Computer Advantage over PS2 Gone?

[Mitri]

2006/07/31 9:42:07: By DM
Fire has released the packshot and official details for what they call the PS2 HDTV Game Player. Apparently, this package allows PS2 users to play any PS2 game in full HDTV resolution. How this can possibly work is anyone's guess, but we suspect the mechanics are similar to how the Xbox360 displays Xbox games in HDTV resolution. One thing to note, the Xploder VGA cable is required. Click read more for the full press info, and click the link for the packshot.

PRESS RELEASE

In response to the announcements that both the XBOX 360 and Playstation 3 will utilise High Definition formats for next generation game development; It has been confirmed that Xploder will launch the HDTV Game Player to allow millions of Playstation 2 owners to upgrade their PS2 consoles, so that they can experience their favourite PS2 games in true High Definition quality via their HDTV sets.

http://www.gamersreports.com/media/616/

i think this will take away the higher resolution advantage for the pc over the ps2. at least for the people that pay attention or that really care that much and decide to buy it.

[Roffkaiser]

Umm I doubt this is the end of the computers advantage over PS2, i think that ended like back in 2000. Though in just PSU terms then maybe they will be near equal, but i still have a feeling that resolution is not the only thing making the PC and 360 versions look better.

[PrinceBrightstar]

Most likely all it does is upscale things. Its not true HD, and the gui will be huge compared to what you can do on the PC.

[ShinMaruku]

Keh if it's upscakling that just makes me laugh even more.

[Inazuma]

awful graphics, at a higher rez? hmm, what about the pc's control advantage?

if someone has some screenshots of before and after using this hdtv upscaler, please post.

[Ether]

2006/07/31 9:42:07: By DM
experience their favourite PS2 games in true High Definition quality via their HDTV sets.

Sounds like you'll need an HDTV to take advange of this anyways. You could get a pretty decent PC for the cost of one of those things and run the game far better

[Parn]

I did an example of upscaling in the other thread with Jet Grind Radio screens, but what the hey... let's do it again!

Let's pretend that the first screen is the PC version in high resolution:

http://synbios.net/images/misc/example1.jpg

And let's pretend that this second one is the PlayStation 2 version in a lower resolution:

http://synbios.net/images/misc/example2.jpg

Now, here's the previous image upscaled to high definition to match the PC version:

http://synbios.net/images/misc/example3.jpg

I'm totally sold.

[Sinue_v2]

I've been playing my PS2 games in 1280 x 1024 for years now. (upscaled)

Note: That device -IS- an upscaler. Don't expect "True" high definition gaming out of it.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sinue_v2 on 2006-08-06 21:52 ]</font>

[Kyuu]

LOL. An upscaler. The PS2 isn't made to output HDTV resolutions, and so the games don't support it. There's a reason why it's specifically mentioned whether or not Xbox games support higher resolutions. Because if the game doesn't support it, you can't magically produce the higher resolution out of nowhere, except by bascially doing what Parn showed in his post.

[Velocity_7]

And even if the PS2 was forced to put out really high resolutions w/o upscaling, fact is the PS2 still has its limits. If games were meant to run at 640x480 on the PS2 and you force it to go as high as, say, 1280x1024, you can expect very nasty slowdowns.

[rena-ko]

and even if... shitty blurry textures dont look that good in high resolution anyway.

[Emrald]

I say there isn't really an advantage unless of the following

Advantige for pc for me:I already got what I need to buy psu and play it

Ps2:no usb keyboard....no network adapter

[qoxolg]

High res on an old console is just stupid. The reason PC's and the 360 got HD res is because you won't see all the detail on an ordinary TV. when you play PS2 in high res it would even look worse than on a SDTV cause the PS2 can't do AA and the textures are 128x128 or 256x256.

wait.. lets start maya, that way I can explain it with pictures:

http://sappusx.com/PCres.jpg
here is a picture I quickly made with a diffuse and normal map, something you expect from todays PC and Next-gen games (actually the textures are 512x512, couldn't find any other good texture at the moment http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif)

http://sappusx.com/PS2res.jpg
here is a pic with only a lower-res Diffuse map, same resolution. This is exactly what happens when playing on high res on the PS2: It's not looking good in anyway, its actually looking worse cause on high res you can see how ugly the textures truely are. upscaling or not.. it won't look as good on a PS2.

[DoctorShasta]

That idea is pretty stupid, it won't really make it look any better and it'll cost extra money.

[Saner]

ah don't bother with more PC vs. PS2 topics. it just gets the PC gamers all worked up to boast about their so-called "superiority". http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif

[AeraLure]

Well, I agree that I dont think VS topics are all that helpful per se, but comparison and feature topics are. This one is a fine example of how itd be far better to upgrade a PC video card and go with PSU PC, provided you can meet the other specs, than it would be to purchase a PS2 peripheral that functions as an upscaler, if resolution and screen real estate mattered to you in the decision making.

I personally cant see someone going with the PS2 version unless their PC is too far outside the upgradable spec range or their upgrade budget. Hasnt too much to do with platform superiority (at least in the sense of a platform war) I dont think. Certainly not for me anyway. Help towards making an informed choice is always wise. Cross platform flaming is truly silly since we're all here for PSU afterall, and the PC and the PS2 users will be connected in the end anyway. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/anime1.gif



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AeraLure on 2006-08-07 10:05 ]</font>

[Emrald]

I mean all you really need to buy is a geforce5200 and i've seen some as cheap online as 46 bucks INCLUDING shipping to where i live

[PandaMasterX4]

Parn again hits it right on the dot. The arguement saying PS2 can push as much as a current gen PC is a rather invalid one. Know your surroundings, know your environment, know everything that is needed to know. People that are oblivious of it might just be oblivious to all sorts of things as well.

