>>12237010
that only existed in gen 5. gen 6 was the same exact soulless looking slop on every console.

>>12237019
With the exception of the PS2, the last true console and not a pc based hardware

>>12237020
the ps2 had the worst looking games of the bunch if thats what you mean

>>12237034
The PS2 has the most technically impressive of it's generation

Shadow of the Colossus could never work on GameCube/Xbox or PC of early 2000

>>12237041
>source: my ass

>>12237041
It's true

>>12237046
XBox vs. PS2

The CPU
The XBox has a Intel processor which runs at a clock-speed of 733MHz. That's a lot higher than the 300MHz at which the PS2 CPU is running. But does that make the CPU better? Not at all...
Here's why the PS2 CPU (Emotion Engine) is a lot more powerful:

-Data bus, cache memory as well as all registers are 128 bits on the PS2 CPU while the XBox CPU is 32 bits.
-It has a max. performance of 6.2GFLOPS while the XBox CPU can only do a bit over 3 GFLOPS.
-It incorporates two 64-bit integer units (IU) with a 128-bit SIMD multi-media command unit, two independent floating point vector calculation units (VU0, VU1), an MPEG 2 decoder circuit (Image Processing Unit/IPU) and high performance DMA controllers. Yes, this is all on the emotion engine itself.

Okay now what does this mean? It means that the PS2 can handle heavier physics and 3D engines (and can do more accurate realistic visual effects like splashing water and explosions). It also means that the PS2 can handle a lot more sophisticated Artificial Intelligence programming so that you have intelligent human-like opponents. And with a floating point calculation performance of 6.2GFLOPS/second, the overall calculation performance of this new CPU matches that of a super computer. This is a completely new CPU architecture especially designed for sophisticated graphics and physics while the architecture of the XBox CPU is pretty old and simple (it's a little less powerful than a standard PentiumIII processor). The architecture of the Emotion Engine really is very sophisticated so I'm not going to explain it in detail here. But simply put the main advantage of the PS2 CPU is that it is subdivided into lots of other tiny powerful processors, all of them designed to do a special task and almost all of them can work independently from eachother.

The Graphics Chip and VRAM
This is where the images are rendered. The XBox uses an Nvidia Graphics Processing Unit running at 250MHz and the PS2 uses the Graphics Synthesizer running at 150MHz. Again, judging by these specs the XBox looks better. The XBox GPU has a few advantages (or maybe not) over the PS2 GS, for example:

-The XBox GPU can do 125 million polygons (according to Microsoft) while the PS2 GS can only do 75million polygons
-The XBox GPU has a max. resolution of 1920x1080 and the PS2 GS can do 1280x1024, the rest of the graphics chip will be comparable to NV-20 chip.

>>12237076
There are alot of neat effects the XBox GPU can do with its hardware, but all those effects can be done by the Emotion Engine in software too (while the XBox' CPU is not powerful enough to do complex visual effects in software). But the catch is that these advantages (talking about higher resolutions here) don't make a lot of difference on a CRT screen, even on an LCD screen the difference would be barely noticeable (when the console's hardware is used properly). So, is the XBox Graphics Processing Unit better than the PS2 GS?

>>12237082
It doesn't look like it, the architecture of the PS2 GS looks far more advanced. For example, PS2 has a parallel rendering engine that contains a 2,560 bit wide data bus that is 20 times the size of leading PC-based graphics accelerators. The Graphics Synthesizer architecture can execute recursive multi-pass rendering processing and filter operations at a very fast speed without the assistance of the main CPU or main bus access. In the past, this level of real-time performance was only achieved when using very expensive, high performance, dedicated graphics workstations. There is a 48-Gigabyte/sec memory access bandwidth achieved via the integration of the pixel logic and the video memory on a single high performance chip. The quality of the resulting screen image is comparable to high quality pre-rendered 3D graphics. (that is once the game developers have learned how to use it properly) There has also been a misunderstanding about the VideoRAM on the PS2. The VRAM is included in the 32MB of main RAM on the CPU (the developer chooses how much of it he wants to dedicate to VRAM). Everyone thought the 4MB of memory on the GS was the VRAM while that is just a buffer in which all the rendering is done so no external bandwidth is needed (only for texture streaming). Another rumor that's been spread by several gaming sites is that the XBox is capable of texture compression and full scene anti-aliasing while the PS2 isn't.

