Ps2, much like Psx, doesn't need drop-dead graphics to compete.
I know this isn't the base of the topic, but it's the truth about the situation. While gekko says:
Quote:
|
With that said, PS2 still doesn't compare with Xbox or Gamecube. It just doesn't have the power to compete.
|
I can say with confidence that Xbox and GCN simply don't have the game quality to compete.
Console power is overrated among hardcore gamers and it has little to nothing to do with what makes a console "good". Take N64 for example, it didn't sell 50 million units because it's graphics were great, it was because it had the game quality and marketability to compete... period.
Do graphics make a difference? Yes... but nobody in thier right mind would chose Luigi's Mansion over Zelda OoT (even back then) for game of the year. Great games make a great system, graphics are just a bonus.
The funny part is, people look back at Dreamcast's competition against Ps2's launch and acctually say that Dreamcast games look better! What a joke, the fact is you simply liked DC's games more and that enhanced the look of the game in your mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, as for the topic, I agree with Stu, I don't like to compare screenshots. Why? Because in the early days of Ps2 the way the shots were captured were horrible. The only way to truly judge a game is by seeing it in action. Sometimes Screenshots make a game look a lot better (FFX) and sometimes screenshots make a game look a lot worse (Too many games to list).
IMO, Ps2 has shown maturity in it's sequals. Compare GTA3 to Vice City, or Madden 2002 to 2003... Smackdown 3 to SMackdown 4.. Huge positive differences.