics whore.
Post by: Renny on January 20, 2004, 02:25:25 PM
Post by: SearanoX on January 20, 2004, 02:28:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VoodooMerlin
If you took an informal poll, most people would agree that the PS2 is the weakest system. Sure.......check out Jak n Daxter or FF10. Not so weak after all.
Funny thing...Final Fantasy games use uberly high-poly models for all of the up-close in-game cinematics. The gameplay stuff isn't anywhere near as good as that - characters have mitten-hands and relatively low-res textures. Sure it's stressing the limits of the system, but if it weren't for the effects that Squeenix has amazing control over, it would be little more than average.
Post by: mouse_clicker on January 20, 2004, 04:21:05 PM