>>12237086
This is simply not true. The PS2 can compress/decompress textures and do full scene anti-aliasing without causing as much slow-down as on the XBox. And although the XBox GPU can do a lot of effects that are not 'built-in' in the PS2 GS, the PS2 can do all these effects and more in software mode (but at least at the same quality) through the Emotion Engine. XBox fanboys will probably tell you that the XBox GPU is more powerful because of its vertex shaders while the coprocessors on the Emotion Engine of the PS2 can be used to get the same effects as the XBox' vertex shaders (but the vertex shaders can't do everything that the EE's coprocessors can do).

Now let's take a look at how Microsoft got the idea that their graphics chip can do 125 million polygons, because this is a little unclear... (I'm going to go in some tech details now) The PS2's Graphics Synthesizer has the highest pixel fill rate of the next generation of consoles. Most remeber the 4.0 GPixels on Microsoft's spec comparence sheet. Well, Microsoft was nice to include a "(anti-aliased)" next to it. What does "4.0 GPixels (anti-aliased)", mean? It's misleading. The Xbox has hardwired 4x FSAA, when this is turned on the actual total of 1.0 GPixels is re-rendered 4 times to remove aliasing. Another possible reason for Microsoft to say Xbox's fill-rate is 4 GPixels per second. Is that the 1 GPixels is with 2 texture layers, if it is NOT used Xbox would not gain any performance and if it is used Xbox wouldn't lose any performance. It remains 1.0 GPixels w/ 2 textures, so what MS possibly did was it doubled the fill rate twice. Trying to compare it to PS2's fill rate w/ no texture. What MS did was it came up with misleading numbers.

>>12237090
The Xbox can't go higher than 1 GPixels per second. The NV2a in the Xbox has 4 pixel units running at 250 MHz, that's 1 billion pixels/second. While the GS in the PS2 has 16 pixel units running at 150 MHz, which is 2.4 billion pixels every second. Now let's talk about polygons. Right here I'm talking about polygon rendering and not polygon transformations. To calculate polygon rendering performance, you take the pixel fill rate, and write it in millions. So PS2s pixel fill rate is 2400 Million. When Sony says polygons, it is refering to 32 pixel polygons. Divide 2400 Million by 32. You get 75 Million (32-pixel) polygons per second. That is raw and doesn't include textures, they use up pixels also. Now let's take Microsoft's allegged pixel fill rate of 4000 Million, which MS has on it's spec sheet and divide it by 32, you get, yes you guessed it, 125 Million (32 pixel) polygons per second. Here's the problem, the NV2a doesn't have a 4000 M fill rate but a 1000 M fill rate. So it's 31 Million (32 pixel) polygons per second. This isn't raw, since there's also 2 texture units for each pixel unit. So that's 31 million with 2 texture layers, the PS2 is around 38 Million with 1 texture layer and 20 million with 2 texture layers. The Xbox maxes out at 31 MPolygons per second, if textures aren't placed on those polygons- Xbox will not gain a polygon rendering increase in performance. The PS2's Graphic Synthesizer could render 75 MPolygons per second with no texture. The NV2a in the Xbox can't render higher than 31 MPolygons per second at all.

>>12237041
Nah that's not true. You're mistaking development tricks over hardware strength.

>>12237097
Okay now take that all into account and then check out the following... The XBox graphics chip does not really give you the same power you get out of a GeForce3 3D accelerator card. It is only a graphics chip, similar to the one on that card but it shares its memory with the XBox's system RAM and has a 250mhz RAMDAC. While a standard GeForce3 accelarator card gives you an additional 64MB of video memory with 350MHz RAMDAC. The NV2A compensates for this by having a second vertex shader, as opposed by the GeForce3's single vertex shader. However, Microsoft claims that this second vertex shader instantly bumps the XBox's theoretical max poly count from the 31 million that Nvidia lists for the GeForce 3, all the way up to 125 million pps. According to most experts, the area that will actually see the most improvement from this will actually be in Bump Mapping. Microsoft has yet to explain how the second vertex shader yields an additional 94 million polygons per second." I don't know enough to go more in detail about this but this is definately an interesting point, and it seems that the XBox doesn't have the advantage here.

when developers learned how to use the power of the PS2 GS properly they'll got a lot more out of it than XBox developers can get out of the XBox GPU. The PS2 GS combined with the EE can do a lot more advanced visual effects than the XBox GPU combined with its CPU.

