• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

6'th gen hardware wars: Game Cube vs Xbox OG vs PS2 vs Dreamcast

Stuart360

Member
Sep 9, 2018
2,123
3,006
445
To be fair Doom 3 and Half Life 2 looks much worse on Xbox compared to PC anyway (I have added screenhots from both games in my 1 and 2 post), but I still enjoyed playing xbox version.
You have to remember that at that time PC still got huge AAA exclusives that were FAR beyond console games. The likes of Doom 3 and especially Half Life 2 were the best games graphically you could get. The fact that a console at that time could even get a port, it was pretty impressive.
Its all different today of course with PC getting few of these kind of games anymore, games that really show what PC's can do (unfortunately as a PC gamer).
 

Negotiator

Member
Jun 28, 2011
3,938
558
680
Now that you mention it, am I the only one who wants a proper remaster of Far Cry 1?

When I say "proper" I don't mean the PS3 remaster abomination...

I don't know why, but my 2005 PC (AMD K8 3000+, GeForce 6600 GT 128MB) ran it better than the PS3 (Cell, GeForce 7 256MB) version for some reason.

They could probably release it on the PS4 and it should run at 1080p60 locked.
 

scalman

Member
Feb 6, 2019
718
228
220
we all know what spec numbers say and then we all know what games say . thats all to it . nothing more .
 

polybius80

Member
Jan 10, 2019
85
71
180
Not just resolution and texture quality, but why are the lighting effects cut back so much on GC? It's not like it was just that one Splinter Cell game either. Chaos Theory showed even more of disparity. Is the lighting handled by the GPU?
GC cant match Xbox in general, but even then not all developers are going to invest much in a port, some do but its difficult to know how bad was the development of the game in a particular port, just because one game looks very bad doesn't mean the system cant handle more, this game was on PC too so its more simpler to adapt to xbox, the GPU works similar
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
691
658
295
GC cant match Xbox in general, but even then not all developers are going to invest much in a port, some do but its difficult to know how bad was the development of the game in a particular port, just because one game looks very bad doesn't mean the system cant handle more, this game was on PC too so its more simpler to adapt to xbox, the GPU works similar
I understand, but its not just one game, we're talking the whole SC series as well as dozens of other games. There was a fair amount time between ports of those SC games(3 total) and they all ended up that way, with Xbox furthering the disparity with each release.
 

polybius80

Member
Jan 10, 2019
85
71
180
I understand, but its not just one game, we're talking the whole SC series as well as dozens of other games. There was a fair amount time between ports of those SC games(3 total) and they all ended up that way, with Xbox furthering the disparity with each release.
yes but I suppose the engine its an iteration of the first isn't it?, and note each subsequent game was better, so you can say that the first game is not using as much of the system as it could, for the third games( chaos theory) they even dedicated a team to improve the PS2 version with lot of very impressive effects and I think they are present also in the GC version



just because a game doesn't look as good as other ports doesn't necessarily mean the system can't do better, just dont expect it to match xbox(sure you will find a game here and there), that system its a special and rare case its very powerful because its actually far more expensive, MS absorbed the cost
 
Last edited:

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
691
658
295
yes but I suppose the engine its an iteration of the first isn't it?, and note each subsequent game was better, so you can say that the first game is not using as much of the system as it could, for the third games( chaos theory) they even dedicated a team to improve the PS2 version with lot of very impressive effects and I think they are present also in the GC version



just because a game doesn't look as good as other ports doesn't necessarily mean the system can't do better, just dont expect it to match xbox(sure you will find a game here and there), that system its a special and rare case its very powerful because its actually far more expensive, MS absorbed the cost
Yes, but I did not know they had a special team to improve the visuals for the GC and PS2 versions, that makes it even more interesting considering the outcome. But yeah Xbox was a special beast for the time period.
 

Fat Frog

Member
Mar 21, 2019
105
79
185
When I see Under Defeat on Dreamcast (reflections of doves, bullets, particles on the water), i cannot accept the OP segregation...

