[QUOTE="SolidTy"][QUOTE="Kaszilla"]
Remember how ignorant psp owners were with there "Oh My Gosh, dem graphics on a portable" psp? Just forget the fact that it had very few exclusives. And going by ps3 fanboys, I can definitely see vita fanboys being even worse. And what's up with cows always talking about graphics and power? If it ain't got no games what good is good hardware? The thing that gets me the most is the PS2 & PS1 were by far, the weakest of their gen!
Kaszilla
Incorrect.
The PS2 wasn't the weakest of it's generation, you forget the Dreamcast.
Also, the PSOne wasn't the weakest of it's gen, it was stronger at 3D than the Saturn...but the Saturn was better at 2D.
Dreamcast was 2 years older than PS2 and had comparable graphics.The DC was actually a bit less than a year and a half older than the PS2. But at PS2 launch yes the DC graphics were comparable to the PS2. Remember though, the PS2 was brand new, had odd architecture, and was getting DC ports. Don't forget the DC already had built up it's library in that 1.5 year span as well. However, one year after the PS2 released (and had that same time to build that the DC had). No, they weren't as comparable anymore. we knew that based on specs of both machines, but the gamers did have to wait a year for the PS2 to live up to it's potential.
MGS2, GTAIII, GT3, ICO, Jak, DMC, FFX, Onimusha, Z.O.E. and other titles were released in the PS2's launch year and proved the hard to develop for PS2 had more juice. It was true the launch graphics of the PS2 were comparable at to the Dreamcast's later gen titles though.
However, that doesn't mean your statement was right, it was still incorrect.
The DC was weakest system of the DC-PS2-GC-Xbox Gen.
Log in to comment