>>12237010
It's sad that many people these days just go "BUT SAAAR MY PS2 HAS ALL THE GAMES!" I had a gamecube and ps2 during those days and it was neat seeing the visual difference between them. More so now when we can easily compare direct ports and versions to their xbox counterparts. Most racing games and third party titles should just be played on a xbox if possible. The nasty dither on the ps2/gamecube ruins the visuals on most titles.

>>12237103
The ps2 physically can't do much without choking on itself. It will never be more powerful than a xbox. In theory it might, but in real practice there's a lot of chokes in the pipeline. The horrid picture output for example is one.

>>12237109
"I can't i'm too weak" https://youtu.be/mH2ZVlOLPNI?si=MbghNOhnsNdxRKZe 31m50

And that's just MGS2 ,a rather simple game,MGS3 is much more demanding

Now let's look at Shadow of the Colossus,a game that barely run on PS2 at like 15-20 FPS

What would be the framerate of the Xbox version?

2 FPS?

>>12237140
I'm not watching some faggy digital foundry video. What you're comparing here is targeted hardware vs porting. It's strange that it's commonly accepted silent hill 2 was gimped by a bad development cycle on xbox, yet games like metal gear 2 run worse because of the ps2's "strength" I like my ps2 but outside of specific games and exclusives its the last console I use to enjoy that some games of that generation.

File: 1764117691838487.mp4 (3.33 MB, 604x360)

3.33 MB MP4

>>12237041
>The PS2 has the most technically impressive of it's generation
Yes
For example, Gran Turismo 4 run at 60 FPS, 480p, look better and, unlike Forza Motosport, don't require post-processing effects, like Bloom and Depth of Field, to hide how ugly and unimpressive it's while running at 30fps.

>>12237240
It dithers at 480p over the limited bandwidth. Not to mention not much runs like grand turismo 4 since the system is a pain to work with.

>>12237240
Project gotham racing was unironically a better and prettier game than forza. It's weird that's the one they chose as their primary racer going forward. As someone with japanese family that and dead or alive was one of the few reasons to own a xbox there.

>>12237063
There isn't a PS2 game with physics more impressive than Half Life 2 (Xbox port) and enemy AI more engaging than Halo CE. All that technobabble and yet not a single game cited.

File: FF Streetwise PS2 VS Xbox(...).mp4 (1.28 MB, 1200x338)

1.28 MB MP4

Fact: PS2, powered by the Emotion Engine, is, simply put, the most powerful console of the 2000s

>wants unique platform with different hardware specs and style signatures which result in bespoke interactive experiences with unique hardware

>also wants every single game to be available on the same platform and shrieks if the control layout is even slightly different

>>12237010
>multiplatform game
>2 gigs
>ps2 or xbox exclusive
>5 gigs
was the gamecubes disc size really that small? Not even trying to start shit I've just been noticing this while downloading iso's.

>>12237689
Glorious emotion engine

Daily reminder that the PS2 has the most 60FPS games of it's generation (and even 7G and 8G)

Close to 60% of it's entire library is at 60FPS

>>12237240
>no, the PS2 didn't have the graphical effects that the xbox had...b-but it didn't need to!
galactic cope

>>12237715

It really doesn't matter. The PS2 had an infinitely better and more expansive library with equally impressive effects. Nobody cares about your Great Value version of Onimusha or Fatal Frame. Nobody cares enough even to program a working emulator for it.

>>12237714
That's not true mr chat gpt. Most of that "60fps" library consists of it crapping itself and dropping all over the place. Why is the internet now full of jeets and fags claiming their ps2 was a super computer?

>>12237715
What are you talking about ?

PS2 has much better graphical effects than the Xbox ,just look at the fog of silent hill 2

PS2 is king of particles effects

>>12237717
nice goalpost shifting snoy lmao

>>12237715
>the PS2 didn't have the graphical effects that the xbox had...
>BUT STILL LOOKED BETTER
That's a fact.

