Straight up technically it was Xbox > GC > PS2 > DC

But some of the stuff they were able to squeeze out of the PS2 was pretty damned amazing. Then again the DC version of Grandia II looked pretty nice for it's time while the PS2 version sucked ass.

That being said my favourite console of that gen was the PS2 but that had nothing to do with graphics.

  I replied to you simply because instead of saying something useful you looked for a way to make him look stupid. With a quote where he says something not really  untrue about GOW.  Nothing else. 
And then you made up a quote so it seems like he said  "only Sony Fanboys like the graphics of FF10" to make fun of him which is just childish. Isn't it?


FF10 looks really good for a ps2 game especially in the year it came out.
THATS ABOUT IT   THATS THE ONLY MEANING OF GRAPHICS RATINGS.  Its just "how does this game look like compared to games on the same console when we consider ARTSTYLE and use of hardware."   <-- This is where your FLAW is. 

I mean why do you think some Wii games get a 9 for graphics and a better looking PS3 game that uses newer architecture and therefore new effectsgets a 7?

Horsepower/raw computing power has nothing to do with artstyle. 
Just because a game looks good and has  good artstyle doesn't make it the game that uses more ressources of the hardware or the game that pushes the limits. In this regard FF10 even tho a beautiful game fails to be a game that shows how much power the ps2 really has.

We are comparing the graphical capabilities of consoles not if a game looks more beautiful than another game. If a game is beautiful or not is out of question because well....  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Artstyle is something that depends on taste but raw computing power on the other hand is nothing that depends on taste its pure objectivity. Thats the point. For me Wind Waker looks way better than Twilight Princess  but im quite sure Twilight princess has more polygons etc.


Again  I agree with you that FF10 looks really nice I never said that you were wrong.
I was only telling you the game does not push the PS2 hardware because most people dont get that they use tricks. To help this statement I added stuff NOT ONLY FOR YOU BUT  FOR EVERYONE TO READ.  Stuff like the Mario64 face. I added it to make it more understandable  not because I doubted your  intelligence or whatever. But so everyone that reads my reply knows what was ment.

I am aware of the fact that YOU know that the cutscene models look better than the ingame models.

I then came back to the GOW quote  and again explained why there is no real fatal error in what he said about GOW (you quoted it for a  reason didnt you? You either disagree with it  or you wanted to make fun of him. In case of the former I said what I said)

I never said anyone here is a Sony Fanboy I just tried to help his argument. I said that GOW looks good because its zoomed out. It's no candidate for GAME WITH BEST GRAPHICS  but no matter how often you say it some people wont get it.
And then to show that there is a reason why he said what he did I said that one cannot really argue with  real sony fanatics because there is no way  they will make a mistake or they being wrong etc.(which was obviously sarcasm because sure they can be wrong) 

And to undergird this and to show that its not just a few people thinking so  I talked about the ANNOYING FANBOY THREAD.   This was by no means intended to call anyone fanboy nor was it used in any other way but to say " HEY LOOK THERE IS ALOT OF PEOPLE THINKING THIS WAY  WELL ITS ACTUALLY MOST OF THE PEOPLE THINKING THIS WAY".

P.S. I have to agree that its strange for him to post Omikron on Dreamcast and then argue with you about FF10.
I just watched a Youtube video of the game  and Omikron seems to have some huge environments.  I think the game looks uber ugly and individual characters etc are really low on polygons (seem like  n64 models) But it seems likeyou can enter every building in the game without the need to load it.   So it might be contender for the MOST POLYGONS AT THE SAME TIME  or whatever.   Maybe he can explain why he mentioned Omikron  would be interesting to know.

I agree with GT4. The cars looked so good, they even recycled them for GT5!

If you were in for a discussion, I would advise you to check the video I posted. But you are not.

From what I gather, from reading the thread from the forum I posted, the PS2 actually holds up well.  It's biggest problem was texture resolution since there wasn't really enough memory for it, nor usefull texture compression, but it was a 3D beast.  You can perform great effects on it cause, despite the high learning curve, was pretty programmable.

XBOX wins this.

Far Cry Instincts

Half Life 2

Halo 2

forza 1

Conker

splinter cell

Fable

Panzer Dragoon

King Kong

PGR 2

Dead Or Alive

Myst 4

Rallisport Challenge 2

Well TWO can play this game.

Aquaman

Cubivore

So do some Xbox and Gamecube games. On a technical level, the PS2 could not match either of those two consoles.

God of War 2

Killzone

^ I do not for the life of me understand why Killzone 1 is considered graphically impressive. It's low res, glitchy, and the framerate chugs something fierce when the actions heats up. Even by PS2 standards, it's not a good looking or technically impressive game.

While the other consoles may have had a better hardware, those PS2 games I listed are graphically as impressive as the best of those systems, if not better.