[ShinMaruku]

As always I will continue to vlaidate myu popstion.. Best grpahics cared you can get.. XD

[Parn]

On 2006-08-07 09:26, Saner wrote:
ah don't bother with more PC vs. PS2 topics. it just gets the PC gamers all worked up to boast about their so-called "superiority". http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif
It's not about superiority, it's about acknowledging the facts, which you seem to have a major problem accepting. You seem to think our stance of "the PlayStation 2 version cannot and will not have graphics to the level of the PC version" is the same as saying "the PlayStation 2 version of the game sucks, you have to buy a PC". That's not our stance at all, and you dish out line after line of stupidity with an attached emoticon to make yourself sound cute when you aren't at all.

By the way, those grapes aren't sour at all. (See: Aesop's fables)

[Sinue_v2]

Slam. Dunk. Score.

[-Shimarisu-]

On 2006-08-07 09:26, Saner wrote:
ah don't bother with more PC vs. PS2 topics. it just gets the PC gamers all worked up to boast about their so-called "superiority". http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif



Haha yeah. I can say with absolute confidence that the PS2 version, optimised as it will be to run in harmony with the PS2's top capabilities, will run a heck of a lot more smoothly than the majority of PC copies.

I'm buying both versions by the way. One for the higher resolution and one to play when my PC inevitably craps out, as they inevitably do.

[PandaMasterX4]

Everyone seriously who is defending the PS2 isn't understanding the point being said here. The graphical output of the PC is better than what the PS2 can preform. This doesn't mean we're saying the PS2 is gonna suck ass and you need to buy a PC just to play this game.

I've one PC for over 5 years. It still lives and works as my work computer. My gaming PC however is totally different. No PS2, Cube, or Xbox can output what this thing can. Every game on PC allows you a wide range of options from making it graphically inferior to even the PS2 to making it superior.

[Kyuu]

On 2006-08-07 17:11, -Shimarisu- wrote:

Haha yeah. I can say with absolute confidence that the PS2 version, optimised as it will be to run in harmony with the PS2's top capabilities, will run a heck of a lot more smoothly than the majority of PC copies.

I'm buying both versions by the way. One for the higher resolution and one to play when my PC inevitably craps out, as they inevitably do.

Funny. I've had my PC around 4 years now, and I've yet to have a single component "crap out" on me. Not even my hard drive. Most of my friends who have owned PS2s, on the other hand, usually didn't go more than 2 years without a problem cropping up. My Xbox, as well, went about a year before I had to send it in for repair, and I've had to send it a second time.

And the only reasons the PC PSU would ever not run smoothly is if you're running it below the recommended specs, trying to run the graphics higher than your system can handle, if you've been remiss on simple, periodic maintenace (defragmenting, for example) and/or allowed malware to build-up from browsing your pr0n sites, some part of your system is malfunctioning, or some mixture of those causes.

I feel the need to mention that I'm not saying you shouldn't play it on the PS2. I don't particularly care what platform you use.

I should also point out that if you're not computer-savvy enough to keep your computer running well, both in terms of software and hardware, then yes, you probably are better off with a console.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kyuu on 2006-08-07 17:35 ]</font>

[MAGNUShunter]

From experience,
FFXI on my widescreen-HD looks like TOTAL C-R-A-P with the ps2. I cannot emphasise enough. Can anyone else back me on thier experience? I was so mad, it actually looks worse than on a regular 14 in tv! Utter Puke.
The 360 demo of FFXi didnt look much better. (Just like an old computer game on a large screen.)


I would be surprised if they do anything more than anti-aliasing for 360 and pc.

Even if you like ps2, dont say anything realistic about it's capabilities unless you are prepared to take the flack. Most ps2 fans wont understand you, and no matter what you say, they will take it as an attack on ps2. (and maybe on themselves???)
http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_eek.gif




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: MAGNUShunter on 2006-08-07 17:45 ]</font>

[Kyuu]

On 2006-08-07 17:41, MAGNUShunter wrote:
From experience,
FFXI on my widescreen-HD looks like TOTAL C-R-A-P with the ps2. I cannot emphasise enough. Can anyone else back me on thier experience? I was so mad, it actually looks worse than on a regular 14 in tv! Utter Puke.
The 360 demo of FFXi didnt look much better. (Just like an old computer game on a large screen.)

That would be the effect of the low-resolution PS2 output being projected onto a higher-resolution screen. The low-res, blurry textures are more readily apparent, and upscaling never really works very well (in my experience). The console and its games must actually support higher resolutions. (The Xbox supported 480p and 1080i, if I'm not mistaken, and all the "next-gen" consoles are supporting 480p through 1080p, except for perhaps the Wii... again, if I'm not mistaken.)



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kyuu on 2006-08-07 17:47 ]</font>

[MAGNUShunter]

The way it's set up, I can switch between resolutions on my tv. Either way you look at it, it still sux. Some ps2 games surprise me by looking pretty good (not hd quality mind you) on the HD (like Digital Devil Saga2 which I recently purchased). FFXI was NOT one of those games.

I guess I'm getting spoiled. Like looking at NES graphics that used to wow me 15 years ago.
Downloading all those free demos and videos on the live marketplace and seeing what HD is really like. It's just unreal. You can never go back.

[-Shimarisu-]

On 2006-08-07 17:34, Kyuu wrote:
I should also point out that if you're not computer-savvy enough to keep your computer running well, both in terms of software and hardware, then yes, you probably are better off with a console.


LOL ur smarter dan me.

Do you call your computer a "rig" too? XD

Look, there is no getting away from this. PCs are not built to run as harmoniously as consoles. The parts are all from different manufacturers. They have to be constantly maintained. The very fact you have to "defrag," you don't think that lessens the life of the media, constantly rewriting and shit?

I used to care about my computer. It was updated constantly, I spent a lot of money caring for it and making it a good system.


10-15 years later, I really don't give a crap any more. I make a lot more money, and I can't be bothered making my computer a full time job. It's replaced every 2 years, pretty much the entire system is replaced. I have two computers. I do not trust them, they are NOT as reliable as consoles, they are not built as well by DEFINITION, they require the parts to be updated. I don't look at porn. I don't have to clean my system free of spyware. There is sufficient cooling in my main PC and it is well looked after.

Yet not one hour after I wrote this post, my 1 year old, 3 gig P4 spazzed out on me, froze and I had to pull out the power cord to reset it. After which it did not come on for a full 10 minutes.

The console version of PSU will be designed with custom architecture in mind and will give optimal performance on a system that is identical for everyone who owns it.

The PC version of PSU will have to take components from a huge range of manufacturers into account.

I have a graphics card supposedly compatible with PSO in both my PCs. The same one. Yet it has a graphics glitch in each one. The SAME graphics glitch unique to my graphics card. That ain't a fault of poor maintenance, it's a fault of the software developer not fixing that glitch for the one particular card. And it crops up in EVERY system with that card. And PC games are fraught with these problems.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: -Shimarisu- on 2006-08-07 18:23 ]</font>

[ShinMaruku]

Quite appeantly there is neagtive feeling on the PS2 but let's be serious, money talks.

[-Shimarisu-]

Geforce 5200. Shitty, I know, but one of the cards RECOMMENDED for PSO, and certainly compatible with PSU:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j104/shirubania/transparentclothes.jpg

I will be replacing this card for PSU, but I just wanted to illustrate just how bugs can crop up on the PC which WON'T on a console. A console version is fully tested for that particular hardware. Everyone has the same hardware.

With PC versions, bugs can and WILL crop up. Stupid ones, which should have been fixed. I'd say every instance of a certain shade of black showing as transparent on the Gefore 5200 was pretty damn stupid.

But the fact remains that PC developers are pretty lazy. They leave these bugs in because they know most PC owners, who aren't prepared to spend $$$ to fix every fault that comes up, will basically expect them.

[ShinMaruku]

Thus I dub the PC heads graphics whores...
But if one does not use that to demean the other versions (Yes even the 360 version is gonna be weaker if I go and OD on my PC since Sonic Team won't likly uses the closed enviorment on the xenos)

[-Shimarisu-]

I really hate the 360, but I strongly doubt that version will be "weaker."

[PandaMasterX4]

On 2006-08-07 18:45, ShinMaruku wrote:
Thus I dub the PC heads graphics whores...
But if one does not use that to demean the other versions (Yes even the 360 version is gonna be weaker if I go and OD on my PC since Sonic Team won't likly uses the closed enviorment on the xenos)




Another example of someone who doesn't understand what we're talking about. If I was such a graphics whore, I wouldn't be interested in a Wii. Instead, it's the only one of the 3 consoles that I'm going to get mainly because my PC can do everything I need it to along the lines of PS3 and 360. The Wii will cover my desire of innovation and my PC will be my FPS and graphical power.

I got both aspects covered but I'm sure I'll like my Wii more with the exception of this game of course.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PandaMasterX4 on 2006-08-07 19:16 ]</font>

[MAGNUShunter]

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/cellfactor/media.html
again, it's not just about graphics but gameplay mechanics.

[Kyuu]

On 2006-08-07 19:23, MAGNUShunter wrote:
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/cellfactor/media.html
again, it's not just about graphics but gameplay mechanics.

Please. You don't need advanced physics for fun gameplay mechanics.

[ShinMaruku]

Most focus on hte grpahics and that's what ST will ahve ebcuase this will not have any huge number crunching.

[ShinMaruku]

On 2006-08-07 19:14, PandaMasterX4 wrote:


On 2006-08-07 18:45, ShinMaruku wrote:
Thus I dub the PC heads graphics whores...
But if one does not use that to demean the other versions (Yes even the 360 version is gonna be weaker if I go and OD on my PC since Sonic Team won't likly uses the closed enviorment on the xenos)




Another example of someone who doesn't understand what we're talking about. If I was such a graphics whore, I wouldn't be interested in a Wii. Instead, it's the only one of the 3 consoles that I'm going to get mainly because my PC can do everything I need it to along the lines of PS3 and 360. The Wii will cover my desire of innovation and my PC will be my FPS and graphical power.

I got both aspects covered but I'm sure I'll like my Wii more with the exception of this game of course.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PandaMasterX4 on 2006-08-07 19:16 ]</font>

Youstill demand the best out of graphics for some games thus I dub th33 a selective graphics whore.

[kazuma56]

Aside from resolution increases, AA looks like it does absolutely nothing on games...I don't know why people tout about it so much in PC gaming.

Example:

Here's Farcry running on 1024x768 and Full AA (6x) and AF (8) sampling

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a393/kazuma56/FarCry_single-1.jpg

Now here is the same (tried to get to the same area) place with only AF maxed

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a393/kazuma56/FarCry_single.jpg

Wow...my gun isn't slightly "jagged" anymore...woohoo..., i know there is higher levels of AA but at 6x, it looks pretty "smooth" already so I can't imagine how better 16x AA will supposedly look.

Here are some other screens using the above method with higher resolution (max my monitor can display is like 1280x 768 or 1024)

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a393/kazuma56/FarCry_single-4.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a393/kazuma56/FarCry_single-5.jpg

The higher resolution doesn't even make the game look that much different (if at all) to standard 1024x768... The only differences I notice when changing resolution is from 640x480-800x600 then to 1024x768, above 1024x768 it just gives you a "larger" area to manipulate how to configure a games hud with more stuff.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kazuma56 on 2006-08-07 23:38 ]</font>

[Kyuu]

... Wow, you used a screenshot where the only model in the game more complex than a cube is your gun, and wonder why the anti-aliasing isn't super noticable. The edges on those cubes, by the way, are also jagged.

And if you can't tell the difference between 800x600 or lower and 1024x768, then I dunno what to tell you. To be honest, I don't usually bother going higher than 1280x960 on any game, because the differences become less noticable as you go up in resolution. However, I can still appreciate how much better a game looks running at 1600x1200. I don't understand why anyone would ever need, or want, a higher resolution than that, though. Text becomes so small you can't read it, and you have too much space.

I can assure you that the difference between 800x600 and 1024x768, and even between that and 1280x960 is quite noticable to me, though, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. But congrats. You don't need graphics cards that can handle the higher resolutions. I, on the other hand, will bleed from my eye sockets looking at games with 800x600 resolution or lower nowadays. The only game I'll tolerate it on is Diablo II, and that's because it doesn't go any higher. Not that I've played that game in quite a while.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kyuu on 2006-08-07 23:50 ]</font>

[therealAERO]

You know what game looks great on the ps2? Kingdom Hearts II!! That game was amazingly well done graphics wise. On the other hand PSU looks like crap on Ps2.

[edit] oops forgot to say that I am probably going to get both somewhere a long the line. Just for the hell of it.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: therealAERO on 2006-08-08 00:05 ]</font>

[kazuma56]

On 2006-08-07 23:39, Kyuu wrote:
And if you can't tell the difference between 800x600 or lower and 1024x768, then I dunno what to tell you. I can assure you that it's quite noticable to me
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kyuu on 2006-08-07 23:44 ]</font>


The only differences I notice when changing resolution is from 640x480-800x600 then to 1024x768, above 1024x768 it just gives you a "larger" area to manipulate how to configure a games hud with more stuff.

I've already stated that I see the difference from 800x600-1024x768, but i don't see the difference from 1024x768 upwards.

As for choosing that area, i'll post these screens instead using max AA, AF and resolution (capable by my monitor) in a heavily forested area.

[img=http://aycu09.webshots.com/image/1048/1080694976485125716_rs.jpg] (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/viewimage?imageID=1080694976485125716)
[img=http://aycu30.webshots.com/image/3109/1412044079245984561_rs.jpg] (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/viewimage?imageID=1412044079245984561)


1024x768 versions

[img=http://aycu06.webshots.com/image/1005/1934847073368379662_rs.jpg] (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/viewimage?imageID=1934847073368379662)
[img=http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/2418/1357157769876874642_rs.jpg] (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/viewimage?imageID=1357157769876874642)

Difference...noticed?





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kazuma56 on 2006-08-08 00:19 ]</font>

[Saner]

AERO! they must've used poor quality TVs at E3!!!!!

there's no way PSU for PS2 looks as bad as you say.

[kazuma56]

i'm still debating on wheter or not i'll get both versions, I CAN play it on either but having to spend money on a PS2-PC controller adapter (let alone find one) as well as worry about getting randomly booted to windows sometimes (AVG,Avast,ZA etc) just seems like it doesn't seem logical to buy the same game two times.

[Saner]

ya you won't have so many technical problems on PS2! http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/anime1.gif

[kazuma56]

indeed, plus it will give my PS2 extended life (however shortlived it may be) till the PS3 comes out, when I will either sell my HDD PS2 or put it in my room...Disgaea 2/xenosaga ep3 will probably hold me over to the U.S PSU release, then FFXII will probably hold me until PS3 (alongside PSU), then it will be random on and off PSU-PS3 playing.

[Nai_Calus]

I note that the people who tout how great PC gaming is generally tend to have $300 graphics cards and scads of RAM.

I played PSOBB on a 2.8GHz P4 with 512MB of RAM and a GeForce FX 5200 for about a year. Despite the supposed improved graphics and higher resolution... The game looked like god-awful fucking SHIT compared to the Gamecube version. I had to rape the hell out of the graphics settings so the game wouldn't give me massive asstastic slowdown the instant I decided to go somewhere as graphically intense as say, Mines. 9_9 CCA? Oh, that was joyful. Seabed? Oh whee, no reflections thanks to shitty card, I guess I'd just better telepathically know where that Sinow is and squint at the mini-map which is now even smaller and more useless thanks to this wonderful higher resolution(PSOBB looks asstasstic at 800x600, BTW) constantly instead of looking at the actual screen! http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh yeah, PC gaming is so fucking hot. The asstastic keyboard controls. The chintzy gamepad you buy out of desperation that feels like shit.

Don't get me wrong, I think the PS2 version looks blah, but well, the computer I'm using these days isn't worth upgrading. (Celeron. Emachines. Yeah.) Nor do I have a broadband connection. So I'll probably get... The PS2 version. And play it offline on my PS2 I've had since 2002 that still works just fine. XP

[PandaMasterX4]

Your videocard is what is crap.

Regarding to me being called a graphics whore yet again, I prefer that if I can get the better of the two deals, might as well get everything for what my dollar is worth instead of downgrading and having to buy a USB keyboard.

Am I getting the PC version because I think the graphics look cooler? No. The preformance, the macros, the quickness of a keyboard and mouse, the graphics, the resolution and a smaller monitor that outputs a better display than my TV.

If I had a crappy PC, I would buy the PS2 version to prevent all the lag and downfall it would cause. So stop talking outta yer ass! http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PandaMasterX4 on 2006-08-08 11:21 ]</font>

[Kyuu]

On 2006-08-08 00:07, kazuma56 wrote:

I've already stated that I see the difference from 800x600-1024x768, but i don't see the difference from 1024x768 upwards.

As for choosing that area, i'll post these screens instead using max AA, AF and resolution (capable by my monitor) in a heavily forested area.

[img=http://aycu09.webshots.com/image/1048/1080694976485125716_rs.jpg] (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/viewimage?imageID=1080694976485125716)
[img=http://aycu30.webshots.com/image/3109/1412044079245984561_rs.jpg] (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/viewimage?imageID=1412044079245984561)


1024x768 versions

[img=http://aycu06.webshots.com/image/1005/1934847073368379662_rs.jpg] (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/viewimage?imageID=1934847073368379662)
[img=http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/2418/1357157769876874642_rs.jpg] (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/viewimage?imageID=1357157769876874642)

Difference...noticed?

In order to see the difference, you have to stretch those lower resolution screens to fit your screen. Obviously you can't tell the difference when the image is simply smaller. For example, when I play my PSone on the tiny LCD screen that's attached to it (it's maybe 3"x4"), games actually look a helluva lot better. So yes, you've proved that it's hard to tell the difference between resolutions when you're displaying the lower resolution at a smaller size. Most people play their games full-screen, not windowed, so the lower resolutions have to be stretched to fit the screen. That's where the degredation in quality comes from.

[Kyuu]

On 2006-08-08 07:19, Ian-KunX wrote:
I note that the people who tout how great PC gaming is generally tend to have $300 graphics cards and scads of RAM.

I played PSOBB on a 2.8GHz P4 with 512MB of RAM and a GeForce FX 5200 for about a year. Despite the supposed improved graphics and higher resolution... The game looked like god-awful fucking SHIT compared to the Gamecube version. I had to rape the hell out of the graphics settings so the game wouldn't give me massive asstastic slowdown the instant I decided to go somewhere as graphically intense as say, Mines. 9_9 CCA? Oh, that was joyful. Seabed? Oh whee, no reflections thanks to shitty card, I guess I'd just better telepathically know where that Sinow is and squint at the mini-map which is now even smaller and more useless thanks to this wonderful higher resolution(PSOBB looks asstasstic at 800x600, BTW) constantly instead of looking at the actual screen! http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh yeah, PC gaming is so fucking hot. The asstastic keyboard controls. The chintzy gamepad you buy out of desperation that feels like shit.

Well yes. No one is saying that PC gaming is for those on a tight budget. You have to have good hardware to play games at good resolutions with the details turned up, and that's not cheap.

Also, PSO:BB is a poor example, as the porting to the PC wasn't done very well, and bad coding will make a game run like crap at certain times and/or have graphical glitches even on good machines, as PSO:BB does. Your computer isn't terrific, but it should've been able to run a 5 or 6 year old Dreamcast game just fine, provided they had coded it well.

Further, yes the keyboard controls suck. PSO was made to be played with a controller. And if you don't like chintzy gamepads, don't buy them. Get an adapter for a PS2/Gamecube controller, or buy the Xbox 360 controller.

[kazuma56]

Most people play their games full-screen, not windowed, so the lower resolutions have to be stretched to fit the screen. That's where the degredation in quality comes from.

Did you click on the "view original size" link? because doing so will display the resolution it was used in.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kazuma56 on 2006-08-08 12:42 ]</font>

[qoxolg]

I agree with the fact that if your PC is to slow to play PSU (integrated GPU's or slow Procs) the best thing to do is to buy a PS2, if you want the cheapest solution. I choose to buy the Xbox360, because my PC is to slow and I switched to MacOSX and I already got a previous-gen console (Dreamcast) and I am totaly not regretting it! like most 360 owners can agree with me: Playing console games in HD resolutions is AWESOME! once you go HD, you never wanna go back http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif

comparing PSOBB with PSU is just BS! PSO was originaly developed for the Dreamcast and then ported to the GC and XBOX with improved graphics. years after that, the XBOX version got ported again to the PC. PSOBB is a port of a port, I even think PSOBB is running on somekind of emulator. There is no way a PC should have trouble with a game that looks like that!

Now looking @ PSU, it was anounced for PS2 AND PC as long as I know about this game! PSU is developed for the PS2 and PC, so it won't have the same problems as PSOBB.

About high resolutions again: High resolutions only improve graphical quality if the game is detailed. High res on the PS2 is pointless cause of the low res textures. high res on the PC is great cause you can see beautifull detailed textures.

[Brus]

So basically this entire post can be summed up as:
1. PSU will look better on an expensive PC than on the PS2 (there is no arguing it. It will look better on a 7900 than it will on the ps2, but yes it will cost a damn lot more), but it wont play as well unless you have a nice gamepad (WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY FINE!)
2. "I dont feel like upgrading my PC because I dont want to for just one game so I'm going to get it on PS2." (WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY FINE!)

Now whats with all the negative comments tossed around at each other?!

[Kyuu]

On 2006-08-08 12:41, kazuma56 wrote:

Did you click on the "view original size" link? because doing so will display the resolution it was used in.

Yes, and the lower resolution pictures are still smaller.

And Brus is right. This debate is pretty rediculous.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kyuu on 2006-08-08 13:44 ]</font>

[Yoruichi]

You sound like those people who are content with pong and black and white televisions. Learn to evolve and adapt!

[Alielle]

http://www.flishfun.com/photos/albums/userpics/10001/stop-posting.gif

Seriously, debating this is really dumb. Neither format is superior. A PC can do more overall and if you already have the knowledge and hardware, and are prepared to enjoy the benefits along with the quirks, it makes sense run PSU on it. If you're not into that, go with PS2. Or hell, get both and have the best of both worlds. Either way, you won't be able to tell who's sitting behind what when you're playing the game.

[PandaMasterX4]

Rediculous indeed but at least you get to hear the mindset behind people.

[Yoruichi]

On 2006-08-08 14:13, Alielle wrote:
http://www.flishfun.com/photos/albums/userpics/10001/stop-posting.gif

Seriously, debating this is really dumb.

indeed.

Neither format is superior.

Ok thats strange, like comparing xbox to ps2...you have to be more detailed.

A PC can do more overall and if you already have the knowledge and hardware, and are prepared to enjoy the benefits along with the quirks, it makes sense run PSU on it.

but you just said "Neither format is superior."

If you're not into that, go with PS2. Or hell, get both and have the best of both worlds.

This should have been your whole point right here, settle for better or worse quality or have both since the accounts are linked via online.

Either way, you won't be able to tell who's sitting behind what when you're playing the game.

Good point, I don't think the big deal was whos using what, but more of a personal thing of getting the best quality of the game. For what your currently are using and the most benifets.

[PandaMasterX4]

I thought that while on FFXI it wouldn't matter if someone was on PS2 or PC. Then again, there are some nubtards on PS2 who take an hour to put "I don't have a kbrd"

-_- seriously man... USB keyboards have been around for a long time.

[Yoruichi]

ha, yeah i ran into that alot, same with syphon filter (mics)

[Saiffy]

Its redundant to agree that this debate is stupid, than debate it.

Har?

[Yoruichi]

On 2006-08-08 14:34, Saiffy wrote:
Its redundant to agree that this debate is stupid, than debate it.

Har?



Depends on who your talking to

[Brus]

I didnt really say the debate is stupid. It's more of just a pointing out that this thread is 4 pages of "PC is better, no PS2 is better" said in about 200 diferent ways which is then followed by personal attacks (which is never constructive to any argument.) Although I will say that some people have made their points alot better than others by actually posting facts to back up their claims while others merely whined that their PCs sucked therefore all PCs must suck.

The first post was a misconception that upscaling the PS2 version to HD resolutions will make it look as good as the PC version and there is frankly no arguing that IT WONT (provided you are running on a decent PC, but if you arent then run it on PS2. Really, its ok that it looks a little bit worse than the PC version, there is no need to jump in front of a speeding train trying to defend the idea that ps2's graphics will be on par with a nice PC's because in the end you're wrong... and you've been hit by a train.) It's not a matter of gameplay, price, or Humars shooting lasers out of their nipples, in terms of GRAPHICS which what the FIRST POST is actually about, the PS2 version running on an HDTV will not look as good as a PC version running on the same resolution because the PC one is not upscaling, it is actually rendering at that resolution.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brus on 2006-08-08 14:54 ]</font>

[Kyuu]

On 2006-08-08 14:48, Brus wrote:

or Humars shooting lasers out of their nipples

Best Photon Art ever?

[ShinMaruku]

On 2006-08-08 07:37, PandaMasterX4 wrote:
Your videocard is what is crap.

Regarding to me being called a graphics whore yet again, I prefer that if I can get the better of the two deals, might as well get everything for what my dollar is worth instead of downgrading and having to buy a USB keyboard.

Am I getting the PC version because I think the graphics look cooler? No. The preformance, the macros, the quickness of a keyboard and mouse, the graphics, the resolution and a smaller monitor that outputs a better display than my TV.

If I had a crappy PC, I would buy the PS2 version to prevent all the lag and downfall it would cause. So stop talking outta yer ass! http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PandaMasterX4 on 2006-08-08 11:21 ]</font>

Grpahics was most certainly part of your reaosons, as for the keybord other keyboards are on the PS2 and the only truly great thing is merly the macro and your thrist for better res kinda ties into your visual bias.
Tis biologicaly imposible for me to talk out of my ass.

[-Shimarisu-]

I like how nobody's commented on my screenshot of a glaring bug on a system running a graphics card recommended for PSO.

[Yoruichi]

On 2006-08-08 19:19, -Shimarisu- wrote:
I like how nobody's commented on my screenshot of a glaring bug on a system running a graphics card recommended for PSO.



Never saw it, but thats a great point to PC advocates. PCs are are generalized and personalized where games made for consoles are actually made for the consoles themselves which don't differ from person to person or system to system.

[kazuma56]

On 2006-08-08 13:44, Kyuu wrote:


On 2006-08-08 12:41, kazuma56 wrote:

Did you click on the "view original size" link? because doing so will display the resolution it was used in.

Yes, and the lower resolution pictures are still smaller.

And Brus is right. This debate is pretty rediculous.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kyuu on 2006-08-08 13:44 ]</font>


I may not be understanding you here, but the pictures require you to click on them to "zoom" in to the origianal size its supposed to be in....that or what you said got lost in translation.

[VioletSkye]

On 2006-08-08 19:19, -Shimarisu- wrote:
I like how nobody's commented on my screenshot of a glaring bug on a system running a graphics card recommended for PSO.


I would like to see an image of your char without it being so close to the camera. I mean I can make images glitch too on many games where the camera is up that close. I'm not saying that you don't have issues with it, but I would like to see the same char from a bit further back.

Also keep in mind PSOBB was an exercise in sloppy/lazy porting/coding.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: VioletSkye on 2006-08-08 19:40 ]</font>

[Blitzkommando]

That glitch can be created whenever alpha blending is involved. Regardless of hardware whether it is PC or console. It's simply an architectural flaw in that it is reading solid textures in front of the partially-transparent textures. Ironically, the development of DirectX 10 is addressing that very issue and will have it corrected with games based off of that architecture. I've seen it in consoles as way back as the Nintendo 64 and as recent as the Xbox as well as on the PC. It's not terribly uncommon and, yes, it is annoying.

[Kyuu]

On 2006-08-08 19:32, kazuma56 wrote:

I may not be understanding you here, but the pictures require you to click on them to "zoom" in to the origianal size its supposed to be in....that or what you said got lost in translation.

Yeah, AFTER I DO THAT, the lower res pictures are smaller than the higher res pictures. I don't really understand what you're not getting. o_0

[kazuma56]

On 2006-08-08 20:04, Kyuu wrote:


On 2006-08-08 19:32, kazuma56 wrote:

I may not be understanding you here, but the pictures require you to click on them to "zoom" in to the origianal size its supposed to be in....that or what you said got lost in translation.

Yeah, AFTER I DO THAT, the lower res pictures are smaller than the higher res pictures. I don't really understand what you're not getting. o_0



Aren't they supposed to be? 1024x768 is "smaller" then 1280x1024 therefore the picture sizes (logically thinking imo) shouldn't match.