Go back to reading comprehension classes.

File: Screenshot_2025-12-10-18-(...).jpg (379 KB, 720x1600)

379 KB JPG

>>12237720
>That's not true mr chat gpt

Anon...

>>12237735
Way to quote a faggot. Yes that does matter and some of the games he lists drop in frame rate. It goes to show you little mouth breathers weren't there nor do you play the games you claim to like

>>12237735
SAAAR MY PHONE SCREENSHOT OF AN X POSTS PROVES YOU WRONG!!

>>12237715
Believe me, you are right. Let me tell you my story:
>Hey these PS2 games had a unique look, I wanna learn how to replicate it
>Secret: Framebuffer effects, Billboarding, and Textures only
This means the games weren't simulating reality like memetracing why waste simulating all that useless details when other mediums just draw stuff? This combination makes PS2/XBOX/Dreamcast a canvas for 3D graphics.

And after analyzing multiple games and platforms. XBOX is objectively better than PS2, it has everything but more (when it comes to gaming) PS2 is more general purpose but it wasn't important to games most devs used the standard pipeline which was made official on XBOX. Dead or Alive proves this.

But they were close. And Japs inherent racism pushed them to PS2. Meanwhile, Itagakai was called a traitor for designing his games for XBOX.

>>12237745
Every single game that was made for PS2 could be improved if it was on XBOX or atleast ported 1:1. But it didn't happen because of racism (Japs) and laziness (Western devs).

>>12237041
It would not have just worked but it would have been better, ps2 was the weakest of the bunch

>>12237767
>Every single game that was made for PS2 could be improved if it was on XBOX

Ah yes like MGS2...oh wait

>>12237775
It was laziness. Just look at the steam port they still haven't fixed it. You can run the game fine on a pcsx2 emulator but somehow the PC port is still fucked.
They simply doesn't wanna change anything. The framebuffer code was too console specific and needs to be ported, but why do that when you can just re-compile the C-code, ignore the assembly.

>>12237772
No anon GameCube and Xbox couldn't handle that many particles and complexe physics

Even the PS2 could barely run this game and SOC was made to showcase the strength of the PS2 emotion engine

It would be like 2 FPS on Xbox and 1 on GameCube

>>12237775
And btw, I have contributed to many PS2 homebrew libraries, including stuff related to rendering. Contributed a fix to the corona rendering on the PC port of GTA Sanandreas.

>>12237789
>many particles and complex physics
True, but whenever PS2 handle those, it compromise on the graphics.
XBOX and Dolphin simply can't do it, because the Graphics hardware was specifically fabricated (and faster) but it was not based on the same general purpose vector unit architecture.

>>12237797
Clarification, PS2 was able to steal time from the rendering to process physics.
XBOX can't steal time from the rendering but the rendering itself was faster than PS2. So it all checks out.

And a fun exercise for those interested in PS2/XBOX style graphics.

Just start watching NVIDIA and AMDs tech demo, as they were released. They all look gorgeous and different, then you will reach the ray tracing oriented period, and then you will see the homogenization of video game graphics and how even the PS2 style era models were gone.

Ps2 hardware was the Sega saturn of 6th gen. Impressive on paper but never manifested itself in games except for some gimmick effects

File: 1746392167581087.png (663 KB, 1200x675)

663 KB PNG

>>12237019
it was true for gen 7 too, well for wii anyway. we'll never have such a soulful ui ever again.

File: 193859120235.mp4 (3.01 MB, 640x360)

3.01 MB MP4

>>12237720
This, but the Xbox

>>12237841
I feel the Xbox should have done a better job at HL2. I wonder if its CPU limited

>>12237823
>Ps2 hardware was the Sega saturn of 6th gen

No,Sega Saturn hardware is crap and very poorly designed

PS2 is hard to program for but it's very well designed for what it's trying do to (tons of polygons and graphical effects)

The PS2 is an evolution of the PS1 philosophy ,push as many polygon as possible and tons of graphical effects

File: UK Intelligence dismisses(...).png (264 KB, 990x1720)

264 KB PNG

>>12237720
>Why is the internet now full of jeets and fags claiming their ps2 was a super computer
poltard zoomie rage

>>12237034
Nooo you don't get it games looking blurry as hell is a visual feature

>>12237841
It really shows your age. That was a crazy port/version in it's day.

