Poll: Was i the only one who was satisfied with PS2/Xbox graphics?

[DustyDrB]

I was definitely fine with PS2/Xbox/Gamecube graphics. I do prefer HD now because I have an HD TV and SD games look kind of fuzzy and make me a little dizzy after a while. But I see certain companies releasing engines that brag about realistic hair and I can't help but wonder what they could do if they focused on real needs (like improved AI).

 

[The Cheshire]

It's all about the style, I suppose. PS2 was enough for plenty of games, however you couldn't play something along the lines of the latest Call of Duty there (not like I care much about CoD), those games work thanks to the graphic capabilities of the console, PS2 would make it look dull without all the moving particles around and the depth of field.

However, Ghost Trick looks amazing in a NDS. I think the thing is doing graphics to fit the hardware, I don't think most "fancy" PS2 look good now, however Killer 7, Shadow of the Colossus or Digital Devil Saga still look pretty good thanks to the art style used.

 

[loc978]

Hell, I was more than satisfied with the 32-bit graphics of the PS1 era. I thought they were a little overboard at the time, actually...
But I did start on the Atari 2600.

The Ps1 was 64bit, the Sega 32x was 32Bit.

The PS1 ran an early MIPS RISC processor at about 33MHz built using 32-bit architecture. Trust me on this, the R3051 was 32-bit (which is something that Nintendo liked to hang over Sony's head in that generation. The N64 was a far more powerful machine... it just had no storage capacity thanks to its use of cartridge games... and the 32X wasn't even of that generation).

 

[TheIronRuler]

I can give you an example of a game that has cartoonish style graphics instead of gritty grey shit realistic ones. One of the fighting games I own, (among a few Tekken titles) is Dragon Ball Z Budokai 3. I have no problems with its graphics because there is very little difference between a cartoon-style Majin Vegetta in a PS2 title or a cartoon-style Majin Vegetta in a PS3 title.

 

[FalloutJack]

i was playing Shadow of Colossus today and realized that the graphics didn't bother me, at all. after playing the game a little longer i realized that i really liked all my PS3/Xbox games. the only thing i asked for was the ability to do more within those worlds. now im not complaining about the current gen graphics. this is just how i feel. how about you guys, do you feel the same as i do? if not can you explain why? im not trying to start an argument or anything like that. just looking for opinions, cause it's always nice to know what other people think.

And I can understand the reasoning. However, for SotC in particular, I would like to see the remake for a different reason. You see, I'll get a wonderous game, but I'll also get Ico, which I'm sort of kicking myself for never playing. Sometimes, the reasoning for more is justified.

 

[FalloutJack]

i was playing Shadow of Colossus today and realized that the graphics didn't bother me, at all. after playing the game a little longer i realized that i really liked all my PS3/Xbox games. the only thing i asked for was the ability to do more within those worlds. now im not complaining about the current gen graphics. this is just how i feel. how about you guys, do you feel the same as i do? if not can you explain why? im not trying to start an argument or anything like that. just looking for opinions, cause it's always nice to know what other people think.

Yes, I understand, but I have a reason to pursue the better for other reasons, like one about SotC in particular. Wonderous game, but then I heard that they were remaking it and packing it along with Ico. I never played Ico, and I'm sort of kicking myself for that. So, some reasons will be fairly legit. Not just about graphics, but opportunities.

 

[Ca3zar416]

Graphics have never been a big selling point for me. Sure when something looks absolutely beautiful it's a bonus but if I had to choose between interesting and artistic PS2 era polygons vs boring everyday realism I'd go with the polygons. Now if there's a game that has an interesting art style coupled with todays rendering power that would look great but as I said before it's not the most important thing for me. Now I'd possibly continue but I see a link to a firefly thread that demands my attention.

 

[Mischlings]

I put "yes". For the most part, the sixth generation consoles were more than good enough for me graphics wise, mostly because I don't need realistic looking graphics (especially if it means something like using Gears of War's color palette) and actually like seeing different art styles. I think that's one of the strong points for the Wii, actually, that its inability to keep up with the latest Unreal Engine means that people often have to go in a different direction (see Okami, Mad World, No More Heroes, etc) (Yes, I know Okami was originally on the PS2) than overly realistic. It also helps to avoid the uncanny valley. I'll even go as far as to say that I was fine with most fifth generation console graphics, though the really early 3d like Super Mario 64 has not aged well.

 

[scorptatious]

Well Shadow of the Colossus is a visually outstanding game for it's time. And even now it still looks good.

I guess it really depends on the game. I've noticed some of the old PS2 games I've played in the past have noticeably aged since they first came out in terms of graphics. (The original God of War being a good example.) Of course some games on the newer consoles look kind of awful too. (Oblivion, despite it being one of my most favorite games, has not aged well since it first came out.)

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Definitely depends on the games, but I think the graphics then were good enough, and it usually meant the story and gameplay got a lot more attention instead of a game just looking pretty.

