PS2 Splinter Cell

[Stormlord]

I'm not trying to start anything about which is better. Xbox still looks better because of its higher res and anti-aliasing. But man the team working on Splinter Cell for PS2 sure gots some talent. Here's some screens I found:






It clearly shows that the Xbox version is still the best looking (don't know about a high end PC with a Radeon 9700 Pro) but man my hat goes off to the dev team. Seeing that they have to deal with hardware limitations it still looks pretty impressive.

[TheCovenant]

yea it does look nice, i have to admit. too bad there wont be downloadable content for it.

and i noticed that they changed a lot of things to not use up cpu. mostly distant things, which is a clever technique. blurring distant objects to detail close ones.

i have to say though, since much of it turned to very dark colors, the game almost seems......dead.

[Stormlord]

I noticed that a bit too. Xbox version is still the best IMO. I tried the PC demo and it looked exactly like the Xbox version except I could put it at higher resolutions. But honestly the controls were clunky. SC was built for the Xbox and now is being ported to every other system. I don't see why Gamespot claims the PC one is the best because everyone so far that have reviewed it says that the keyboard couldn't completely replace the control. It's hard to tell if there's any progress while lock picking because there's no rumble in the keyboard. Then the only way to get Sam to walk, run, or sneak is by the mouse wheel and it just doesn't feel natural. But still, good on the teams behalf by making some good ports (something that is rarely seen).

[MixMasta]

does anyone know if the new splinter cell level "kola cell" gonna be included on the ps2 version, or do we get another bonus besides graphics and having it 6 months earlier?

[MerimacHamwich]

Well, this is Ubi Soft we are talking about. They are one of if not the best developers.

[0101010]

Originally posted by MerimacHamwich
Well, this is Ubi Soft we are talking about. They are one of if not the best developers.

True, true.

[canadianboi3]

Looks like crap compared to Xbox, then again, what PS2 games doesn't? But like you said, you have to keep in mind the limitations that they had.

[Cloud Strife]

Originally posted by canadianboi3
Looks like crap compared to Xbox, then again, what PS2 games doesn't? But like you said, you have to keep in mind the limitations that they had.

Have you ever looked at GT3, FFX, Ico, and Ace Combat 4 before.

The screens don't look that bad to me. I probably still will rent the PS2 version so I can compare the two versions.

I do like Ubi Soft fot their superb job on translating Grandia II.

[Master Gracey]

Originally posted by Stormlord
I don't see why Gamespot claims the PC one is the best

I think you answered your own question... did you really think Gamespot would give cred to anything on the Xbox?

Anyway, I really think the PS2 version looks like a well-lit Tony Hawk game. 50-50 around the pipeline?

[Kraft]

Originally posted by Burning Ranger
Have you ever looked at GT3, FFX, Ico, and Ace Combat 4 before.)

GT3 is yesterdays news and was outperformed graphics wise by first gen xbox games. We also already had the discussion in another thread about how the only reason the FF series looks any good is due to pre-rendered backgrounds and pre-rendered cgi movie. Ico and ace combat I can't vouche for as I haven't played them. Either way, every bit of argument you spit out has fanboy written all over it. I will be the first to admit that PS2 does have a huge game library and some fantastic titles, but Xbox has a better graphical system and is easier to program for on top of that. The fact that this ps2 port is looking even close to the xbox version speaks wonders for the ubi soft team. My bet is they had to rework the game from the ground up to do it too.

[Cloud Strife]

Originally posted by Kraft-XBA
GT3 is yesterdays news and was outperformed graphics wise by first gen xbox games. We also already had the discussion in another thread about how the only reason the FF series looks any good is due to pre-rendered backgrounds and pre-rendered cgi movie. Ico and ace combat I can't vouche for as I haven't played them. Either way, every bit of argument you spit out has fanboy written all over it. I will be the first to admit that PS2 does have a huge game library and some fantastic titles, but Xbox has a better graphical system and is easier to program for on top of that. The fact that this ps2 port is looking even close to the xbox version speaks wonders for the ubi soft team. My bet is they had to rework the game from the ground up to do it too.

I said GT3 because I just bought it and it looks far better than Apex, Sega GT 2002, Project Gotham Racing, and Rallisport Challenge. I have all those racing games to and I've compared graphics. I named Ace Combat 4 because the game does blow away Air Force Delta Storm in graphics.

Final Fantasy X doesn't use pre-rendered backgrounds like FFVII, FFVIII, and FFIX. I wish it did because I prefer pre-renders over real time. I'll also add that War of Monsters, Dark Cloud 2, Ratchet & Clank, The Getaway, and Rygar: The Legendary Adventure.

Of course I do see the Xbox is more powerful but comparing Xbox graphics to PS2 graphics are the same as comparing Saturn and PSX. Graphics don't matter to me anyway. I like Galerians: Ash and the graphics were bad. Just give me lots of CG cinemas instead.

[Uchiha Sasuke]

Originally posted by Burning Ranger
I said GT3 because I just bought it and it looks far better than Apex, Sega GT 2002, Project Gotham Racing, and Rallisport Challenge. I have all those racing games to and I've compared graphics. I named Ace Combat 4 because the game does blow away Air Force Delta Storm in graphics.

Even though I am a vivid PS2 supporter.I have to say that GT3 doesn't look better than all those games.I mean, I own Rallisport and and rented Apex and those games are more beautiful than GT3 overall.And the only reason I think Ace Combat looks better is that it had much more development time than Air Force Delta and so more visuals were brought out.

[ShannonX]

Originally posted by Burning Ranger
I said GT3 because I just bought it and it looks far better than Apex, Sega GT 2002, Project Gotham Racing, and Rallisport Challenge. I have all those racing games to and I've compared graphics. I named Ace Combat 4 because the game does blow away Air Force Delta Storm in graphics.

Final Fantasy X doesn't use pre-rendered backgrounds like FFVII, FFVIII, and FFIX. I wish it did because I prefer pre-renders over real time. I'll also add that War of Monsters, Dark Cloud 2, Ratchet & Clank, The Getaway, and Rygar: The Legendary Adventure.

Of course I do see the Xbox is more powerful but comparing Xbox graphics to PS2 graphics are the same as comparing Saturn and PSX. Graphics don't matter to me anyway. I like Galerians: Ash and the graphics were bad. Just give me lots of CG cinemas instead.

you need to lay of the crack pipe or get a better tv. PGR and Rallisport blew away gt3 in the graphics department (which is really all you can compare since they are different style racers). And yes, i have played gt3 even if i dont own a ps2. Its obvious pgr and rallisport win in the graphics department. Apex, not sure about, as i haven't gotten a chance to play anything but the demo.

[JJaX]

GT3 in PS2 looks like crap.

I guess im to use to looking at it at 1028 resoultion on my PC.

And GT3s graphics dont even touch Ralisport or PGR. Burning ranger, you need to lay off the sugar cane.

[Brevity]

IN my new OPM it says this: The game has many new things like graphics, explosions (or like effects), weapons, and gagets, that the Xb game did not and that they will never have through DL on XBL. I did not know this? I am at school or I would give a better traslation of what they said.