It holds true for JRPG. As I said a genre that is withering. For the other genres:

FPS sucked.
Western RPGs were inexistant (KOTOR exempt), the PS3 and esp. the 360 have more good ones.
Racers are plentyful on PS360 and if you have seen GT5P or Forza you simply cannot get back.
Action-Adventures were plentyful but there are as many really good ones now.
Sandbox titles simply benefit from the processing power available today. I still dream of giant pixels after playing GTA PS2 (was cool on PC though).

so where did the Ps2 excell? JRPGs, Fighters, platformers, pretty much all shrinking genres.
You may be a fan of depth, but your team also needs some really great players to make a balanced team not just hundreds of run-of-the mill player.

Kyros said: The same holds true on the PS2 for every single genre, It holds true for JRPG. As I said a genre that is withering. For the other genres: FPS sucked. Western RPGs were inexistant (KOTOR exempt), the PS3 and esp. the 360 have more good ones. Racers are plentyful on PS360 and if you have seen GT5P or Forza you simply cannot get back. Action-Adventures were plentyful but there are as many really good ones now. Sandbox titles simply benefit from the processing power available today. I still dream of giant pixels after playing GTA PS2 (was cool on PC though). so where did the Ps2 excell? JRPGs, Fighters, platformers, pretty much all shrinking genres. You may be a fan of depth, but your team also needs some really great players to make a balanced team not just hundreds of run-of-the mill player.

 

Remember, just because you don't like a game doesn't make it a bad game. 

And I was going to make a huge list of great PS2 games but then I realized others have already done it better:

http://www.gamepublic.com/top/ps2/

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/772/772296p1.html

Also, I really don't want to waste the effort on someone that thinks graphics make all the difference.  You're just not worth it.

As I said taste is subjective. I will agree that I am a bit PC centric. I like western RPGs, I like shooters, I like RTS. I also liked space sims before they were consoleyfied. So for me this generation is head and shoulders ahead of the last one. Essentially because western ex-PC developers like Epic, Bioware, Valve have now fully entered the console world. Of the top PS2 games, most games by western devs are already there again(Highly improved) and new once were added, japanese developers are still lacking but that's no problem for me, I am no fan of endless cutscenes.

Oh and regarding graphics: There are some genres that simply benefit hugely from it. This includes all genres that depend on lots of small details on screen. You couldn't do an RTS on 640*480 for example. This would simply be unplayable. And I would like to meet someone who plays Forza or GT5P and returns to his pixelated world of the PS2.

Kyros said: As I said taste is subjective. I will agree that I am a bit PC centric. I like western RPGs, I like shooters, I like RTS. I also liked space sims before they were consoleyfied. So for me this generation is head and shoulders ahead of the last one. Essentially because western ex-PC developers like Epic, Bioware, Valve have now fully entered the console world. Of the top PS2 games, most games by western devs are already there again(Highly improved) and new once were added, japanese developers are still lacking but that's no problem for me, I am no fan of endless cutscenes. Oh and regarding graphics: There are some genres that simply benefit hugely from it. This includes all genres that depend on lots of small details on screen. You couldn't do an RTS on 640*480 for example. This would simply be unplayable. And I would like to meet someone who plays Forza or GT5P and returns to his pixelated world of the PS2.

 

What resolution was Warcraft?  It couldn't have been more than 800x600 max and that game did perfectly fine.  While I don't think Halo Wars will be a hit, it should show perfectly fine that you can do an RTS on a standard TV.

Which Warcraft did you mean? In Warcraft3 you could set any resolution you liked. Starcraft was still fixed at 640*480 or something. But for 2D graphics this was ok. 3D graphics below 800*600 are terrible though, you simply cannot evade some aliasing unlike 2D graphics were every pixel is put exact where it is intended to be.

When I played PC games I always used 1024*768 and optimized everything to this resolution. Which in general gave good results. Anything less than 800*600 was unacceptable, anything over 1280*1024 almost not noticeable.

Kyros said: It couldn't have been more than 800x600 max Which Warcraft did you mean? In Warcraft3 you could set any resolution you liked. Starcraft was still fixed at 640*480 or something. But for 2D graphics this was ok. 3D graphics below 800*600 are terrible though, you simply cannot evade some aliasing unlike 2D graphics were every pixel is put exact where it is intended to be. When I played PC games I always used 1024*768 and optimized everything to this resolution. Which in general gave good results. Anything less than 800*600 was unacceptable, anything over 1280*1024 almost not noticeable.

The original Warcraft.  Sure, it was old but that thing had fantastic detail.  The second one should have been pretty low resolution too and it was really good too.

And thinking about detail even more, you don't need a high resolution for high detail.  This scene from FFVI shows fantastic detail and emotion that is rarely seen in games today and it's pretty low resolution:

SPOILERS!!

 

Yes 2D graphics do not need high resolutions because you can draw, and antialias every pixel perfectly. But 3D games below 800*600 simply look like hell.

http://www.juegomania.org/Quake+II/fotos/psone/1/1216/Foto+Quake+II.jpg