>>12237859
Okay poojet. Stop farming for engagment on x and get back to work

>>12237717
>Great Value Onimusha
you mean the one on ps2?

>>12237878
It's annoying how hard people go to defend the ps2. I love my ratchet blue ps2, but it sucks to game on it sometimes. Even through my retrotink 4k games are either smudgy or blurry. It's the only one out of that generation that doesn't scale that well.

>>12237836
thats just nintendo being wannabe apple fags and has nothing to do with hardware limitations. 360 and ps3 could have had the same gay UI if they wanted to. where as saturn/ps1/64 all had fundamentally different graphics rendering baked into the hardware.

>>12237954
yeah i'd consider 15fps crazy bad too

>>12237958
>Game (Great Value version)
you mean every multiplat on the ps2?

>>12237973
Way to not engage and ignore the conversation. It must to be so loyal to one system. I had all three in that era.

>>12237957
>>>/pol/
Go back and stay there!

>>12237964
No defending, but pointing out facts.
Multiplatform games are better on the GameCube and Xbox simply because both consoles were released almost two years after the PS2. There's no shame or merit in that.
Meanwhile, games made exclusively for the PS2 show how capable the PS2 was, despite being (on paper) weaker.

>>12237976
i don't like mediocrity like you do, sorry

>>12238015
I don't like politics, but anyone can tell you the jeets have invaded all spaces

Also there's defending and then blindly saying "PS2 BETTER!!" despite the fact every game suffers from the saving dithering and frame drops found on all third party games.

>>12238018
You're just being a little fag

File: SAAAR GOTY.jpg (116 KB, 1280x720)

116 KB JPG

I bet this is nostalgic for some of you here

>>12237240
Why did the PS2 port of RE4 look like absolute shit even compared to the Gamecube?

Let me guess:
>erm it was rushed!
>erm PS2 games can only look good if they are designed for the PS2!
Lol. Lmao even.

>>12238097
>>like absolute shit
>hyperbole
Fanboy and hater. Opinion discarded.

>erm it was rushed!
Exactly! At least you managed to present a fact.
Take Fatal Frame 3, for example. PS2 version of Resident Evil 4 could have been improved.

>>12238136
Not that anon, but not really. Project zero looks much better on the xbox. I don't get why some of you make playstation your whole identity.

File: hq720-5.jpg (61 KB, 686x386)

61 KB JPG

>>12238136
Not a hyperbole. It legitimately looked like ass. There was a segment where they straight up replaced the water on the floor with solid brown bullshit because the PS2 apparently couldn't render something as basic as water.

GameCube RE4: 4:3 because GameCube is too weak to handle full screen

PS2 RE4: full on 16:9 thanks to the immense power of the PS2

>>12237964
PS2 was not designed for primitive flat panel tech. It was designed for real display technology.

>>12238275
I still have my d series jvc tv, but I much prefer my 65 inch oled these days.

File: 17824923501552.webm (3.94 MB, 514x360)

3.94 MB WEBM

>>12238205
sure sure

>>12238342
Anon please. I'm not even that guy and that's embarrassing

>>12238342
Cubie bros….h-his webm…it’s over

>>12237846
It's CPU limited. Original Half-Life 2 reqs asked for a 1.2 ghz processor but the Xbox is only 733 mhz.

Also RAM limited - HL2 wants 256MB of RAM but it also wants a directx7 graphics card which means at least 64MB of VRAM (and probably more like 128MB in practice). OG Xbox only had 64MB of combined RAM for system and graphics.

>>12238342
haHAHA

>>12237063
man its just a standard mips architecture. did you chatgpt that babble? besides the gpu and its honkers fillrate is the much more interesting part of the ps2 since it let devs go mad with transparency effects you wouldnt see on pc till 2002-2003

>>12237735
he says HIS library, not the entire ps2 library

File: tcnycomp2.webm (2.9 MB, 1600x900)

2.9 MB WEBM

>>12238205
Well if we're posting rushed ports...

>>12239062
+ishaat to you saar

>>12237063
PS2 had 32mb of ram and Xbox had 64mb of ram
That made a bigger difference than any of the bullshit you spouted.