There are two groups of consoles:

Dreamcast/PS2

Gamecube/Xbox

On emulation ps2 is reaching the GC/Box group (no shit sherlock, it's easy with free AA) but in real condition with that fugly alliasing PS2 is staying with the Dreamcast.(even more on LCD where DC is shining, ps2 struggling)
 

pawel86ck

Member
Jan 27, 2018
546
481
285
More Dreamcast games emulated.

Quake 3







More Le Mans
















Q3 on your screenshots looks REALLY good, Q3 was also ported to PS2, so I wonder how both version compare.
yes but I suppose the engine its an iteration of the first isn't it?, and note each subsequent game was better, so you can say that the first game is not using as much of the system as it could, for the third games( chaos theory) they even dedicated a team to improve the PS2 version with lot of very impressive effects and I think they are present also in the GC version



just because a game doesn't look as good as other ports doesn't necessarily mean the system can't do better, just dont expect it to match xbox(sure you will find a game here and there), that system its a special and rare case its very powerful because its actually far more expensive, MS absorbed the cost
Interesting video, but I have to say PS2 version still looks very bad in the final game. For example in the comparison below I cant see these shiny textures on PS2 and GC also lighting looks more flat compared to your video.


I will make my own xbox vs ps2 vs gc comparison from SC3.
 
Last edited:

pawel86ck

Member
Jan 27, 2018
546
481
285
When I see Under Defeat on Dreamcast (reflections of doves, bullets, particles on the water), i cannot accept the OP segregation...

There are two groups of consoles:

Dreamcast/PS2

Gamecube/Xbox

On emulation ps2 is reaching the GC/Box group (no shit sherlock, it's easy with free AA) but in real condition with that fugly alliasing PS2 is staying with the Dreamcast.(even more on LCD where DC is shining, ps2 struggling)
I have asked moderator to change an existing thread name to include dreamcast. Also I have used Esppiral DC screenshots in my 1'st post but I had to change resolution from 1080p to DC standards because screenshots from other games are in 640x480 as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Esppiral

scalman

Member
Feb 6, 2019
718
228
220
we all know nothing can beat PS2 games library and other consoles just died when PS2 was against them thats fact, and if game has lower graphics you dont know it when you play it , your mind makes image just perfect from what it is. i never had problem with ps2 game beging not good looking enough , they where mind blowing on normal CRTV
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Naglafar

V4skunk

Member
Nov 20, 2018
407
282
275
Splinter Cell 1 Xbox vs GC

Both versions looks very similar, it's hard to tell wich one is better :messenger_tears_of_joy:








More screenshots in the spoiler








































Yet GC exclusives look better than Riddick and Splinter Cell, and that is with out direct shiny wall shaders.
How come you guys are not using Halo2 or Conker as a graphical bench mark for xbox?
 
Last edited:

polybius80

Member
Jan 10, 2019
85
71
180
Q3 on your screenshots looks REALLY good, Q3 was also ported to PS2, so I wonder how both version compare.

Interesting video, but I have to say PS2 version still looks very bad in the final game. For example in the comparison below I cant see these shiny textures on PS2 and GC also lighting looks more flat compared to your video.


I will make my own xbox vs ps2 vs gc comparison from SC3.
you wont see much of a light system on a mostly still camera comparison you can easily think its a baked light that way

 
  • Like
Reactions: pawel86ck
Feb 15, 2018
1,415
911
370
United States
You have to remember that at that time PC still got huge AAA exclusives that were FAR beyond console games. The likes of Doom 3 and especially Half Life 2 were the best games graphically you could get. The fact that a console at that time could even get a port, it was pretty impressive.
Its all different today of course with PC getting few of these kind of games anymore, games that really show what PC's can do (unfortunately as a PC gamer).
Tbqh doom 3 looks worse than a well made ps2 game. It had nice lighting on Xbox, nice dynamic per pixel lighting. A kind where you didn't even see on the cube. But those poly counts were atrocious. How others do not see this I do not know. Someone brought up black ; that was impressive for ps2.

