Shhhhhh! Showing games on better hardware (GC/Wii/XB) having better graphics than the PS2 versions doesn't fit the apparent narrative that the PS2 held back games and no one cared. No no no, these videos are all lies. It's photoshop manipulation. The multiplatform games in the PS2 era looked the same across all platforms because PS2 held back what the others could do. If you think Chaos Theory looked better on Xbox or Resident Evil 4 looked better on Gamecube, you're clearly a biased fanboy who is too blinded by your loyalty to Sony to see that PS2 held games back and they all looked the same.
Pretty hard sarcasm fail dude.
Go check history books and tell me why Xbox esclusives or Gamecube exclusives look so much better on those consoles compared to multiplatform.
As soon as someone says something against the Playstation consoles some people......
You know what go and compare God of War Collection on PS3 to the PS2 games. The world geometry and the character models etc are crap. Why? because the PS2 was WEAK. And so even the HD "remaster" (even if its just a lazy upressed port) is held back by the PS2s flaws.
Another example is Crysis 2 on PC. The consoles are significantly weaker than a PC. And in Crysis 2 the whole geometry was blocky. Battlefield 3 is also a pretty blocky game on PC simply because the consoles held back the PC versions. Having higher resolution etc is irrelevant the PC version suffered due to other hardware being crap.
But sure adding some shaders to Just Cause or some nice snowflakes to TombRaider (which is basically no work) and keeping the rest basic due to the lowest commen denominator is totally not being held back.....
Explain to me why exclusive games on any console look better than multiplatform games on the same console? I'm pretty sure it's because the dev focuses 100% of their attention on the one console (but what do I know?). So what are you getting at? That because Halo 2 was Xbox exclusive and looks really good, the Xbox version of NFL 2K5 is no longer better than the PS2 version by a country mile? Because that's a silly argument.
Why would I compare a game to its own HD remaster in order to claim some sort of detriment? Especially an exclusive? What does GoW have to do with holding back other games? Yea, the PS2s had its flaws....but to use a game's own HD remaster? What kind of logic is this? Unless they go to the trouble of remastering textures, an HD remaster is, by definition, just an up-res. There's no "holding back" when the intention is to only HDify the game. Would a Jade Empire HD remaster have been some super game with Gears level graphics? Because that's what you're essentially implying (PS2 was weak, so an up-res is "held back"....but an up-res from other consoles' games on different platforms wouldn't be "held back")
And if you really think Crysis PC vs Consoles is comparable then lol, you need glasses.
And sure, the Xbox/GCN versions of games just added a few extra shaders /s
Shhhhhh! Showing games on better hardware (GC/Wii/XB) having better graphics than the PS2 versions doesn't fit the apparent narrative that the PS2 held back games and no one cared. No no no, these videos are all lies. It's photoshop manipulation. The multiplatform games in the PS2 era looked the same across all platforms because PS2 held back what the others could do. If you think Chaos Theory looked better on Xbox or Resident Evil 4 looked better on Gamecube, you're clearly a biased fanboy who is too blinded by your loyalty to Sony to see that PS2 held games back and they all looked the same.
Pretty hard sarcasm fail dude.
Go check history books and tell me why Xbox esclusives or Gamecube exclusives look so much better on those consoles compared to multiplatform.
As soon as someone says something against the Playstation consoles some people......
You know what go and compare God of War Collection on PS3 to the PS2 games. The world geometry and the character models etc are crap. Why? because the PS2 was WEAK. And so even the HD "remaster" (even if its just a lazy upressed port) is held back by the PS2s flaws.
Another example is Crysis 2 on PC. The consoles are significantly weaker than a PC. And in Crysis 2 the whole geometry was blocky. Battlefield 3 is also a pretty blocky game on PC simply because the consoles held back the PC versions. Having higher resolution etc is irrelevant the PC version suffered due to other hardware being crap.
But sure adding some shaders to Just Cause or some nice snowflakes to TombRaider (which is basically no work) and keeping the rest basic due to the lowest commen denominator is totally not being held back.....
Explain to me why exclusive games on any console look better than multiplatform games on the same console? I'm pretty sure it's because the dev focuses 100% of their attention on the one console (but what do I know?). So what are you getting at? That because Halo 2 was Xbox exclusive and looks really good, the Xbox version of NFL 2K5 is no longer better than the PS2 version by a country mile? Because that's a silly argument.
Why would I compare a game to its own HD remaster in order to claim some sort of detriment? Especially an exclusive? What does GoW have to do with holding back other games? Yea, the PS2s had its flaws....but to use a game's own HD remaster? What kind of logic is this? Unless they go to the trouble of remastering textures, an HD remaster is, by definition, just an up-res. There's no "holding back" when the intention is to only HDify the game. Would a Jade Empire HD remaster have been some super game with Gears level graphics? Because that's what you're essentially implying (PS2 was weak, so an up-res is "held back"....but an up-res from other consoles' games on different platforms wouldn't be "held back")
And if you really think Crysis PC vs Consoles is comparable then lol, you need glasses.
And sure, the Xbox/GCN versions of games just added a few extra shaders /s
Well, he specifically said crysis 2... crysis 1 was created exclusively on pc originally, then later ported to the 360. Crysis 2 was developed with consoles, so it was held back by them. Otherwise, how do you explain that crysis 2 looks worse than part 1 on pc? And as for the splinter cell video, well, that just shows that, damn, the original xbox was a beast of its time. It really did blow the doors off the ps2 in terms of power.
Lets make a trade, the Xbox guys can have graphical parity (take the extra time to bring it up to PS4 level) and the PS4 guys get the game when the PS4 version is done instead of waiting for the Xbox version to catch up.
Unless Arkham Knight is 1080p/60fps I'm going to be displeased...
Time for Sony's first party to come out and put an end to this, just shame them so hard they can't force parity if they hope to compete.
Bet with Adamblaziken:
I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.
ludicrousSpeed- Awesome, another game for VGC to throw a fit over because they think some pixels might have been held back.
some,come on,its not like its 3or4 pixels,its quite a bit going from 900p to 1080p.. its not just res,it could be anything from textures/shading/light ect that gets held back for the parity treatment,why would anyone except that. you can thank ms for adding in a camera (that basically got ditched) that 98% of gamers could give a crap about(this gen) instead of beefing up their specs.... here we come lowest common denominator
I don't get you PlayStations fans. Last generation you demanded that developers make the Sony versions of games just as good as the Microsoft versions and now that it is finally happening, you are not only not satisfied, but throw a fit?
This is the post of the thread. Well done.
Actually, Sony fans had to be content with inferior ports for two generations to the Xbox brand. No one could argue that the architecture of the PS3 was hard to develop for. The upside for Sony fans is that their exclusives too advantage of the hardware and the exclusive devs knew tricks to bring the most out of the hardware. MS knows Sony has them dead beat on exclusives and multiplats and it is painfully obvious that they are making devs create parity because MS is that much better at PR than Sony. They know it matters and it affects perception. MS deals in perception and every second counts. The only PS3 games that got any love for primary development were Japanese made, which gave them a competitive edge against 360 ports. This generation MS knows they have to win the war with games because the truth is the graphics war was lost before launch. They cannot fool people into buying their console off of multiplats alone any longer. Microsoft has to wow with exclusives. This is the truest test MS will ever (and I mean ever have) because exclusives are their weakness, especially when they come from within MS. I would prepare myself if I were you for more left field moneyhatting from MS. Its the only way they can pose a threat to Sony this gen.Tomb Raider was only the beginning.
(Written from a cellphone, dont mind the errors. Sometimes I type from my cell and it uses auto correct.)
Well, he specifically said crysis 2... crysis 1 was created exclusively on pc originally, then later ported to the 360. Crysis 2 was developed with consoles, so it was held back by them. Otherwise, how do you explain that crysis 2 looks worse than part 1 on pc? And as for the splinter cell video, well, that just shows that, damn, the original xbox was a beast of its time. It really did blow the doors off the ps2 in terms of power.
Was that not Crysis 2? I just looked up "Crysis 2 comparison" and found a link that also didn't look like it was captured with a potato. How about Crysis 3, since it's the most recent one, so the available PC hardware at it's time would be a better comparison. Because if consoles "held back" Crysis 3, which was on the latest hardware on PC (as opposed to 2005 hardware), we'd most definitely see some PC drawbacks
Here's the video itself
Still looks to me that PC blows out the console version. No parity or "adding some shaders" there
