reasons why ps2 is at the top of my list 1080iHD a very large color palete and the ability to save pictures to a flash drive like these
This topic is locked from further discussion.
The Cube was second as far as power.The X-box was more powerful as far as raw power but it was not like huge leaps ahead but still ahead.Yes they did do some great stuff with the cube though and the metroid prime games still look impressive to me to this day.fubbal
The only thing Xbox had going for it was the nVidia-based GPU it used. Back then one could argue that ATi had the better graphics hardware anyway. As far as raw power goes though, the nVidia GPU had the edge. The CPU though based on the Pentium III was a piece of crap. The Gamecube's processor, based on PowerPC 4, was far superior to the PIII.
Xbox was superior:
enterawesome
Sure those still images and the one render look great. But Halo 2 had the most horrible LOD and texture popup I have ever seen in a game.
Yeah but only Gamecube games look good on a High Def TV now. I own all three. The Gamecube games look fantastic, the Xbox looks good, but alot of the games I own for it, look awful on the Tv (Looking at you Riddick) The worst though is the PS2. The jaggies on the games make them look just awful, I have yet find one PS2 game that looks decent on the TV. But all the Cube games, look excellent. Hell my Nintendo Wii is running 480p cables right now, and the Cube still looks better.not dissin the gamecube but xbox was the best in just about every hardware area
JuanGrande386
[QUOTE="fubbal"]The Cube was second as far as power.The X-box was more powerful as far as raw power but it was not like huge leaps ahead but still ahead.Yes they did do some great stuff with the cube though and the metroid prime games still look impressive to me to this day.Spindoc_SEI
The only thing Xbox had going for it was the nVidia-based GPU it used. Back then one could argue that ATi had the better graphics hardware anyway. As far as raw power goes though, the nVidia GPU had the edge. The CPU though based on the Pentium III was a piece of crap. The Gamecube's processor, based on PowerPC 4, was far superior to the PIII.
Xbox was superior:
enterawesome
Sure those still images and the one render look great. But Halo 2 had the most horrible LOD and texture popup I have ever seen in a game.
Thank you!!! Somebody for once finally thinks the same thing! You sir are my new friend!! LOLI'm not going to post pictures, but Shadow of the Colossus, FFXII, and Burnout 3 are just a few of the stunning PS2 games that blow your nominations out of the water.
[QUOTE="Spindoc_SEI"]I did play Ninja Gaiden and I own Forza Motorsport. While both look great in their own right, but none of them are as aesthetically pleasing as the Gamecube games I've played.That's mostly opinion on art direction or graphic style, not really a measurement of hardware power.Marfoo
That's one of the things to keep in mind. Artistic preference can't overshadow graphical prowess when considering the graphical quality. It's perfectly acceptable to prefer the graphics of Wind Waker, but there isn't really a debate that they don't require the graphical power behind games like Forza and Riddick. The debate herein is to the graphical power of the last-gen consoles. Now, if you wanted to discuss which system had the overall better art direction and/or variety, that is entirely different.
Riddick did look great, but it was a very simple game graphically. Riddick used what's called Normal Mapping. Its where devs take a complex character model(comprised of 25-40,000 polygons) and lowered it down to a very small margin(usually 2-3,000 polygons). Then they took various lighting effects and other effects and made the models look very detailed. But in Riddick's case they didn't do a good job with it, because their were texture seams(white dots that appear between two edges) on the models, and the textures were very jagged. But the game could run smoothly, and have the fast load times that it did. Normal Mapping is easier on a system because while it looks complex, it doesn't use as much system resources. Bump Mapping is more taxing on the system, because it has to render the objects in higher detail mid game. Look at Halo 2 and the cutscenes that's bump mapping. Bump Mapping takes low detailed character models, and when the player gets close to the NPC the details pop on the lower model making it look detailed. But if you move away a certain distance from the model, it will revert to its low detail. A majortiy of game use this method, but its not the most ideal in my mind, because its more taxing on the system.I think the XBOX did.
Ninja Gaiden, Chronicles of Riddick, and the Dead or Alive games looked flawless.
StephenBassford
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment