Which sixth generation console did you think had the best graphics?

the xbox had the best graphics hands down but the gamecube made the best out of what it had and to a lesser extent so did the ps2.

If you had to get a multiplat game 90% of the time the xbox was the console to get it on if graphics were all you cared about

It's weird how I appreciated the weak graphics of the n64 and the gamecube but now can't compromise with something like the switch.

>best graphics
*least shitty

Xbox > Gamecube >>> PS2 > Dreamcast

Xbox probably, but the PS2 could shit out transparencies very fast both have their pros and cons.

>weaker hardware
>what is alpha blending infinite bandwidth

Look at RE4 PS2 port and compare with the GC game
PS2 had shit hardware, it only sold because it was a cheap DVD player and then the games followed

Many PS2 games don't even run at a full 480i resolution and have all sorts of limitations (like color depth or mipmapping) that make them particularly ugly to look at on modern flatscreen displays. Combine that with overambitious devs shooting for 60fps and delivering really unstable performance across the board and you have a strange situation where the system provided us some absolutely beautiful games that nevertheless look like ass these days and run really poorly. It's weird.

Xbox and gamecube, PS2 games didn't look good but some were fun at least

The internet made spoiled. Back then, you had your N64, it was it's own little world, and it was comfy. But now, you have a constant barrage of FPS and resolution comparisons everywhere you look. And if it's not the highest res or framerate, it's deemed (implied to be) shit! This has rubbed off on you.

Now you can't stomach having the worst version for too long. Back then, you were just happy to play the game. I'm taking myself back to that mindset.

re4 was built from the ground up to best utilise the gamecube's hardware, of course a rushed port on the ps2 would look like shit
that's like saying sotn proves the saturn is worse at 2d than the playstation, or that megaman legends proves the playstation is better at 3d than the n64. utter retardation

>PS2 had weaker harder than the Gamecube

Attached: 1447422682792.jpg (1366x624, 290K)

This isn't even up for debate. The answer is objective the xboxhueg
too bad its library was mostly just PC ports and halo.

this
a lot of KONAMI games utilized this and when ported to Xbox chugged for example the tanker chapter of MGS2 on XBOX tanked due to the amount of rain, Silent Hill 2 reduced fog to ridiculous level to compensate.
It's all about how devs built the game and on what platform rather than the raw power.

>Xbox
>component cables
>EDTV flat screen CRT
>most games supported 480p

Perfection.

The Gamecube had F-Zero GX and it ran at 60 fps

But it wasn't just RE4. On most multiplatform games, you could do a side-by-side comparison and PS2 version usually either looked the worst or ran the worst. The only reason this effect isn't more pronounced is because PS2 was so popular that many multiplat games were designed first and foremost for PS2 and then GC/XB secondarily.

GameCube hands down.
It's third party support was eh but it had so many high quality first party titles.

RIP

Attached: 1561840413110s.jpg (250x151, 5K)

go easy on them, that's the only thing they (believe) believe they had since forever

The Gamecube was a billion times more powerful than the PS2.
Its small disc size was its achilles heel.

f-zero gx had pinball physics and a simple art style
burnout 3 had realtime vehicle damage and deformation, a shitton of particle effects, framebuffer and dsp effects and a much more complex physics model

and then burnout revenge did the same thing all over again with even more complexity in every aspect

PS2 was weaker than the gamecube though?
I mean it's not up for debate or anything people have proved it by looking at internals?
Dumbasses.

Explain this
PS2 could never run F-Zero GX

it's very hard to "compare" something like PS2 and GC .

I know, user. I know. It was the real winner of the generation with the best games.

If not Xbox, then Gamecube for sure.

GameCube and Xbox

GameCube had the best library too

people have proven the opposite see the thread linked in gamecube can't do real simd for physics, can't do programmable t&l for particle effects and vehicle damage, can't spend crazy amounts of fillrate on framebuffer effects, and doesn't have the dsp necessary for audio effects
burnout 3 simply could not have run on the gamecube and graphical downgrades wouldn't have helped. the engine itself would have needed a downgrade like burnout legends.

F-Zero GX is more demanding than Burnout 3
By the time Burnout 3 released, third party devs completely abandonned the GC because of poor sales, that's the only reason why it wasn't on GC

the dev's right there in that forum thread saying exactly why the gamecube wasn't up to the task of running the game, at this point you're just in denial

PS2 > Xbox > GameCube = Dreamcast

Prove it

It was the xbox. Sure the PS2 brought some AAA stunners (e.g FFX) but on the xbox... everywhere otherwise average games (oddworld, blinx) just looked better. It felt like a new generation.

>Its small disc size was its achilles heel.
No it wasn't. Storage space was barely an issue in that generation. Most third party developers could just compress their FMV intros more heavily and the game would fit onto a Gamecube disk.

Audio quality also suffered quite often (see prince of persia)
but a lot of games could just be multi disc. that's quite cheap to do.

I owned them all back then and xbox by far. Also Dreamcast was kind of in between gens. It was literally dead before the others really got started. Still a wonderful system.

PS2 had the longest lifespan. GameCube was the most memorable.

The proper answer is fuck it be an idort but for basically any multiplat get it on the XBox

this. I used to and still play handhelds, graphics and stuff are overrated. Thats one of the reasons the hughe games are mostly garbage today. Fucking blown up cinematic motion capture graphics and zero content. I rather go for innovative gameplay and or story

He said graphics you illiterate tards

>Dreamcast pixel fill rate: 3200 MPixel/s (max opaque overdraw) to 100 MPixel/s (all transparencies)
>Gamecube pixel rate: 648 MPixel/s

>Dreamcast max framebuffer depth: 32-bit
>Gamecube max framebuffer depth: 24-bit

>Dreamcast destination alpha quality: 8-bit
>Gamecube destination alpha quality: 6-bit

>Dreamcast z-buffer precision: 32-bit
>Gamecube z-buffer precision: 24-bit

>Dreamcast normal mapping support? Yes
>Gamecube normal mapping support? No (bump mapping only)

>Dreamcast order independent alpha blending? Yes
>Gamecube order independent alpha blending? No

Dreamcast otherwise SoulCalibur wouldn't be the 2nd highest rated game of all time

Attached: SoulCalibur.jpg (1280x720, 151K)

cant really compare games to determine hardware, as its up to devs in what they want to do. Are you going to say PCs have the weakest hardware when devs choose to port over ps3 versions of games, instead of ps4 which has happened for a few japanese games

>on average
XB > GC > PS2 > DC
>top tier games
XB > PS2 > GC > DC
>overall hardware power
XB > PS2 > GC > DC

that last one is unfair because afaik dreamcast is the only production hardware to have that feature

Xbox was by far the strongest in terms of spec. literally the xbox one x in terms of standing over the others. but ps2 had a great library, massive really. Xbox was a really respectable first console attempt.

Dreamcast got crushed by the hardware of the other three. It's not even fair to include it

>Dreamcast was pretty good for its time too. it gave ps2 a run for its money for mamy years until devs were able to squeeze everything out of the ps2 hardware.
Dreamcast was godly when it released. VGA support and games running at 60fps was nice too. I was always curious what games would've looked like on it had it lived longer and they pushed the hardware to the limit.

Back in the day at computer shows the monitor resellers would just multiplex a Dreamcast running Soul Calibur and people would just stop and stare

Xbox was on a league of its own, PS2 and GC were pretty comparable despite the vastly different architectures, one was better at some taks, worse in others and vice-versa. DC looked half a generation behind (similar to 3DO), but it's due its early demise, 2001 DC games (Dead or Alive, Le Mans) looked on par with 2001 PS2 games and I'm sure there was room for some improvement as well.

The fact that so many dreamcast games ran at 480p is still a godsend.

>tfw nephew wants to play 'old games'
>pop on the dreamcast and project justice
>tell him how old it is
>he genuinely says "It doesn't look THAT old!"
Felt bad but cool kid. Played some other fighting games as well that he dug. /blog

Attached: 1269590299344.jpg (450x850, 76K)

>GameCube was the most memorable
only on nintendogaf, PS2 and DC were the most memorable

The PS2 isn't even marginally close to the xbox.
It's night and fucking day and I think you guys have been spoiled by emulators. Hook up a ps2 and an xbox to the same tv with component cables and toggle 480p support. It's entirely different ballgames.