Half life 2 was more impressive for its physics than graphics, but its graphics were not slouching, and definitely had higher res textures than any console game. Can't honestly say some console games didn't beat it though, on cube and Xbox. Crysis was truly the first time pc ran away with top graphics.

And the Xbox port runs verrry poorly and isn't up to snuff visual wise. Pretty low res textures compared to other games on the platform.
Yet GC exclusives look better than Riddick and Splinter Cell, and that is with out direct shiny wall shaders.
How come you guys are not using Halo2 or Conker as a graphical bench mark for xbox?
Halo 2 looks worse than Riddick.
Conkt is actually insanely detailed, but the animations are worse than the n64 original!
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: SonGoku

Fat Frog

Member
Mar 21, 2019
105
79
185
I have asked moderator to change an existing thread name to include dreamcast. Also I have used Esppiral DC screenshots in my 1'st post but I had to change resolution from 1080p to DC standards because screenshots from other games are in 640x480 as well.
OK :messenger_ok:
I would add that people often forget that DC wasn't discontinued after 3 Yeats but 2 !(4 months and 3 days)

As if the Genesis, SNES, PSX were stopped after Phantasy Star 3, Final Fantasy 5 and FF7.(which also runs on developper friendly console)
Yeah, that's fact.
In other words, Dreamcast games were mainly cross gen games (with a few exceptions). The tiny G Rev team proved it years later and gives an glimpse of what could have done Square Soft with a much much bigger team on a rail RPG like FFX switching no free camera 3D background, prerendered animated images to have the prettiest graphics possible. I would kill to see how a naughty dog could optimize Dreamcast graphics or simply how would look Orta on the console.(remember Zwei was possibly the finest 3D game on Saturn...maybe with 1 more yeay we could have seen the prettiest DC game)
 
  • Like
Reactions: pawel86ck

Naglafar

Member
May 17, 2011
104
22
540
Yet GC exclusives look better than Riddick and Splinter Cell, and that is with out direct shiny wall shaders.
How come you guys are not using Halo2 or Conker as a graphical bench mark for xbox?
Using the same game basically gives you a 1:1 comparison. Its clear how many effects/shadows/etc are missing in the cube version.
 

pawel86ck

Member
Jan 27, 2018
546
481
285
Dreamcast top, Ps2 Bottom.
Both shots are taken at native res, Dreamcast (640x480) ps2 (512x448) and mip maps engaged, not enhancements on any.
I thought PS2 was more capable than dreamcast, but on your screenshots dreamcast version looks way much better (especially textures). I'm reading DC specification right now and they mention 5:1 texture compression, so maybe that's why textures looks much sharper on dreamcast? But I have to say pretty much all PC games ported to PS2 looked extremely bad, Max Payne, Rune, Deus Ex, and even half life 1 (half life 1 run and looked better on Pentium 2 and 3DFX voodoo 3 card than PS2 version!)

And here's some Q3 engine game RTCW on xbox, it was really good port, it run in higher resolution than a typical xbox game (720x480 compared to 640x480), it had new levels compared to PC version, improved water rendering, although PC version had still higher resolution textures (especially character textures) better fog and coronas.


More screenshots in the spoiler









Tbqh doom 3 looks worse than a well made ps2 game. It had nice lighting on Xbox, nice dynamic per pixel lighting.

And the Xbox port runs verrry poorly and isn't up to snuff visual wise. Pretty low res textures compared to other games on the platform.
Both Doom 3 and Riddick werent as detailed as some other xbox games like for example Splinter Cell 1 (polygon wise), but well made PS2 game (like Killzone, Time Spliters 2 for example) still had even less polygons. Also keep in mind bump mapping was used in Riddick and Doom 3 to create an illussion of higher polycounts on various objects (that's why bump mapping was invented in the first place), and with specular lighting and per pixel lighting on top of that these two games looked almost next gen compared to PS2 titles like killzone.

Killzone 1


Doom 3 (xbox)






You want to tell me Killzone 1 looked better than Doom 3 on xbox?

And here's Riddick









Even simple square rooms in Riddick looks impressive thanks to these shader effects and dynamic lighting

When it comes to Half Llife 2 port on xbox classic, it had mixed textures, some textures looked sharp, while other looked like a blurry mess (compared to a typical xbox game).







But even with lower quality textures compared to PC version and with poor framerate I have enjoyed playing xbox version. On CRT textures looked good for the most part, and even when framerate was diping to around 20fps it was still easy to aim. I dont know why but some games feel smooth and responsive even at lower fps, while in other games even 2fps dip cause problems with aiming.
 
Last edited:

Thanati

Member
Oct 21, 2011
612
93
510
That's your opinion, not a fact. I have played fzero GX yersterday on dolphin emulator and there's nothing impressive in that game besides framerate. Only ships models have high quality textures, but besides that textures are low quality and levels arnt very detailed.
Here's similar game on xbox, ground texture is very detailed and is using pixel shaders (you can see bumps and reflections even during high speed). Why fzero gx doesnt feature details like that? The thing is, many xbox games were using effects like that frequently while GC games very rarely. The only game that can be compared to the best xbox titles is rogue leader, maybe also star fox (water surface had reflections and some object had realtime shadows instead of blob shadows) and wave race (water surface looked good) but besides that I dont really remember many other GC games that would feature graphics effects comparable to xbox.

It was totally opposite on MS console, because pretty much every xbox exclusive game used xbox hardware features (pixel and vertex shaders, shadow buffers) and later on even multiplatform games from PC also were using shaders (like doom 3 or Half Life 2 for example). And the thing is, when games were made with xbox in mind from the start (like Splinter cell 1-4) and later on ported to GC they were downgraded to the extreme (unlike RE4 port on PS2, because RE4 on PS2 still looked like the same game). If GC hardware would had more RAM + HDD and could recreate shaders and shadow buffers with good performance GC port would look comparable to xbox. Splinter Cell 1 on GC version had higher resolution textures compared to PS2 version, better water surface, better framerate but it was everything they could improve on GC version. Xbox version however still looked like a different game compared to both PS2 and GC versions.

Splinter cell 1

What's interesting even PS3 version had downgraded shadows compared to xbox version because RSX didnt had shadow buffers like Geforce 3-4-5 and xbox GPU. It's possible to emulate shadows buffers on PC with similar GPU (7800 GTX, and even xbox emulator on x360 did it) so I dont know why PS3 port used much worse looking shadows in this game. But one thing for sure, GC hardware would never emulate Splinter Cell shadow buffers with good performance and not to mention shaders on top of that.

Splinter Cell 3

In splinter cell 3 the difference is even bigger because this particular game was using shaders and specular lighting on all textures.

RE4 was very detailed game (polygon wise) and also texture quality was good but compared to xbox games I could see mamy effects missing. Water surface looked really bad, there were no dynamic shadows, and no shaders and bumps on textures. With effects like that RE4 would look stunning. Shader effects and shadow buffers really made a difference in xbox games and there's no way games like doom 3, riddick, splinter cell 1-4 games, far cry instincts, Half life 2, halo 1-2, PGR2, ralli sport 2 could be ever ported to GC because of inferior hardware. In fact people here mention even PS2 burnout 3 was too demanding for GC and that's why game wasnt ported to GC and you want to tell us GC had the best hardware 😂👌. Yeah but lets believe GC hardware was the best despite the evidence (gamecube games vs xbox games).
Holy shit. I’d forgotten how good this looked on the original Xbox!
 