 

[raankh]

For me, this really depends on the game. Super Mario 3 in its original 8-bit NES version still looks awesome when I play it, but there are quite a few 8bit games that don't look so good anymore. Good graphics/art age well, nevermind the harware capabilities.

Not to say innovations in graphics made possible by hardware can't set new standards and in itself "age well"; I'm thinking here of Quake (numero uno) and Duke Nukem 3D. The former still looks pretty good, absolutely enjoyable from an art work/graphics perspective, while Duke 3D really has me fumbling for the nostalgia factor to not sigh and roll my eyes at it.

[snip]
OP: Last gen's graphics worked, yes, but no last gen console could run something like, say, Oblivion, at full drawing distance. Even if the graphics were knocked down a bit. I mean, even the Xbox version of Morrowind just looked so-so. At least as far as I know.

The power behind modern consoles (inb4 PC fucking fanboys tell me that PC is lots more powerful) allows for a much wider range of possibilities graphically than just cosmetic "Ooh, look at me!"
[snip]

I have to disagree on this one though. Morrowind is one of the ugliest games I have ever seen; that it's so heavy on your graphics card just makes me think its programmed by a team of angry chimps. There are plenty of better looking games with better draw-distances on earlier generation hardware; sims (eg racing-, flight-) are the obvious choices that spring to mind, considering draw-distances.

Also, the power behind modern consoles is previous generation PC hardware, so the comparisons and bickering (other than price-wise) is rather silly in my opinion. Apples and pears.

 

[GiantRaven]

The N64 was a far more powerful machine... it just had no storage capacity thanks to its use of cartridge games... and the 32X wasn't even of that generation).

I'm probably thinking of storage in the wrong sense, but you could save onto an N64 cartridge whilst with a Playstation CD you needed a memory card.

On topic: It depends of the game. Games like Ico, Metal Gear Solid 2/3, Timesplitters: Future Perfect looked fantastic on the PS2. On the other hand, there are games such as Prisoner of War (the only example that comes to mind right now) that look really bad, even when compared to games of the same generation.

 

[F'Angus]

I'm still using the ps2 so I'm happy with the graphics.

The only thing that bugs me is when they blur the graphics to get rid of sharp edges, makes it a little harder to see. Though if you look at some games like Burnout Revenge the graphics are Quality.

 

[RuralGamer]

No current game can top the Crysis games in quality, of course, but there are a few games like Jade Empire that I prefer just because they are so stylized. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for greater graphical quality, but we're currently at an impasse in development. The consoles out are hideously underpowered compared to even entry level gaming PCs, and the 1080p of modern TVs will not be surpassed anytime soon. I would rather see larger worlds with much more interactivity than a higher polygon count on models, but I generally prefer current gen graphics to the past, sans for a few non-gray/brown exceptions.

Yeah, Jade Empire's visuals weren't necessarily great, but the style behind them was really cool; it felt like a whole other world/culture(which it was supposed to be). I'd also agree that I'd also like to see bigger games rather than better graphics; sure the graphics of two years from now look something pretty, but I've always felt that graphics should always be of secondary importance to gameplay and story-telling. And yeah, that's a pretty dodgy captcha.

OT: I liked the sort of industrial/futuristic feel thegraphics of Killzone had and looking back now, I don't feel it has aged that badly.
KOTOR is another game which, if you think about it, doesn't really have that good graphics now, yet I always find myself ignoring them when I'm playing; I would have to be of the opinion that graphics don't matter, so long as the game can suck you in with good story-telling, addictive gameplay or similar.

 

[thenamelessloser]

The N64 was a far more powerful machine... it just had no storage capacity thanks to its use of cartridge games... and the 32X wasn't even of that generation).

I'm probably thinking of storage in the wrong sense, but you could save onto an N64 cartridge whilst with a Playstation CD you needed a memory card.

I think by storage capacity it was meant that PSX was using CDs while N64 was still using cartridges. This is one of the main reasons FF7 went to the PSX instead of N64 I think.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

It depends on the game for me. I thought Beyond Good and Evil looked great, and so did the Team Ico games, I never thought that any of them would be so much better if the graphics were improved.

I'm a little biased on this, but the Silent Hill series benefited greatly from graphical limitations. The fog was perfect and everything was supposed to look disgusting and dirty, I mean, their grim filter is always debated when a new SH game is gonna come out.

Also, holy shit, does this look eerily like "genocide hebrew" to anybody else? I never knew captcha was so racist.

That is one racist captcha, I never knew captcha could be so hateful, maybe it needs a hug...?

 

[Jonluw]

I wasn't satisfied with those graphics, no.
God, how long I drooled over screenshots from Oblivion. The beauty.

 

[DirtyMagic]

I'm actually replaying a lot of Xbox/PS2 age games via XBL Arcade like Perfect Dark and Beyond Good & Evil.
And of course they've been touched up just a bit, but the graphics do not bother me at all.
As long as the gameplay is epic and a great story is being told, it doesn't need to be all that in the graphics department.

But graphics do play a part of course. So really it depends on the other factors of a game for the graphics to become a (mostly) irrelevant factor IMO.