-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Current consoles - Which one has improved the most graphically since launch?
- Thread starter Mustang
- Start date
Naked Snake
Member
I'd say PS2, just look at MGS3, Silent Hill 3, ZOE2, GT4, etc.
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
PS2 of course.
PlayStation 2. No comparison. It's producing games now that look as good as -- if not better than -- most of the top Xbox games. Games like Metal Gear Solid 3, Silent Hill 3, and Gran Turismo 4 are astounding.
Having said that, new Xbox games do look better than the Xbox launch games, but the difference isn't nearly as dramatic. While Xbox games have evolved, PlayStation 2 games have almost made a complete 180 from the games released in 2000.
Having said that, new Xbox games do look better than the Xbox launch games, but the difference isn't nearly as dramatic. While Xbox games have evolved, PlayStation 2 games have almost made a complete 180 from the games released in 2000.
buck naked
Member
Voting Xbox.
Looking at Riddick, Rallisport 2 and Halo 2... these are all games that are way ahead of both their peers and their prequels.
Xbox is doing new stuff at higher resolutions and with new effects. PS2 is playing catchup to first gen Xbox game technology.
Common examples (MGS, GT, ZOE) are all games with good design, often undeniably better design, but aren't technically impressive.
Looking at Riddick, Rallisport 2 and Halo 2... these are all games that are way ahead of both their peers and their prequels.
Xbox is doing new stuff at higher resolutions and with new effects. PS2 is playing catchup to first gen Xbox game technology.
Common examples (MGS, GT, ZOE) are all games with good design, often undeniably better design, but aren't technically impressive.
Dagless M.D.
Member
If you actually look at some early PS2 games, they are no better than average looking DC games. But now, the PS2 is able to compete with the Xbox and GC, as long as a team of good coders is behind it
buck naked
Member
Is this a graphic whore debate or not?!Deepthroat said:
You seem to care.
Naked Snake
Member
Insertia said:
I agree. I expected much more from Metroid Prime 2 visually, if what I've seen and played so far is any indication... I have no doubts the game will be incredible and offer some of the most atmospheric environments, but I hoped for a bigger jump in graphics from MP.
Resident Evil 4 and Zelda are looking absolutely awesome though.
I think GameCube's problem is that NCL's internal teams set a plateau early on they seem happy with, seeing only incremental advancements... unlike N64 which saw continual advancements and rehauled engines/techniques from Nintendo games. Dropping Rare might've hurt also... still there's some third parties who've really pushed the platform forward, like Amusment Vision, Factor 5 or Capcom Studio 4.
buck naked
Member
You know... the PS2 didn't actually HAVE any good games at launch, unlike the Xbox and GCN.
I guess the PS2 has improved the most since it launched because it was the most underwhelming at launch. I still don't think it has come a long way since its early hits though.
EDIT: Darien, yeah, I didn't follow the question. The early stages of PS2 life had been wiped from my memory.
I guess the PS2 has improved the most since it launched because it was the most underwhelming at launch. I still don't think it has come a long way since its early hits though.
EDIT: Darien, yeah, I didn't follow the question. The early stages of PS2 life had been wiped from my memory.
Newbie said:
It's amazing to me that every time I fire up my DC, I'm blown away at how well the graphics look. To me, most DC games look better than launch PS2 games.
PS2 is definitely most improved for this gen though. Xbox has done a great job too. I read in XBN that B.C. is within 2% of the theoretical graphical limits on Xbox.
Naked Snake
Member
Razoric said:
IAWTP
sonycowboy
Member
buck naked said:
Your so right. I just hated SSX, Madden 2001, Summoner, Tekken Tag Tournament, Timesplitters, ...
oh, wait.
SantaC
Member
PS2.
On a sidenote. It's funny that some people (around the videogaming community) think Nintendo aren't capable of great graphics in their games. If you look at etc Wind Waker and the new Zelda (new pikmin 2 looks nice also) they ooze atmosphere and beautiful graphics. Atleast EAD is capable visually as any other top notch developer.
On a sidenote. It's funny that some people (around the videogaming community) think Nintendo aren't capable of great graphics in their games. If you look at etc Wind Waker and the new Zelda (new pikmin 2 looks nice also) they ooze atmosphere and beautiful graphics. Atleast EAD is capable visually as any other top notch developer.
buck naked
Member
DarienA said:
Razoric said:
adelgary said:
*sigh* Guess I put my foot in it. By 'good', I meant 'good for comparison'. Games like Rogue Leader and Luigi's Mansion, for example, were almost tech-demos for the GCN hardware.
I don't think any early PS2 games represented that same focus on graphics and production.
The games that finally did (Onimusha, ZOE, MGS, GT3) definitley weren't 'launch', but not much before it was particularly memorable, graphically.
Naked Snake
Member
SantaCruZer said:
I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that Nintendo aren't capable of great graphics in their games, it's just that GC games have always looked really good since launch, and the jumps in visual quality haven't been that big since then. And as much as I was disappointed with Wind Waker, I can't deny that it's one of the most beautiful games I have seen, but even that game is quite old and shouldn't really be used as an example of "current level GC graphics".
Scottlarock
Banned
PS2 didn't have competition from GC& Xbox the first year... So developers didn't give it there all... as long as it looked better than dreamcast they were satisfied.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
I own all the consoles, and the GC has impressed me far more than the XBOX or PS2. But the PS2 has gone from sh!t to sugar in my eyes.
Rallisport Challenge on XBox continues to make my jaw drop.
That said, its not night and day differnt (IMO) than the first game.
Yes, pretty much all of the PS2 launch games were quite subpar graphically.
I did think SSX was good and I felt Ridge Racer V was good despite the, ahem, jaggies.
That said, its not night and day differnt (IMO) than the first game.
Yes, pretty much all of the PS2 launch games were quite subpar graphically.
I did think SSX was good and I felt Ridge Racer V was good despite the, ahem, jaggies.
sonycowboy
Member
Scottlarock said:
I wouldn't say that.
I'd say Sony gave sh*t for developer documentation, no high level libraries, and a system design that took a looong time for them to come to grips with. Now that developers have gone through several generations (and SCEI has done much, much better in terms of sharing advancements & info w/developers) , they're finally getting to where they don't have to fight the system to get good results.
Buffy4ever
Banned
buck naked said:
He is talking about the system with the most improved graphics this generation. The PS2 wins this because it has improved overall from it launch games. The PS2 game look a lot better now than back than.
Only Riddick, Rallisport 2 look better than the X box launch games.......I have not seen Halo 2 or Doom 3 in action yet so I cannot say anything about them. but there a lot of PS2 game that has improved.
Naked Snake
Member
^ Worst comparision shots, ever.
Damn JJ, could you have chosen WORSE pictures to represent newer PS2 titles?
I'd say PS2 most certainly saw the biggest leap, which almost stays in line with the fact that it is the most difficult to develop for. I mean, in XBOX's case, stuff like DOA3 and Wreckless came very early during its lifespan and still stand among the most impressive titles on the system. With GC, look at games like Rogue Squadron 2...not many GC games even begin to match that visual masterpiece. GC has been the most constant, as it really hasn't seen a lot of major improvements. It almost feels as if devs were already giving it their all right from the start. Kinda odd...
XBOX has seen improvements, but also continues to falter in regards to framerate. Many newer XBOX games just seem to "give up" on 60 fps and simply accept 30 fps and lower for more detailed visuals. I wish they would continue to strive for 60...
I'd say PS2 most certainly saw the biggest leap, which almost stays in line with the fact that it is the most difficult to develop for. I mean, in XBOX's case, stuff like DOA3 and Wreckless came very early during its lifespan and still stand among the most impressive titles on the system. With GC, look at games like Rogue Squadron 2...not many GC games even begin to match that visual masterpiece. GC has been the most constant, as it really hasn't seen a lot of major improvements. It almost feels as if devs were already giving it their all right from the start. Kinda odd...
XBOX has seen improvements, but also continues to falter in regards to framerate. Many newer XBOX games just seem to "give up" on 60 fps and simply accept 30 fps and lower for more detailed visuals. I wish they would continue to strive for 60...
That could be said about any of the systems. My purpose wasn't to show the worst and best for any game. I simply took similar pictures of each game, that demonstrate similar features, that were taken from similar points in development. I even tried to stick with promotional shots from the developer, so that "IGN's poor captures" wouldn't be a reasonable excuse. The only exception was for Tekken 4 because my original image was from the arcade game and not the console; the new image isn't as clean but very similar.dark10x said:Damn JJ, could you have chosen WORSE pictures to represent newer PS2 titles?
I expected these responces, though. I didn't post my opinion on the subject, so that noone could claim that I was forcing my personal opinion. These reactions happens everytime someone post screenshots in a graphics debate; it conflicts with their opinion, so I must be wrong. I'm suprised someone hasn't complained about the GCN and Xbox pictures I used, too.
I want to know:
How is comparing different games from different developers a valid arguement? (RRV vs. BO3)
How is comparing the jump from 4 year old (4 1/2) games to games that are only 3 and less years logical? We should be comparing last year's PS2 games to upcoming GCN and Xbox games.
If people actually went back and looked at these old games, the jump for every console has been pretty good, and closer to being even than most people think.
And incase you're wondering....
I think the PS2 has had the biggest leap.
That isn't it, though. That MGS2 shot was perhaps the single best promo shot released...while that is one of the worst MGS3 shots I've seen. Are you suggesting that MGS3 -ISN'T- a huge leap?
I do believe that TTT was better looking than Tekken 4, though, as T4 introduced MUCH more complex backgrounds at the expense of character detail.
GT4 looks better than GT3 all around, but they are still very similar.
I have NO idea where you got that Pikmin 1 shot. I don't recall the game ever looking like that (ie - complete shit). That shots almost looks as if there are no textures being used or something. That's possibly the worst shot I've EVER seen of Pikmin. It looks nothing like that.
The rest aren't bad comparisons.
We aren't attacking you, as it seems you were expecting (and prepared a counter attack). We were simply suggesting the truth. Some of your screenshot choices were simply poor, whether intentional or not.
Similar threads
- Poll