>>12239117
XBox has twice as much RAM as the PS2. Will this give the XBox a huge advantage? Not really, let's take a look at how the PS2 accesses the RAM:


-32MB Direct RDRAM 2 channels at 800MHz
This means that the PS2's powerful Emotion Engine can manipulate the data stored in the RAM fast enough to compete with the XBox' memory access time. This is very important cause all data is stored there (even the graphics because the VRAM is included in those 32MB of RAM). Judging by the information that Microsoft and Sont have released it looks like the PS2 can also compress and decompress images faster than the XBox because of the implementation of the MPEG2 decoder on the CPU. And you really have to take the extremely fast (48GB/sec) VRAM of the PS2 Graphics Synthesizer into account because this eliminates a lot of bandwidth problems developers could have on the XBox, also most parts of the Emotion Engine can independently transfer data to the Graphics Synthesizer.

Look at what i found in an interview

>Insomniac:
ComputerAndVideogames.com: What's your experience of working with the PS2 hardware? How hard do you feel you've pushed the system?

>Hastings: The PS2 has been a much bigger challenge than we initially anticipated. The multiple CPU architecture is especially difficult because the main processor and the two vector units each have two instruction pipelines.

>The only way to get anywhere near optimal results is to write assembly code that micro-manages all six pipelines, while also taking advantage of all the instruction and data caches. No-one has ever written a C compiler smart enough to handle even a fraction of this complexity, so you simply have to program your entire engine in assembly. We also had to handle all our collision detection and physics in assembly code, since the sheer
number of moving objects in the game would have otherwise prevented us from running at 60Hz.

>>12239325
>Beyond pipeline issues, we also use the IOP chip to decompress data on the fly in order to get the most out of the RAM space. Then there is the issue of shuffling several megabytes of textures into VRAM through the DMA each frame. To put it simply, I don't think anyone has ever overstated the complexity of programming for the PS2. But, on the other hand, the Xbox libraries won't allow you anywhere near the actual hardware, so there is little room for optimisation. Plus, the Xbox doesn't have the high speed vector units of the PS2, which may be why even the best Xbox games run at 30Hz.

>I seriously doubt we would have been able to make Ratchet and Clank run at 60Hz on the Xbox without drastically reducing the number of moving objects. So, ultimately, I think we've made the best platform choice for our game.

>It's very difficult to put a number on how far we've pushed the PS2 at this point. If I had to estimate, I'd say Ratchet and Clank may use about 50% of PS2's maximum potential.


The Xbox is too weak to handle Ratchet at 60FPS

A game that only utilize like 50% of the power of the PS2

Now imagine Shadow of the Colossus, a game that utilize 100% of the power of the PS2 running on Xbox...

>>12238205
why was the ps2 so freakin weak

>>12239062
It's not rushed. Gaycube is just straight up weak.

>>12239319
Sure PS2 uses really high bandwidth RAM, but the emotion engine is extremely cache starved, so EE needs to access its RAM a lot more often than Xbox CPU does. And XBox's SDRAM has much less latency than PS2's RDRAM. The CPU has much faster access to data, and thanks to unified memory architecture, it needs exactly 0 bandwidth to move data from the CPU RAM to the VRAM.

>brownstation cultists are seriously convinced their shitbox wasnt the weakest POS of gen 6
lol, lmao

ps2 was slow and blurry crap

>>12239475
Both gaycube and poostation 2 were weak in their own ways.

>>12239332
Anon... I know this is modern crap, but do you remember the magical ssd enabling the ratchet and clank to be playable? They say this stuff to sell games. If there were to make it multiplat they would made it run on the gamecube

>>12239598
>If there were to make it multiplat they would made it run on the gamecube

Yeah at 20 FPS

>>12239602
No, but you're free to believe that

>>12239608
The GameCube CPU is too weak to handle so many objects

https://blogstation2.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/ps2-hardware/ that's where most of my info came from

We've been lied by Nintendo and Microsoft marketing,the PS2 is the superior piece of hardware

>>12239775
Grok disagrees with your shitty blog
>The original Xbox (2001) was the most powerful 6th generation console.

>an entire thread full of third worlders copying and pasting excerpts from AI chatbots at each other
A dazzling new low for /vr/.