[-Shimarisu-]

I would like to see an image of your char without it being so close to the camera. I mean I can make images glitch too on many games where the camera is up that close. I'm not saying that you don't have issues with it, but I would like to see the same char from a bit further back.


LMAO, it occurs ALL the time. The fringes on my char's costume are ALWAYS transparent, as is the logo on my sato's head. Other areas glitch and flicker, like saint milion's mouth, red sword (looks like it has a funky flickering effect all round the black.) It is NOT a common flaw from consoles, it is a horrible glitch with the Geforce 5200 graphics card with PSO, which occurs on AFAIK every system with it (remember, I have 2 PCs with that card, one a P4, one an Athlon.)

You want to see some horrible glitching? I'll be right back.

[Brus]

On 2006-08-08 18:46, ShinMaruku wrote:


On 2006-08-08 07:37, PandaMasterX4 wrote:
Your videocard is what is crap.

Regarding to me being called a graphics whore yet again, I prefer that if I can get the better of the two deals, might as well get everything for what my dollar is worth instead of downgrading and having to buy a USB keyboard.

Am I getting the PC version because I think the graphics look cooler? No. The preformance, the macros, the quickness of a keyboard and mouse, the graphics, the resolution and a smaller monitor that outputs a better display than my TV.

If I had a crappy PC, I would buy the PS2 version to prevent all the lag and downfall it would cause. So stop talking outta yer ass! http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PandaMasterX4 on 2006-08-08 11:21 ]</font>

Grpahics was most certainly part of your reaosons, as for the keybord other keyboards are on the PS2 and the only truly great thing is merly the macro and your thrist for better res kinda ties into your visual bias.
Tis biologicaly imposible for me to talk out of my ass.



I dont get exactly what you're trying to argue against pandamaster for. He says he has a good computer that will probably run PSU with better graphics than his ps2 along with other perks that he perfers, which is why he's getting it on PC. If you had a choice of a pair of shoes that fit perfectly and a pair of shoes that were a bit small, what would you pick? ::gasp:: of course you'd pick the ones that suit your preferences. I dont see how choosing the better deal that is available to him throws him into the category of graphics whore. Panda even expresses his interest in the wii despite its graphical inferiority to the competition because the controller interface looks like something new and fun. This just sounds like a crappy attempt of you trying to personally attack him because the choice he has might not be available to you.



On 2006-08-08 19:19, -Shimarisu- wrote:
I like how nobody's commented on my screenshot of a glaring bug on a system running a graphics card recommended for PSO.


What exactly is it that you were expecting people to comment on. Were you waiting for someone to say "Oh wow, the game has a graphical glitch on his PC. All PCs must run console games like crap." Honestly, what is it that you were expecting?

[VioletSkye]

On 2006-08-08 20:08, kazuma56 wrote:


On 2006-08-08 20:04, Kyuu wrote:


On 2006-08-08 19:32, kazuma56 wrote:

I may not be understanding you here, but the pictures require you to click on them to "zoom" in to the origianal size its supposed to be in....that or what you said got lost in translation.

Yeah, AFTER I DO THAT, the lower res pictures are smaller than the higher res pictures. I don't really understand what you're not getting. o_0



Aren't they supposed to be? 1024x768 is "smaller" then 1280x1024 therefore the picture sizes (logically thinking imo) shouldn't match.




I think what Kyuu is saying is that even though the resolution is smaller, it will still fill the screen. So, in order to get an accurate representation of what it looks like on your monitor the image needs to be resized so that it is the same size as the higher resolution image.

For example here are two images I took from PREY. The first is a 640x480 rez screenie without being resized. Although it is smaller it still looks better than when it is resized to 1280x1024 (which is what the second image represents.) The third image is just a screenie of the game running in 1280x1024 with all setting maxed out.

640 x 480 (http://psofiles3.home.bresnan.net/prey3.jpg)

640 x 480 - Resized to 1280 x 1024 (which is what I see on my monitor.) (http://psofiles3.home.bresnan.net/prey1.jpg)

1280 x 1024 - Max settings (http://psofiles3.home.bresnan.net/prey2.jpg)

[-Shimarisu-]

On 2006-08-08 20:39, Brus wrote:

What exactly is it that you were expecting people to comment on. Were you waiting for someone to say "Oh wow, the game has a graphical glitch on his PC. All PCs must run console games like crap." Honestly, what is it that you were expecting?



Did you miss the part where I said it happens on every SINGLE Geforce 5200?

I have TWO computers with that card. And the glitch is very common with other models of Geforce.

Here's a comment from IRC:

<Shimarisu> Can any of your chars equip a red sword? I need a shot of how it looks half transparent.
* somebody has joined #pso
<somebody else> lol
<somebody else> i got pics of that

I use this example to illustrate not that every PC game glicthes on every PC, but that bugs are common because PC devolopers DO NOT TEST, CAN NOT TEST EVERY PERMUTATION OF EVERY PIECE OF HARDWARE POSSIBLE TO RUN A GAME ON.

That consoles will always have less glitches.

How can you deny it? IT IS ELEMENTARY COMMON SENSE.

Out of every PC I've had, running every game I've had I've encountered glitches not in the screenshots in a great deal of them.

I put it to you that I bought both versions because the PS2 version is quite likely to run more smoothly, even if the graphics do suck. What is wrong with that?

Oh, here.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j104/shirubania/alwaystransparent.jpg
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j104/shirubania/quiteshite.jpg

BTW that glitch on the wall there occurs all over the goddamn game.

On both my PCs.

And one is an Athlon.

And one is a P4.

THEY ARE RATHER DIFFERENT!

