One is a forest that you travel through at high speeds. Anytime you are speeding through an area, it will have considerably less detail than it would otherwise. And even with that being said, the forest looks great.

The other shot is a rendered screen (read: not what you'll see when playing the game), with a photograph in the background. Ignore the cannon, compare it to the rocks along the side of the track. Those don't look too hot. Also, that is a high-res screen, designed exclusively to make the game look better than it actually is. PS2 can't output at 720p. The game runs in 640x480, which will be considerably less detail.

yes, I realize that. my point is, why shouldn't space shooters (not necessarily this space shooter) look as good as racing games (not necessarily GT4), because BAB's comment was that comparing those 2 genres was bad. Although the choice of screens for comparison were bad, I still dont see why one genre should look worse than another merely because of its genre.

Well for whatever reason, Ranzid asked for a screenshot with tress or atleast that's the impression I got, and your screen doesn't invovle any tree what so ever.

Anyhow why it's bad to compare a spaceshooter to a racer.

Well, I think it's basically one is in a more nature setting environment, I mean sure the pic you posted of RS III is on ground (even though first person), but most other screens are in the air and what have you. Also space shooters tend to have a bit more going on in the screen. The GT 4 screen has one car on a vast highway.

Now reason why the screen comparison was bad...
1)They have nothing in common at all..
-They are two different setting, one is a bit more confound to a jungle like setting while another is in a more open and somewhat barren road
-One is via a first person perspective, the other seems to be an bird's eye view screen.
-There isn't much going on in either screen.

Oh f*** all ya'all, I can top all of your graphics.












:D :D :D

Yep, Stonecutter's screens get my vote. :D

lol, just because he thinks the trees look nice in the game doesn't mean he has a fetish =B

Those are sweet!

watch out Halo 2!

calm down, junior. it was a joke. look it up in the dictionary some time :nod:

Stonecutter.... posting pics like that and NOT posting pics of PONG?

you're dissssPickable!`

I know, I just like ruining them :)

:eek:

Superior hardware:


Inferior hardware:


See how the trees in the first are clearly better than the second????:rolleyes:

........

Wait a minute, what was the original topic of this thread?......:rolleyes:

Games that have totally different genre's shouldn't be compared. Some games weren't meant to be realistic like Mario Golf for example Good graphics should be decided on by how it looks, now how it looks to others.

I agree with you 100%, although the only basis of graphical expectations we have is by looking at other (modern) games. I don't think Mario Golf looks good. I could have left it like that, but people would say "why? why doesn't it look good?" The only reason why I bothered posting other images is to TRY to somehow give some reason to my point...but I've already agreed to disagree, so...O .o