Re: So now that Rouge Galaxy is the best looking game this gen

Jordan wrote:
Soul Calibur 3 > Dead or Alive Ultimate

Dead or Alive Ultimate is better because it can be played right now.
Have fun in October.

Sorry but Xbox's #1 fighting game developer can't even make a game that looks better than a game on a supposedly weaker system. And the team has revamped the engine since DOA3.

We went from DOA3, DOAX, NG, to DOAU on a console that is supposed to be 3x more powerful than the PS2, has better support, is a breeze to program for, and has pixel shaders, yet SC3 still shits on DOAU in the graphics department.


GT4, 60FPS, 1080i > Forza, 30FPS, 480p

Have you actually played GT4 in 1080i? There's a weird shimmering
glitch that the screen goes through every time it kicks in to that
mode. It's not something to be bragging about.

Considering GT4 is doing over 3x the amount of work Forza is doing I'd say bragging rights are on the PS2 right about now.

GT4= 60fps(2x30fps) 1080i(640x1080=2x Forza's pixel count) and the physics which are doing far more work that Forza's

I haven't played Forza, but head to head Project Gotham 2 wipes the floor with GT4. At least on my 51" widescreen. It's also 30 FPS.

Dumbass, Gotham 2 and Forza are both 30fps in 640x480. GT4 at 60fps in 1080i shits on both of them.

Rouge Galaxy > Any Xbox RPG

Again, I hope you have lots of fun in December. (I still need to finish
Jade Empire one of these days.)

Have fun with sub 30fps frame rates and extreemly long load times. Maybe you should go back to KOTOR's horrible jaggies.

God of War > Ninja Gaiden

God of War is a great looking game, possibly the best looking PS2 game
I own. It's still nowhere near Ninja Gaiden from a graphical
perspective. However it is much, much easier so I'll throw you a bone
on this one. I owned Ninja Gaiden for months and couldn't get past
level 2, not the best engineered game I've ever played. Fortunately God
of War can be finished in a week-end.

One scene in GoW shits on every scene in NG.
Take a second look, the game is using many lights, more animation, more characters on screen, extreemely high polygon counts, drawing entire environments, has no load times, uses bump mapping, reflection mapping, physics on the ropes, and my God the water is amazing, and all those special effects, etc, etc, etc...

Unlike NG which uses "stylized characters" which aren't very high in poly counts, uses a few bitmapped backgrounds, has really small rooms, less animation, worse alaizing, loading times, and I've yet to see it draw a character as complex as anything in GoW.

Speaking of environments, there are WAY more polys in GoW's that NG's.
Go play both games again and take a look this time. All those carved out pieces of rocks you see all over GoW's environments aren't just single flat textures stuck on low poly models like NG. Those are all polygons and it takes a lot to pull off what GoW is doing.

FFXII > Any Xbox RPG

Due to be released in March, 2006. How desperate are you for
comparisons at this point? You can't think of any current PS2 game that
compares to Knights of the Old Republic 1 and 2, Fable, Sudeki, Jade
Empire or even the Morrowind games? I mean, come on! By March it's all
going to be PS3 vs. 360, nobody is even going to care about PS2 titles

Oh my god, don't let me get into how Jag infested and load time ridden those KOTOR games look on Xbox. Fable looked good I'll admit but everyone knows it won't touch FFXII. Just look the real-time cutscenes from last years E3 build for proof of that.

Sudeki was shit and so was Morrowind. I guess if reading 10,000 pages of text is something you like morrowind is OK!

Burnout Revenge PS2 > Burnout Revenge Xbox

At least here you are comparing two titles and neither of them have
been released.

Shit, the graphics work is done. And it's pretty evident that the PS2 version is superior. Even Criterion's coders claim the PS2 can do a few things better than the Xbox. I'd take thier word over some loser in this newsgroup.

Black PS2 > Any Xbox FPS

Yet another 2006 title.

You really like ignoring the fact that Xbox got shit on by 1999 technology don't you. It doesn't matter when the games are released if PS2 is technically superior to Xbox in a few areas then it is technically superior to Xbox in a few areas.
A date has no relevance in the matter.

Killzone 2 > Halo 2

I should hope that a PS3 title will have better graphics than a 2 year
old title on the previous generation. That's only common sense. But
then again considering how poorly Killzone turned out who knows?

Oh, so now you want to claim that since the PS2 has been out longer than Xbox it should easily have better code. This isn't the case, as ALL developers know and have stated already. PS2 is harder to develop for because of a couple reasons.
#1. Bad software support from SOny
#2. Bad documentation from Sony
#3. Radical new architecture
#4. Assembly language is harder that Direct X.
#5. Direct X has been around for years.
#6. PC architecture has been around for years.
I could go on but that should be enough to warrant an extra year or two for a learning curve

Be sure and come back when some of these games actually come out, and
when you learn how to spell "Rogue".

Be sure and come back when Xbox has the weakest graphics and no games. Wait, that would be right now. My bad. .