Daymos

Member
Jul 26, 2013
314
195
380
All this stuff is reminding me that the most powerful system doesn't necessarily have the best games.. YET all we're arguing about for the next generation is which system will be the most powerful, as if that's the deciding factor on which system will be the best to buy. Logic error.
 

BlackTron

Member
Jun 30, 2016
542
514
350
I remember being so mad that everyone flocked to PS2 while at the time, I thought Dreamcast spanked it with graphics and library.

Nonetheless, people stopped buying Dreamcast overnight and it wasn't long before PS2 caught up in sheer numbers of games.

I think DC was a purist gamers system while PS2 had more mass appeal, especially with the perfect timing of its DVD playback. I actually tried to get into PS2 but mine always ended up collecting dust while I kept on playing GCN, DC and PC for a looong time. I didn't even like GTA that much.
 

Deanington

Neo Member
Jul 15, 2018
34
18
130
I still remember when I first bought an Xbox, after playing games on ps2. Booting up halo, brute force and conked, it really felt like an actual generation jump over the ps2 at the time. Crazy beast of a machine for its day.
This was my favorite console/gaming period. I had it right around launch and was hooked till the 360. This was my golden age and felt that it had one the best gaming line ups. I really havent had a gaming experience like it since then. However, I only played a few games on PS2 and never experienced a GC. So definitely biasesd in m oppinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pawel86ck

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
34,733
7,130
1,340
there's really no beating the xbox here, inject the dc into this conversation, go with that because the architecture is absolutely stunning

I had all the systems and the real order is:

Xbox
Gamecube
Ps2
Dreamcast
ja that seems right to me
 
Last edited:

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
691
658
295
Yet GC exclusives look better than Riddick and Splinter Cell, and that is with out direct shiny wall shaders.
How come you guys are not using Halo2 or Conker as a graphical bench mark for xbox?

I honestly think it's because there are so many examples. Ninja Gaiden and Panzer are others people use. Ninja Gaiden is also 60fps wtf.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Godzilla Emu

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
691
658
295
When it comes to Half Llife 2 port on xbox classic, it had mixed textures, some textures looked sharp, while other textures looked like a blurry mess (compared to typical xbox game).






But even with lower quality textures compared to PC version and with poor framerate I have enjoyed playing xbox version. On CRT textures looked good for the most part, and even when framerate was diping to around 20fps it was still easy to aim (I dont know why but some games feel smooth and responsive even at lower fps, while in other games even 2fps dip feels cause problems with aiming).
Other than the physics in HL2, which are unmatched that gen, there's another aspect too that no other game that generation can touch imo--Facial animation. It literally looked a generation ahead of anything.

Also, scale. Some of the levels are absolutely massive with all those physics and shooting going on. Its mind blogging really considering the hardware.

Which brings up another point, almost all fps shooters on the GC stated away from large open spaces like Halo, Half Life 2, even Halo 2 which is incredibly taxing. They needed everything to be a corridor shooter.

BTW, thanks for posting all these screens of various games, it's convincing me the Xbox was even further ahead than I remember.
 
Last edited:
Feb 15, 2018
1,415
911
370
United States
I thought PS2 was more capable than dreamcast, but on your screenshots dreamcast version looks way much better (especially textures). I'm reading DC specification right now and they mention 5:1 texture compression so maybe that's why textures looks much sharper on dreamcast? But I have to say pretty much all PC games ported to PS2 looked extremely bad, Max Payne, Rune, Deus Ex, and even half life 1 (half life 1 run and looked better on Pentium 2 and 3DFX voodoo 3 card than PS2 version!)

And here's some Q3 engine game RTCW on xbox, it was really good port, it run in higher resolution than typical xbox game (720x480 compared to 640x480), it had new levels compared to PC version, improved water rendering, although PC version had still higher resolution textures (especially character textures) better fog and coronas.


