PS2:
PSP:
edit: directed at Fate. And Speedfreak. I don't know, just pretend I posted before him.
Just argue it here, folks.
I wish I knew how to use mod tools better.
[quote=higbvuyb]"The PSP has PS2 quality graphics"
That one's actually true...
PSP is not quite capable of emulating the PS2, but it's not far off.
Certainly looks a ****load better than the first-gen PS2 games.
Yeah, but that's because it has a very similar development process to - if not exactly the same as - the PS2. And people already know how to develop stuff for the PS2, so farly high-quality graphics are attainable very soon.
Yes, but what? The fact is that the PSP HAS a smaller screen, therefore is sharper and has a higher resolution - simply because of its size.
Motion blur is a problem, but it's nothing that I can't get past. It's a screen thing rather than a game thing, though - it's down to poor choice of screen by Sony. Nevertheless, the problem exists.
Er, um, er, pixel density/resolution isn't the point. The graphics themselves are on par with PS2 sir.
They are not.
Argue this in the PSP board.
That pixelated crappy comparison shows you've never played a PSP. It destroys 2D gaming and just looks beautiful. For the small screen it has, the clarity is amazing. It's like carrying a PS2 with a widescreen. /end all
Incorrect. It looks sharp, BECAUSE the screen is small. Thats like saying a 3 x 3 pixel screen has PS2 quality graphics, because each pixel is .5mm x .5mm. A screen like that would have great clarity, but if you tried to play GTA on it then blew it up to PS2 sze, then you would get:
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v699/higbvuyb/gta8ho.jpg[/IMG]
Okay, true enough. But the OPSP screen is a) much denser than you're making out, and b) that screenshot is bollocks. When I'm a) awake, b) can be bothered, and c) a liitle less drunk, I'll post an accurate comparison.
Meanwhile, don't be such a git.
hig, the screen size doesn't matter if it at least looks sharp. Same goes for the DS, you know, so don't be all defensive.
PS2 > PSP IN GRAPHICAL CAPABILITIES. THIS IS FACT. PSP HAS NO ADVANTAGES WHATSOEVER. THIS IS FACT. ARGUEMENT ENDS HERE.
We know that, Addy. It can just emulate the graphics pretty **** well. It really does look like a portable PS2. :/
NO. IT. DOESN'T. IF YOU THINK IT LOOKS EVEN CLOSE TO PS2 YOU'RE ALSO THE KIND OF PERSON THAT THINKS PS2 IS EVEN REMOTELY SIMILAR TO GC AND XBOX.
And that's the point I've been trying to make all along. =/ Yeah, PS2 > PSP, but only marginally. Have you seen Magna Carta's graphics? It's not a direct port of the PS2 game - It's a port with just-about-identical visuals, more customisation, and a load more stuff.
PS2:
PSP:
edit: directed at Fate. And Speedfreak. I don't know, just pretend I posted before him.
Two games that look pretty much the same =/= pretty much equal graphical power. RE4 on PS2 and GC look "pretty much" the same, but that doesn't change the fact that GC pisses all over PS2.
But that's not the point we're making here, is it?
I agree all the way that GCN's graphics are superior, but where the **** did that come from?
You're saying that the graphics are pretty much equal by comparing two screenshots of two games that look roughly similar. I'm saying that's bullshit reasoning and use RE4 on PS2 and GC as an example.
Yeah, but then you chipped in about GCN's graphics "****ing all over PS2", which is irrelevant, as we're not discussing the GCN here. Fact is; we're not talking about limit-breaking capabilities here, just the graphics of individual games and how PSP graphics are just about equivalent to those of most PS2 games.
IT'S CALLED AN ANALOGY, IDIOT. WHEN YOU REFER TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT HAS THE SAME RULES APPLIED TO IT TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT?
They are not "equivalent". They run at lower resolutions, lower polygon counts, less effects, worse textures and no Anti-aliasing applied. YOU ARE WRONG, SIR.
The only game I've seen on it to make proper commentary is MGS Ac!d. I'm not kidding when I say it looks amazing. And in this case, Addy, "equivalent" doesn't necessarily mean "equal," but more "pretty close." :/
Pretty loose analogy if you ask me. And besides, I don't need a point illustrate it as it's already before me in black-and-****ing-white. Actually, it's in full vibrant colour with high polygon counts, but that's besides the point.
If it looks the same or if I can't tell the difference, then I'm really not bothered.
I find it stupid that people say the PSP graphics suck because it isn't on par with the PS2. It's a ****ing handheld and the graphics are more than excellent for the size the package it's given to you.
[quote=Klarth]Pretty loose analogy if you ask me. And besides, I don't need a point illustrate it as it's already before me in black-and-****ing-white. Actually, it's in full vibrant colour with high polygon counts, but that's besides the point.
If it looks the same or if I can't tell the difference, then I'm really not bothered.
Just because you can't tell the difference it doesn't mean that the graphical capabilities are anywhere near the same or that no one else can. When I play on PSP I can tell I'm playing a broken Dreamcast.
Honestly, if you can't see the difference between those two screenshots then you really are completely blind.
Take a look at battlefront 2 on PSP and a screen of battlefront 2 on the PS2. you can definately see a difference there. To be certain.
I find it even funnier that you're comparing a handeld to a console, Addy. :p
The fact that you can compare the two should be testament to the graphical power of the PSP.
Socom for the PSP:
Socom for the PS2:
The difference is there.
First of all, SOCOM sucks. Second, open spaces have higher poly-count. So, if you're playing that godawful game in the first place, you know that it has incredibly large and open areas that would reduce poly-count in ported versions. Also, the screen is enlarged beyond belief. Bad comparison.
[quote=Fate][COLOR=skyblue]I find it even funnier that you're comparing a handeld to a console, Addy.[/COLOR] :p
Ugh! I'm not the one comparing, Klarth is! I'm the one saying his comparison is bullshit!
Oh. In that case, okay. :cool:
Actually, I think it's your turn to pay more attention to the last few posts and realise that bickering about pixel density is out the ****ing window.
Wrong. Anyway, if you're so right, post a reason and proof. You're not right until you prove it. And you can't, can you, that's why you're not trying.
[quote=hibdhfsd]Klarth, your pics don't count, because that game's engine sucks
Your whole post is null because you said that. Where's your factual basis now? Jesus **** you're dumb.
Tell me why Magna Carta's engine sucks. Tell me who developed it, what its structural flaws are, and your past experiences with the game on both platforms.
Alright, yeah, etc, I've read all of your posts.
Tell me why Magna Carta's engine sucks. This should be an interesting response.
Klarth, give up, man. You obviously know little about the intricacies of game graphics. We're telling you, as fact, that PSP cannot produce the same stuff as a PS2. The screenshots you have shown prove this. You have no base of arguement whatsoever.
You're right, I have no knowledge of the technicalities of these things, but I seriously doubt hugfbsfg does either. As far as I'm concerned the graphics LOOK like those of a PS2, which is more than enough for me.
But I'm still awaiting an answer as to why Magna Carta has a bad engine.
ok why are we even having this argument.who cars about graphics or pixels..as long as you can see the dang thing then you should be all set
Okay, hig, since you're a ****ing retard and we have to explain this to you: WE KNOW THAT THE GRAPHICS AREN'T THE SAME. For ****'s sake, that's obvious. It can emulate pretty **** well, and that is what matters in the end.
If I can't tell the difference, that's all that matters to me.
Alternatively: "NO, YOUR FAVOURITE COLOUR IS PURPLE, *****! PURPLE!"
[quote]Graphics quality doesn't depend on what you think.
Yes, I'm well aware of that. It depends on what you SEE, funnily enough. I see a pocket PS2. You might see different, but I sure as hell see one. SO ****ING WHAT IF THE SPECS ARE DIFFERENT, if it's really that hard to notice a difference I believe it.
and:
[quote] it doesn't take into account the fact the the PS2 screen and resolution is larger. Scaling it down has just made it worse.
That has nothing to do with the engine, now, does it?
[quote=hisdfbhsdf]It doesn't matter what you think you see, dickhead. It's only ever what you think you see. Right now, you're thinking wrong.It is what it is. The PSP's graphics ARE inferior to that of a PS2, regardless of what you think you see.
How do you know what you're thinking isn't wrong? What I'm stating is my opinion, but you're forcing your opinion on me as if it's fact. And I'm well aware that the graphics are TECHNICALLY (remember that word, it's very important in this statement) inferior to a PS2's, but for christ's sake, what we're saying is that it looks pretty ****ing close.
[quote]I was being sarcastic, I 'thought' I saw that the graphics sucked compared to other PS2 games.
However, you still managed to use a "sarcastic", unfounded blanket statement like that to shunt away the solid, tactile evidence I'd given you that the two games have completely identical (and ****ing amazing) visuals.
i would have to say that this thread is the dumbest argument eva..and velvet nightmare.make me
[quote=Klarth]How do you know what you're thinking isn't wrong? What I'm stating is my opinion, but you're forcing your opinion on me as if it's fact. And I'm well aware that the graphics are TECHNICALLY (remember that word, it's very important in this statement) inferior to a PS2's, but for christ's sake, what we're saying is that it looks pretty ****ing close.
However, you still managed to use a "sarcastic", unfounded blanket statement like that to shunt away the solid, tactile evidence I'd given you that the two games have completely identical (and ****ing amazing) visuals.
Christ Almighty. We are not forcing our opinion on you, were are forcing facts on you. If your opinion differs from the facts then it is wrong.
It is my opinion that I am unable to distinguish the difference between PSP visuals and those of a PS2 from what I've seen of both systems. It is a fact that I concede, however, that the PS2 has greater specs than the PSP. Higbdshu is stating that his take on the former, however, is a fact. That is all.
He's stating that your opinion is entirely irrelevent. I'm stating that you're blind.
In Klarth's defense, he is a consumer that can have an opinion. The goal of the PSP was to mimic a PS2, and to non-techie consumers like Klarth and most of the market, Sony succeeded. People know that the PS2 is graphically superior to the PSP, but it looks pretty **** good either way. What are we arguing about, again?
Precisely. I don't buy a game to count the polygons.
[quote]The topic is about fact, not what you think.
Actually, at this stage, it's about neither. I'm arguing for what I see.
I do think you're being a tad hypocritical when the argument extends to dictionary definitions.
Besides, my statement of it being "actually true" preceded the argument that we've been participating in. Regardless, it's still true that I see (I. Me. Not you. My opinion!) a scaled-down PS2.
[quote]Where?
Here:
[quote=higbvuyb]Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
true (trū)
adj., tru·er, tru·est.
Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous. See synonyms at real1. See Usage Note at fact.
Truthful.
Real; genuine. See synonyms at authentic.
[quote]THat's the point. You said it, and then we argued afterwards.
I was not aware of the difference in technical capabilities between the PSP and its console counterpart until we participated in this argument.
[quote]It's true that that's what your insane mind is telling you, but it's not true. If a drug addict hallucinates a purple tree, is the purple tree really there? Since someone is red-green colour blind, is red the same as green? No. You said that it was true, you didn't say that it was what you saw.
If the drug addict hallicunates his purple tree, it doesn't mean it's true that the purple tree is there; it simply means that he sees it.
That is all.
I think by "PS2 quality" it was implied that the graphics weren't EXACTLY PS2 graphics, but a nice simulation. Seeing as how it came from a non-techie consumer like Klarth, it would be easy to assume such a thing. hig, you're taking this entire argument too seriously. Shut up.
What. The. Hell. I bet I'm on your ignore list. No wonder you continue to be an idiot. oll
Speaking of ignore lists...
lol, you can't stand being beaten by someone else, can you?
[spoiler]j/k
And, I'm not even debating seriously anymore. It's just fun watching Klarth owning himself.[/spoiler]
DON'T HIGHLIGHT IF YOU'RE KLARTH
Sorry, didn't catch what you said there.
Okay, this has turned hi!-larious.
This is ridiculous. The arguement was started with Klarth disagreeing with someone (think it was me, actually) who was laughing at someone saying they're both the same. That's where it started, with Klarth trying to argue that they are the same. His opinion that they're the same is totally irrelevent because he's trying to convince someone else that they're the same. He lost that debate by a ridiculous amount, case closed.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm simply defending the fact that what I see on the PSP is just about equivalent to what I see on the PS2.
Alright then. You're blind. Case closed.