|
Tekken Tag wasn't the only launch game though. As mentioned, SSX looked pretty damn good.
Tekken Tag was just a rushed piece of crap--i.e. the typical Namco launch game. |
exactly
if you look at tekken 3 on the PS1, theres really NOT that much of an increase edit : you can't really make generalizations about namco, considering Soul Caliber 1 looked MAGNIFICENT on the Dreamcast :D |
Dude I for one thought Tekken Tag was freakin awesome. Not necessarily graphically awesome but I loved the game. I still occasionally play it when Tekken 5 pisses me off too much.
|
yea, they took out my Baek, so I really lean towards that one myself
|
Originally Posted by kakihara1
Dude I for one thought Tekken Tag was freakin awesome. Not necessarily graphically awesome but I loved the game. I still occasionally play it when Tekken 5 pisses me off too much.
|
Originally Posted by KurrptSenate
if you look at tekken 3 on the PS1, theres really NOT that much of an increase
(ignoring the fact that we're comparing one of the best looking PS1 games with one of the worst looking PS2 games), the PS2 Tekken looks way better, and is in fact, quite an increase: TEKKEN 3 http://psxmedia.ign.com/media/previe...e/TK3FMOKU.JPG http://psxmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/tekk36.jpg TEKKEN TAG http://www.gamecritics.com/review/te...g/screen01.jpg http://www.gamecritics.com/review/te...g/screen02.jpg It's much more of an increase than the best looking Xbox1 games look compared to poor 360 games - you should try Black on the 360 on an HDTV, and if you didn't know, you could mistake it for a 360 game - and in some spots, it actually looks better than, say, Perfect Dark. NO ONE is going to be mistaking Tekken Tag for Tekken 3. |
Originally Posted by DRG
Uh, yeah there was because I was one of them. The first time I saw the PS2 in action was Tekken Tag Tournament and I remember thinking, "Well, the backgrounds are a bit busier, and there's a little extra shading, but otherwise this looks pretty much the same as the last Tekken game. That was my reaction to all the games... "slightly prettier graphics". It wasn't until games like Grand Theft Auto 3 that the full potential of the system and its advantages was clear to me.
PSX http://psxmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/tek3.5.jpg PS2 http://ps2media.ign.com/media/news/i...rnament_18.jpg It's very easy to see the big graphical jump in fighing games from the PS to PS2 generation. Now if you were to look at 'Dead or Alive Ultimate' (Xbox) up against 'Dead or Alive 4' (Xbox 360), the difference is much less dramatic. |
Originally Posted by slop101
No there were NOT - not even close.
The difference in graphics capability for the systems is like so: (regadless of what kind of TV you're using) PS1/N64 <<<<<<<<<< PS2/GC/Xbox <<<<< PS3/360 You obviously don't remember the PS2 launch, then. All the same criticisms were levied against the PS2 at its launch; it didn't really drive gameplay forward. It was just more polygons and resolution (N64 and PS1 ran at 320x240). And it didn't even look much better. Take a look at PS2 games from 2000/2001. Developers have really increased the size and scope of the games, and have really looked for ways to squeeze the most out of the PS2 hardware. SSX was, by far, the gem of the PS2 launch lineup, both in terms of visuals and in play value, and if you look at the maturation in graphics and the development in the building of the world between the first SSX game and the most recent, you're going to see a lot of development. If you compare a really excellent title from the mature PS1/N64, say, RE2, FFIX, or Zelda, and a really good early-generation title from PS2, like Grand Theft Auto 3, and a really good current Xbox 360 title, like Rainbow Six: Vegas or GoW, I think the difference is quite comparable. |
I think there is always that kind of criticism and launch.
Looking back in hindsite, and using the images above, it's pretty clear that the jump from the best looking PS1 games to the PS2 was pretty big (looking at Tekken 3 to Tekken Tag, much less Tekken 5 or Soul Calibur 2 or 3). And I think it's just as clear to steal the above example, that that DOA Ultimate to DOA4 comparison shows the leap isn't as great this time--though it is still a decent jump. Just diminishing returns since it is a big price increase for a lesser jump. :D But some disagree that it's a lesser jump, and that's fine. Not going to argue the point, it just looks lesser to me (even on my Bro's nice Dell LCD HD set). |
I remember the launch just fine (I got my PS2 on launch date), and I was plenty impressed by the leap from the PS1 to the PS2 in graphics alone, that I didn't really notice that it was really lacking any thing in size and scope - I thought we were just talking about pure graphic-power and the jump from the previous system's later, more polished games compared to the new system's first-year games. And in that case, this leap just isn't as huge as the last one.
|
I can't think of a single 3D PS1 game I could stand looking at. I swear the PS1 could barely do 3D. The 3D capabilities were so weak. Unless you want to call Final Fantasy 3D. That's pretty much the extent of it. I think the only 3D PS1 games I have are FF, DQ7 (haha, 3D, barely), and I used to have Tekken 3.
There's plenty of 3D PS2 games I enjoyed, though. |
Originally Posted by slop101
|
Originally Posted by CreatureX
Now if you were to look at 'Dead or Alive Ultimate' (Xbox) up against 'Dead or Alive 4' (Xbox 360), the difference is much less dramatic.
And just to nail this point home, here's an HD shot of DoA Ultimate from the first Xbox, followed by a shot of DoA4 on the 360: Xbox http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/...1042543639.jpg 360 http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/...2111724904.jpg Not nearly as drastic as the Tekken difference, now is it? |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:42 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.