More screenshots in the spoiler










Both Doom 3 and Riddick wasnt as detailed as some other xbox games like for example Splinter Cell 1 (polygon wise), but well made PS2 game (like Killzone, Time Spliters 2 for example) still had even less polygons. Also keep in mind bump mapping was used in Riddick and Doom 3 to create illussion of higher polycounts on various objects, that's why bump mapping was invented in the first place, and with specular lighting and per pixel lighting on top of that these two games looked almost next gen games compared to PS2 titles.

Killzone 1


Doom 3 (xbox)





You want to tell me Killzone 1 looked better than Doom 3 on xbox?

And here's Riddick









Even simple square rooms in Riddick looks impressive thanks to these shader effects and dynamic lighting

When it comes to Half Llife 2 port on xbox classic, it had mixed textures, some textures looked sharp, while other textures looked like a blurry mess (compared to typical xbox game).






But even with lower quality textures compared to PC version and with poor framerate I have enjoyed playing xbox version. On CRT textures looked good for the most part, and even when framerate was diping to around 20fps it was still easy to aim (I dont know why but some games feel smooth and responsive even at lower fps, while in other games even 2fps dip feels cause problems with aiming).
Not killzone, but criterion's black yes.

I kind of doubt doom 3 has higher poly counts than killzone but sure the former looks nicer overall.
 

Fat Frog

Member
Mar 21, 2019
105
79
185
But but but...

Look at how many particles there are!

Etc, etc.
PS2 had excellent SFX, high polycounts but often extremely simple textures, fixed cameras to allow good performances.
For instance, you can admire the over detailed textures of One of the most respected ps2 games:



PS2 hardware was too unbalanced.
The PS3 on the other hand has no real flaw.(SFX,textures, polycount,everything is fine)
 
  • Like
Reactions: pawel86ck

pawel86ck

Member
Jan 27, 2018
546
481
285
Other than the physics in HL2, which are unmatched that gen, there's another aspect too that no other game that generation can touch imo--Facial animation. It literally looked a generation ahead of anything.

Also, scale. Some of the levels are absolutely massive with all those physics and shooting going on. Its mind blogging really considering the hardware.

Which brings up another point, almost all fps shooters on the GC stated away from large open spaces like Halo, Half Life 2, even Halo 2 which is incredibly taxing. They needed everything to be a corridor shooter.

BTW, thanks for posting all these screens of various games, it's convincing me the Xbox was even further ahead than I remember.
That's exactly why I was so amazed with xbox games. Levels in half life 2, halo 1-2, and especially far cry predator were really big,

All this stuff is reminding me that the most powerful system doesn't necessarily have the best games.. YET all we're arguing about for the next generation is which system will be the most powerful, as if that's the deciding factor on which system will be the best to buy. Logic error.
IMO xbox classic was not only powerfull but also had many very good games. Yes, PS2 still had more games, but I had well over 50 amazing games on xbox which is still very good number (for comparison on PS4 I only have 18 games).

Many xbox exclusives were ported years later to PC, for example halo but still I have played them for the first time on xbox.

Fable in particular, it was one of the best games I have ever played during 6'th gen era, I couldnt stop playing it for entire week. Not only game was extremly fun to play and long, but also had amazing graphics. shadow buffers, detailed and large world, shaders on water surface.








Also some multiplatform games like Ghost Reacon 2 on xbox were a totally different games compared to PS2/GC.







To me Ghost Reacon 2 on xbox looked like a 3Dmark :p, dense grass, detailed trees, water with shaders. GC and PS2 ports looks.... well let's forget these version even existed :messenger_tears_of_joy: .

Also Xbox had some really underrated games that I really liked, games like Brute Force, Enclave and even Dino Crisis 3 (different game compared to previous 2 dino crisis games, but I still liked it)

Brute Force




Brute force had bump mapping pretty much everywhere :p, I was really impressed back then and game was very fun too.

