I can't believe how much crappier it looks. It looked so much better on my Voodoo5. That is pretty impressive for a V5. Look at the pictures of Max Payne 2.
Max Payne 2 looks better on V5 than PS2
- Thread starter VIAN
- Start date
maybe thats because a voodoo 5 is more powerfull then the ps2 gpu. The ps2 gpu is slower then a GF2 MX200.
Looks great on my 9800 
Really though, I've got an XBox and the only reason I got it was to play the original Halo. Would've rathered get it on the PC instead but thanks to Microsoft and their greedy hands they delayed that version for 2 years. My XBox collects dust until Halo2...
Really though, I've got an XBox and the only reason I got it was to play the original Halo. Would've rathered get it on the PC instead but thanks to Microsoft and their greedy hands they delayed that version for 2 years. My XBox collects dust until Halo2...
That's funny, I play games on my XBox more than I do on my PC.Originally posted by: Robor
Looks great on my 9800
Really though, I've got an XBox and the only reason I got it was to play the original Halo. Would've rathered get it on the PC instead but thanks to Microsoft and their greedy hands they delayed that version for 2 years. My XBox collects dust until Halo2...
PS2 aint very good, and I'd say MaxPayne 2 has an exceptionally well designed graphics engine. It ran at high frame rates on my old Radeon8500 with all settings at max, noAA, 16XAF.
The PS2 "Graphics Synthesizer" isn't that crappy, as the MX200. Sony was just an idiot with a bad decision. Only 4MB of memory. They thought that since the memory is embedded into the chip it would be fast enough that they didn't need more memory, retards.
This just goes to show you what retards with a lot of money can do. Don't forget the motion blur.
This just goes to show you what retards with a lot of money can do. Don't forget the motion blur.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
Yeah but remember a sony PS2 or an Xbox costs less with 1 controller than a brand new 9800 videocard alone!
but the most important factor is that any quality textures on a console are degraded by the inability of the TV to display anything above 640x480 or maybe for a better tv at 800x600 and yes there are those who have HDTVs but the decent PC monitors display 1600x1200 and even higher on a 20+ inch monitor. Now if you change the resolution of the game to 640x480 at least now you are trying to be fair. Plus an xbox has 733mhz processor, no wonder. You go try and play Max Payne 2 on a 700mhz P3 with a geforce 3 with all setting at max and guess what will happen it will simply chop! That's why you cant have as high quality graphics in games on consoles since the hardware isnt as powerful in the first place, contributing to the fact that the output being a tv is much worse than the monitor's display quality.
but consoles have other appeal => playing multiplier with a bunch of friends in sports, fighting or even shooting games like goldeneye or halo right next to you and getting all pissed when you kill them making jokes .... that's something you will never recreate at a lan party, at least not to that extent. Thats why you get PC for games you can play by yourself and consoles for everything else. When was the last time you played a sports game with your buddies or a fighting game on a pc and had as much fun as a console? I personally cant compare the experience. Graphics arent everthing and are simply the externality of the experience, but the experience of videogaming must be judged as a whole, and that includes having FUN playing games too.
but the most important factor is that any quality textures on a console are degraded by the inability of the TV to display anything above 640x480 or maybe for a better tv at 800x600 and yes there are those who have HDTVs but the decent PC monitors display 1600x1200 and even higher on a 20+ inch monitor. Now if you change the resolution of the game to 640x480 at least now you are trying to be fair. Plus an xbox has 733mhz processor, no wonder. You go try and play Max Payne 2 on a 700mhz P3 with a geforce 3 with all setting at max and guess what will happen it will simply chop! That's why you cant have as high quality graphics in games on consoles since the hardware isnt as powerful in the first place, contributing to the fact that the output being a tv is much worse than the monitor's display quality.
but consoles have other appeal => playing multiplier with a bunch of friends in sports, fighting or even shooting games like goldeneye or halo right next to you and getting all pissed when you kill them making jokes .... that's something you will never recreate at a lan party, at least not to that extent. Thats why you get PC for games you can play by yourself and consoles for everything else. When was the last time you played a sports game with your buddies or a fighting game on a pc and had as much fun as a console? I personally cant compare the experience. Graphics arent everthing and are simply the externality of the experience, but the experience of videogaming must be judged as a whole, and that includes having FUN playing games too.
Well, PS2 games aren't exactly rendered at 640x480, its an imbalanced res. and then they stretch it out. Thats why so many jaggies. Remeber in a 60fps game. they only have to render one frame every 2 seconds because of interlaced video. So imagine Vice City running at less than, but close to, 640x480 at 30fps or less with motion blur. That is the power of the ps2, motion blur is probably a post filter or effect that takes very little power to do. So it is a very week system. While I want to play games at 1600x1200 at 60fps minimum and AF. Hah for Ps2
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Discussion (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 8000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram