DieAppleDie said:
D-Minaj225 said:
DieAppleDie said:
D-Minaj225 said:
DieAppleDie said:
DietSoap said:
DieAppleDie said:
Tabular said:
So... does 50% less GPU performance equal being aligned? |
Like the original Xbox being 2x times more powerul than PS2? Raw numbers are raw.
|
The original Xbox was whole lot more than just 2 times as good looking, though that was more do to effective VRAM (since the Xbox was all unified after all) and the incredible texturing difference plus usually twice the resolution w/ most PS2 games running 480i and than anything to do with flops. Roughly 1.2gb of texture data on screen per second on the PS2 vs about 34gb of texture data on screen per second on the Xbox peak.
|
So why GT4 looks better than PG and Forza? And GoWII and FFXII look better than anything on Xbox? Xbox games had better textures? And what about everythingelse?
|
better gameplay?
|
We are talking about grafix here. The fact that PS2 was so maxed out that it outperformed Xbox in many cases seems to cause major butthurt here... GC was the best out of the 3 anyway...
|
if your refering to me as butthurt then your mistaken besides what ps2 game looked better than conker? and if gc was the best why is it in last place? graphics are pretty to look at but they dont help the games
|
Conker? Dont make me laugh...all that post processing effects cant make up for such tiny, low poly models/environments. GC selling the least doesnt mean a shit in terms of tech performance, you know it right? Plus im a gameplay over grafix guy 100%, so i hope you werent referring to ME on
|
conker looks better than star fox adventures but re4 is a good example
oh and i didn't mean to label u as a graphics guy sorry bout that
