PS2 multiplats looked like THAT??!

PS2 multiplats looked like THAT??!

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jY3LcF-EwPo
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The fifth and sixth generation fell like cold water over the competition eh

It was pretty much universal that Xbox original games looked better than any PS2 game or multiplat. Sure there's cherry picks here and there, but it's how it was.

If there was ever a choice to play a game on xbox that you could play on ps2 as well, you should have always went for xbox.

>ps2 games looked like shit
wow what a shock, even the dreamcast while hooked up to vga cables looks a thousand times better than any ps2 game

The xbox was far more powerful than the other systems of it's time, too bad it barely had any games compared to the PS2

now stop shit posting

Yes, ofcourse the original Xbox looks better because it was released years after PS2, we already knew that.

Even GC games looked better than PS2 garbage.

Let's not totally exaggerate things, shall we?

Not an argument.
PS3 was release years after the X360 and games looked better on 360.

why does heathers left arm look fucked up? is this on an emulator?

Yes but you probably wouldn't notice on a CRT with shitty composite cables.

But Full Spectrum Warrior was a PC/Xbox exclusive

the xbox came out later with better technology.
and the ps2 still managed to be the best selling console ever.

Progressive scan all does the difference. But yeah, Xbox was more powerful and easier to develop (at least for western devs experienced with PCs) as well.

OP here, the PS2 game also runs locked at 20fps while xbox is 30fps.

right one looks objectively better

yup.
ps2 almost always had the shittier multiplatform version of a game but games still sold better on the ps2 compared to xbox.

nah, it's just the (nowadays) super low shadow resolution, aliasing down her arm. The fact that they even managed to have full dynamic shadows + self-shadowing on a PS2, not to mention have the game run at (mostly) 60fps, is quite an achievement.

You can nowadays crank up the shadow and DOF res as high as you want on the PC port.

It had a PS2 release a year later.

You should see the PS2 port of Chaos Theory. The co-op missions were literally split into tiny five-minute segments.

>still waiting for Xbox emulator to play the best and proper version of Double Agent

Isn't the background a still image?

just mod an xbox bro

It's not as easy to get one here.

No. Silent Hill games have fully 3D, polygonal and texture mapped environments, coupled with dynamic lighting.

where are you from? its harder to find an original xbox that isnt modded here in ontario

Full Spectrum Warrior was one of the uglier multiplats, but yes they did look much worse than xbox.

Didn't affect sales at all though. Crazy how that works.

not him, but here in EU, it's hard to find an Xbox hueg, per se. And the few I occasionally see in fleamarkets etc are almost certainly not modded.

Eastern Bloc country. Basically at the time it used to be PC and PS2 territory due to cheaper price and piracy.

those seem to be around 20-40€ here now. bought 2 for 16€ few years ago but other one broke down immediately and neither were modded though.

GTA VC and SA were some of the only multiplats that looked best on PS2 that generation. They had impressive visual effects that were never ported out of laziness.

did you mean pc?

pc was way too sterile and empty compared to the ps2, lots of effects were missing, many things were stripped on the pc version

based on that screenshot the pc version looks better. the ps2 looks blurry af

youtube.com/watch?v=jY3LcF-EwPo
Check it out.

>Even GC games looked better than PS2 garbage.
nope

It was like this Xbox > PS2 > GCN

PC has better resolution and draw distance, but misses on some atmosphere creating effects from PS2. You can probably mod them in though.

Nah, mostly it was Xbox > GC > PS2, though GC more often had worse textures than PS2 due to mini DVD.

you cab mod in the orange tint. the sole reason i prefer the ps2 version is because of that

Hahahaha, you're 100% blind if you think VC and SA look better on PS2 than Xbox. GTA 3 is arguable so I MAY be able to give you that one.
>effects were missing
You mean the piss filter disguised as a sun effect so that the terrible texture resolution wouldn't look so bad? Or do you mean the laughable draw distance that was disguised as fog?

No, he means the lighting effects.
See

prefered* FUCK

Someone post the comparisons between Gamecube RE4 and PS2 RE4.

>GC more often had worse textures than PS2 due to mini DVD.
This is a myth. 95% of games in 6th generation were 1.5 GB or less. It had worse textures due to having less main RAM than PS2.

>PS2 runs at a lower resolution, has lower texture resolution, CJ has a black blob for a shadow on PS2 while Xbox has a full shadow for CJ and PS2 is missing Ambient Occlusion and is missing alpha blended fog effects on Xbox version

Whatever you say senpai

>6th gen
>ambient occlusion
How old are you?

Are you surprised? Playstation games have never looked great. Sony has not won most console generations through great performing hardware or exclusives games. Sony wins simply because Playstation is for whatever reason the gaming platform for American dudebros, European FIFA fags, and Jap home gamers.

>all other versions have missing day/night cycle effects that change the look of the game entirely, making it look more empty
But muh resolution and draw distance

Yes... the piss yellow overlay put there to blur shit up so you couldn't see the awful texture fillerate. It was taken out for good reason.

It fills its niche just like Nintendo and Microsoft fill theirs

Well I'm 28, and I have no idea what ambient occlusion is. That's probably because I am not a graphics engineer or an autist who cares way too much about the specifics of game design.

Every time a game tries to have a unique look though visual filters there's always retards who complain and prefer the game designed around said filters to have a completely empty look without them. I seriously don't understand you people.

True, but Sony's niches are bigger. That's primarily why Sony wins console generations, not because their systems are actually better.

That xbox version
>Silent Hill, home . . .

Do i need to post resident evil 4 to prove your stupid ass wrong?

PS4 is actually the strongest base system this generation, almost all multiplats look better on it, but last gen was also won by Wii which was a piece of shit hardware so I guess specs are not always what's important

>people are still using that botch port as an argument
smfh

How would a rushed port of a former GC exclusive achieve so?

Remember when the xbox literally had a hard drive built in but sonybros had to buy memory cards? Remember the PS2 only had 2 controller ports? Remember having to buy a network adapter and the PS2's "online"

what a terrible machine

No you're just wrong. I realized you grew up with a DVD player that happened to also play games, so you're very nostalgic about it, but the Xbox's clarity and draw distance just takes a steaming shit on the ps2 version.

>muh port
Alright backpedal, but what about timesplitters 2 and FP?

Xbox was capable of HD 720p, it was far more powerful than the PS2.

ps2s online really was pathetic, even sega net was better.

Until later in the gen when devs figured out how to develop for the architecture.

No, it makes it look more flat. Missing graphical effects is more important than resolution and draw distance. I can only imagine somebody exceptionally stupid thinking otherwise.

Name one game that looked or ran better on the PS3.

>That's probably because I am not a graphics engineer or an autist who cares way too much about the specifics of game design.
you don't have to be a scientist to know the meaning and logic behind basic graphical terms you fucking retarded asswank
I was aware of this terminology when I was half your age. For an 28 year old, you're really fucking stupid, you know? Guess you actually are autistic, you just live in denial

>need a separate configuration disc to configure the network (with few exceptions)
What were they thinking?
Serious question, how did you configure network on DC?

Also Viewtiful Joe and Killer7 on PS2 had massive Framerate issues.

The effects are only there to mask how weak the system is, they're obsolete when ported to an actual gaming console.

But GC ran at 60fps

But it had the best games.

Like what?

Bioshock, LA Noire

Objectively wrong on both accounts

Both wrong, thanks for proving my point.

It wasn't really a question of better hardware. Xbox used its 64 MB main RAM for VRAM as well, while PS2 only had 4 MB of VRAM. Resolutions such as 1280x720x16bpp were impossible to use for 3D rendering by conventional means as you need 3 buffers for that + some for textures which well exceeds 4 MB.

>never bothered to look up technical graphics terms
>this makes someone both stupid and autistic
I don't think you know what either of those terms mean, user.

IIRC both the Xbox and GameCube were more powerful than the PS2, Resident Evil 4 had several effects cut in the PS2 version because the console couldn't handle them.

The effects are an objective improvement no matter how much mental gymnastics you do.

It's a myth. PS2 has the most shovelware and some good exclusive 99% of which were ported to PS3/4. And all multiplats worked better on Xbox/GC. There's little reason to own PS2 today.

iirc you needed a disc with the dreamcast to but it came with one if you bought a dreamcast new, you could also use that disc to browse the internet and download shit to your vmu. its also funny, how the dreamcast did voice chat better than the switch did.

The general consensus back in the day was that the best games on Xbox and GC were better than the best games on PS2, partly because of its weak hardware. If you check metacritic Halo and Metroid were rated higher than any PS2 exclusives.

It wasn't really about the console's capabilities, but about the dev's. You can only do so much in a year when tasked to port a very GC centered code with no portability in mind to a completely different architecture.

this.

Keep telling yourself that. Just try not to start arguements in favor of the ps2, because you're pretty much always going to look like a dumbass.

Yes they looked like shit compared to next gen games

>it had the best games
>Those don't count as they were ported to its successor years later!
Good going buddy.

but its okay when that argument is applied to the dreamcast right? smfh sony dicklickers have no shame

I was looking at the compass for a minute trying to figure out what was different............

There was a successor to DC?

yes

The irony is palpable.

Umm... no, nothing I said there was meant to imply the opposite given the situation, get a fucking dictionary sony-pony.

Xbox and gamecube also had mostly shovelware, which made the already small library even smaller
Also some shovelware were actually good gems

Ps2 was also easily moddable and you could choose from thousands of games.

Such an autistic response only digs your hole further.

And in the end, nobody even cared

even the dreamcast while hooked up to vga cables looks a thousand times better than any ps2 game

literally the ONLY "console war" worth debating is 4th gen thats it. every other gen its obvious who the winner was unless you are straight up delusional

These days Sonyfags are the ones who are obsessed with graphics. So apparently not only Sonyfags cared, but they also got mental trauma from having shitty graphics.