>>12239801
if you want a vision of the future, imagine two brazilians hooked up to machinery arguing with mechanical ai-safe voiceboxes, everywhere.

File: images.jpg (7 KB, 259x194)

7 KB JPG

Generic PC components was a huge mistake for the XBOX since Killzone look better than Halo 2.

Imagine if Sony had decided to launch the PS2 in late 2001, along with the Xbox and GameCube. With the PS2 hardware being worked for another 2 years, we could have had a 7th genn console 5 years earlier.
Japanese engineers are no joke. Also, Ken Kutaragi was at his peak.

Even so, the Gamecube comes out on top.ith Resident Evil 4. Graphically the best.
PS2 delivered the most impressive tech with Shadow of the Colussus and FF XII.
XBurger has nothing special going on. Just a shitty 2001 Pentium 3 and Geforce 3.

>>12238205
Man, I didn't know the PS2 version looked THAT bad...

>>12239961
GameCube : 4:3
PS2: 16:9

Full screen too hard for the weak GameCube CPU

>>12237689
Xbox on paper blows the rest out of the water, but that didn't necessarily mean multi-plats always looked better on it.

Does not "le mans 24" on dreamcast had special effect that are used only by this game?

>>12239938
>Killzone look better than Halo 2
This board is fuckin wild

>>12241075

Uh oh xbutt chuddie has a melty

>>12241075
It's just some PS2fag baiting, anon.

>>12240326
Depends. These days on a scaler I play most of that generation on xbox whenever possible. Most if not all games have proper 480p support and a 5.1 digital track. It's cool. Some do just feel like ps2/gc games but with slightly sharper visuals though.

File: 1tq635.png (3.65 MB, 3264x1087)

3.65 MB PNG

>>12241075
Sorry but it's true
Pcsx2 and Xemu

>>12238205
>left: raw
>right: filter (vaseline)

File: r_halo.png (1.16 MB, 1098x970)

1.16 MB PNG

>>12241197
and even redditors agreed

>>12241217
Halo 2 was too ambitious. It was like two generations too early for the tech it was trying to push. Even if they did manage to ship stencil shadows, the resolution/performance would have been too low. pic-related is only simulated/approximated btw, it's not even the real deal that could have been with pixel perfect shadows and dynamic lights

>Marty O’Donnell
They had taken a gamble on what I think was called a stencil lighting model. And they thought they could do the whole engine this way, that they could do all the lighting this way, and it was going to be revolutionary

Then we had the famous Halo 2 demo at E3 2003. The lighting model was just beautiful. But when we came back we realized: we can’t ship this. It wouldn’t run. There was no way we could do the whole game this way. It was a huge, horrible realization that the entire plan that had been worked on for two years was basically going to be thrown out

>Paul Bertone
I became mission design lead. We basically started a complete redesign of the campaign about a year and a half in, a very silly Herculean effort. A lot of people sacrificed themselves in ways that you should never have to for your job.

>Jaime Griesemer
I focused on what I really knew best, the combat and weapons and vehicles sandbox. So, I only did one mission on Halo 2. I still wanted to do the tutorial, because I was very involved in playtesting. But we rewrote the AI for Halo 2, and all this stuff worked fine, but apparently it wasn’t good enough for us. So I went from having my hands in almost all the pies on the first Halo to being much more focused on the combat and the moment-to-moment gameplay in the sequel, which would continue.

>Max Hoberman
We went another year-plus without the campaign being playable. Meanwhile, we’re playing multiplayer every single day for two years while the campaign was in development. And the quality of the work was a direct result of just that constant hands-on playtesting and iteration.

>>12241253
Sorry, but you cant make something ambitious on a pentium 3 and 2001 gpu.
The end result shows.

>>12237823
The PS3 was the Sega Saturn of Sony. Hard to develop for which tanked sales due to developers not wanting to make games for it. Only difference is that the PS3 got easier to make games for once people actually figured out how the Cell processor worked.

PS2 was actually really easy to develop for. So much so that many developers found workarounds to make the games run and look on par with Gamecube and Xbox titles in spite of the weaker hardware.

>>12241869
>PS2 was actually really easy to develop for. So much so that many developers found workarounds to make the games run and look on par with Gamecube and Xbox titles in spite of the weaker hardware.

No