Enclave, I cant run it on xbox 360, so I will use screenshots found on the internet and from PC version running at 640x480. Enclave had breathtaking levels and graphics (very high quality textures, water with shaders, shadow buffers), epic sound track, and very good gameplay, although some people considered it too hard (I have completed it anyway)











 
Last edited:

Vorg

Member
Apr 28, 2009
2,451
74
805
Yet GC exclusives look better than Riddick and Splinter Cell, and that is with out direct shiny wall shaders.
How come you guys are not using Halo2 or Conker as a graphical bench mark for xbox?
I was never a fan of the way halo looks, but conker is a serious showcase for what the original Xbox hardware was capable of. I can't be arsed to go look for footage, but you can check for yourself if you don't believe me.
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
691
658
295
That's exactly why I was so amazed with xbox games. Levels in half life 2, halo 1-2, and especially far cry predator were really big,


IMO xbox classic was not only powerfull but also had many very good games. Yes, PS2 still had more games, but I had well over 50 amazing games on xbox which is still very good number (for comparison on PS4 I only have 18 games).

Many xbox exclusives were ported years later to PC, for example halo but still I have played them for the first time on xbox. For example I remeber Fable in particular, it was one of the best games I have ever played during 6'th gen era, I couldnt stop playing it for entire week. Not only game was extremly fun to play and long, but also had amazing graphics. shadow buffers, detailed and large world, shaders on water surface.








Also some multiplatform games like Ghost Reacon 2 on xbox were a totally different games compared to PS2/GC.







To me Ghost Reacon 2 on xbox looked like a 3Dmark :p, dense grass, detailed trees, water with shaders. GC and PS2 ports looks.... well let's forget these version even existed :messenger_tears_of_joy: .

Also Xbox had some really underrated games that I really liked, games like Brute Force, Enclave and even Dino Crisis 3 (different game compared to previous 2 dino crisis games, but I still liked it)

Brute Force




Brute force had bump mapping pretty much everywhere :p, I was really impressed back then and game was very fun too.

Enclave, I cant run it on xbox 360, so I will use screenshots found on the internet and from PC version running at 640x480. Enclave had breathtaking levels and graphics (very high quality textures, water with shaders, shadow buffers), epic sound track, and very good gameplay, although some people considered it too hard (I have completed it anyway)












Xbox absolutely stood head and shoulders over the competition in terms of large, complex worlds, which is another bulletin point. I'm going to fire up Enclave. I have the whole Xbox library installed on my HD but have never played it.
 

pawel86ck

Member
Jan 27, 2018
546
481
285
PS2 had excellent SFX, high polycounts but often extremely simple textures, fixed cameras to allow good performances.
For instance, you can admire the over detailed textures of One of the most respected ps2 games:



PS2 hardware was too unbalanced.
The PS3 on the other hand has no real flaw.(SFX,textures, polycount,everything is fine)
God Of War 1-2 looks amazing considering it's running on PS2, but indeed texture quality was far from good. I hope we will see GOW 1-2 remakes someday :)





But it's hard to emulate it correctly on PC, in hardware mode resolution is very high but characters shadows and postprocessing effects are missing. Only in software mode everything is rendered correctly, but only in native 512x384 resolution.

And now some GC screenshots
















I really just cant tell why people consider Metroid Prime 2 the most detailed (polygon wise) game on 6'th gen. To me it looks like standard game on Q3 engine.







Also texture quality isnt the best, maybe even half life 2 on xbox has better textures for the most part

F-Zero GX













 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: SonGoku
Feb 15, 2018
1,415
911
370
United States
I was never a fan of the way halo looks, but conker is a serious showcase for what the original Xbox hardware was capable of. I can't be arsed to go look for footage, but you can check for yourself if you don't believe me.
It's incredibly detailed but it also is 30fps unlike star fox. Also the facial animations are less detailed compared to 64.

But pure detail wise, probably the best on xbox
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
691
658
295
And now some GC screenshots
















I really just cant tell why people consider Metroid Prime 2 the most detailed (polygon wise) game on 6'th gen. To me it looks like standard game on Q3 engine.







Also texture quality isnt the best, maybe even half life 2 on xbox has better textures for the most part

F-Zero GX














Looks good, but fairly low poly to me even for the era. I remember loving FZero.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pawel86ck

Vorg

Member
Apr 28, 2009
2,451
74
805
This looked absolutely mind-blowing when it released. No other fighting game came close. It still holds up for the most part imo.

Looks good, but fairly low poly to me even for the era. I remember loving FZero.
I love how clean these games look when emulated. They may not have shader effects, normal maps and other bells and whistles, but the way they look is timeless. Both amazing games. I still can't believe Retro managed to recreate metroid in 3D as well as they did.
 
Last edited:

Vorg

Member
Apr 28, 2009
2,451
74
805
Yea, it was stunning when it came out. When Itagaki was head of Team Ninja he did not disappoint.
I dunno, man. Ninja Gaiden 2 was nowhere near as great as the first one, dispite a huge 4 year gap between games. I mean the combat was amazing, and a clear evolution from the first game, but the level design was not. It was super linear and the focus was clearly on always swarming the player with the highest enemy counts possible.

Same for Dead or Alive 4, which didn't cause the same visual impact as DOA3 when it came out. It was a next gen fighting game on a new next gen console, but it didn't look like it at the time.
 
Last edited:

CyberPanda

Banned
Mar 4, 2019
8,817
13,309
1,130
I dunno, man. Ninja Gaiden 2 was nowhere near as great as the first one, dispite a huge 4 year gap between games. I mean the combat was amazing, and a clear evolution from the first game, but the level design was not. It was super linear and the focus was clearly on always swarming the player with the highest enemy counts possible.
NG2 was good, but I agree it wasn't as good as the first one. It's always a challenge to make a sequel good as the original.

Same for Dead or Alive 4, which didn't cause the same visual impact as DOA3 when it came out. It was a next gen fighting game on a new next gen console, but it didn't look like it at the time.
I thought DOA4 looked good, but I agree it didn't have the same visual impact as DOA3 when it launched for the OG Xbox.
But, Itagaki did a better job with TN when he was the head of it than the current team in charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vorg

Esppiral

Member
Nov 19, 2018
216
248
240
People often judge the graphics by its art style, DOA 4 was stunning, the level of detail everywhere the amazing stages and the level of geometry in characters and stages is still insane for a 7 gen game.
 

pawel86ck

Member
Jan 27, 2018
546
481
285
Looks good, but fairly low poly to me even for the era. I remember loving FZero.
Have you played Fzero GX on real GC hardware? I'm using emulator and analog sticks on my xbox one gamepad are too sensitive to the point I cant even stay on track. I wonder if controls on real GC were also so bad or it's just emulator to blame. Game looks fun and also music is very good, but controls ruins everything for me.
 
Last edited:

Doczu

Member
Aug 17, 2012
2,351
379
520
Poland
Have you played Fzero GX on real GC hardware? I'm using emulator and analog sticks on my xbox one gamepad are too sensitive to the point I cant even stay on track. I wonder if controls on real GC were also so bad or it's just emulator to blame. Game looks fun and also music is very good, but controls ruins everything.
I think it must be something with the deadzones and stick sensitivity.
I've played only on real hardware and with the original controler it was great, but playing multiplayer on a 3rd party gamepad i could never get my best times. You could feel immediately something was wrong
 
  • Like
Reactions: pawel86ck

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
691
658
295
Have you played Fzero GX on real GC hardware? I'm using emulator and analog sticks on my xbox one gamepad are too sensitive to the point I cant even stay on track. I wonder if controls on real GC were also so bad or it's just emulator to blame. Game looks fun and also music is very good, but controls ruins everything for me.
I did, but I don't remember a glaring problem with the controls.
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
691
658
295
X-Men Legends, Legends 2, and Marvel: Ultimate Alliance all ran at 720p on Xbox

Tons of action onscreen with physics and semi destructable environments.






 
  • Like
Reactions: Esppiral