Edit: And meanwhile, on the opposite side of the world:

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/3791/pso0259jx0.png

That ain't my PC. It ain't my account, ain't my character and the owner of that PC is in a different hemisphere.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: -Shimarisu- on 2006-08-08 21:19 ]</font>

[Brus]

On 2006-08-08 21:07, -Shimarisu- wrote:


On 2006-08-08 20:39, Brus wrote:

What exactly is it that you were expecting people to comment on. Were you waiting for someone to say "Oh wow, the game has a graphical glitch on his PC. All PCs must run console games like crap." Honestly, what is it that you were expecting?



Did you miss the part where I said it happens on every SINGLE Geforce 5200?

I have TWO computers with that card. And the glitch is very common with other models of Geforce.

Here's a comment from IRC:

<Shimarisu> Can any of your chars equip a red sword? I need a shot of how it looks half transparent.
* somebody has joined #pso
<somebody else> lol
<somebody else> i got pics of that

I use this example to illustrate not that every PC game glicthes on every PC, but that bugs are common because PC devolopers DO NOT TEST, CAN NOT TEST EVERY PERMUTATION OF EVERY PIECE OF HARDWARE POSSIBLE TO RUN A GAME ON.

That consoles will always have less glitches.

How can you deny it? IT IS ELEMENTARY COMMON SENSE.

Out of every PC I've had, running every game I've had I've encountered glitches not in the screenshots in a great deal of them.

I put it to you that I bought both versions because the PS2 version is quite likely to run more smoothly, even if the graphics do suck. What is wrong with that?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: -Shimarisu- on 2006-08-08 21:19 ]</font>


There's nothing wrong with that at all and thats what I've been trying to say. And yes, it is obvious that devs cannot test every single type of hardware configuration and that some to many may have glitches. In the end it all comes down to what you have available to yourself and your preferences. I for one will be running it on PC and I am no stranger to graphical glitches. I'll be running it on a 7900 and if you've been following PC news, the 7900 has been one of the biggest debacles in GPU history (BFG, EVGA, XFX OC cards have artifacts, crashing, clipping, blah blah blah, but they eventaully fixed it.)Since the fix I've had no problems, and I'm pretty positive that this game shouldnt stress my card enough to threaten stability.
I never stated that the PS2's graphics would suck, just that they would not be as good as the graphics on a good pc. It's fine that you're going to run it on PS2 for stability and PC for higher resolutions. And thank you for posting pictures and comments, it makes an immeasurable amount more sense than just calling PC users graphic whores.

[Starrz]

Oh look.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d27/Starrz87/grafyx.png


<3 Shimmy

[Kyuu]

Yeah, I get a lot of that in PSO:BB. Pretty much have to chalk it up to bad programming.

[Inu_Shadi]

I had a lot of that too in window mode. When I switched it to full screen mode it all dissapeared.

[kazuma56]

On 2006-08-08 20:52, VioletSkye wrote:


On 2006-08-08 20:08, kazuma56 wrote:


On 2006-08-08 20:04, Kyuu wrote:


On 2006-08-08 19:32, kazuma56 wrote:

I may not be understanding you here, but the pictures require you to click on them to "zoom" in to the origianal size its supposed to be in....that or what you said got lost in translation.

Yeah, AFTER I DO THAT, the lower res pictures are smaller than the higher res pictures. I don't really understand what you're not getting. o_0



Aren't they supposed to be? 1024x768 is "smaller" then 1280x1024 therefore the picture sizes (logically thinking imo) shouldn't match.




I think what Kyuu is saying is that even though the resolution is smaller, it will still fill the screen. So, in order to get an accurate representation of what it looks like on your monitor the image needs to be resized so that it is the same size as the higher resolution image.

For example here are two images I took from PREY. The first is a 640x480 rez screenie without being resized. Although it is smaller it still looks better than when it is resized to 1280x1024 (which is what the second image represents.) The third image is just a screenie of the game running in 1280x1024 with all setting maxed out.

640 x 480 (http://psofiles3.home.bresnan.net/prey3.jpg)

640 x 480 - Resized to 1280 x 1024 (which is what I see on my monitor.) (http://psofiles3.home.bresnan.net/prey1.jpg)

1280 x 1024 - Max settings (http://psofiles3.home.bresnan.net/prey2.jpg)



but the "resized" 640x480 screen just looks like the crap upscaling parn showed with the TOL pictures...which means that if I resize the 1024x768 pics that'd probably look worse off then if I didn't.

I'll see if this "resized" thing worked on the program I used (don't have Photoshop or photoshop CS2 on my PC).

1280x1024
http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/viewimage?imageID=1080694976485125716
http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/viewimage?imageID=1412044079245984561

1024x768 images "resized" to above resolution
[img=http://aycu16.webshots.com/image/2415/1705458948932013520_rs.jpg] (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/viewimage?imageID=1705458948932013520)
[img=http://aycu37.webshots.com/image/1236/1578298512161290261_rs.jpg] (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/viewimage?imageID=1578298512161290261)
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kazuma56 on 2006-08-09 00:15 ]</font>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kazuma56 on 2006-08-09 00:16 ]</font>

[Kyuu]

I think what Kyuu is saying is that even though the resolution is smaller, it will still fill the screen. So, in order to get an accurate representation of what it looks like on your monitor the image needs to be resized so that it is the same size as the higher resolution image.

For example here are two images I took from PREY. The first is a 640x480 rez screenie without being resized. Although it is smaller it still looks better than when it is resized to 1280x1024 (which is what the second image represents.) The third image is just a screenie of the game running in 1280x1024 with all setting maxed out.

640 x 480 (http://psofiles3.home.bresnan.net/prey3.jpg)

640 x 480 - Resized to 1280 x 1024 (which is what I see on my monitor.) (http://psofiles3.home.bresnan.net/prey1.jpg)

1280 x 1024 - Max settings (http://psofiles3.home.bresnan.net/prey2.jpg)



but the "resized" 640x480 screen just looks like the crap upscaling parn showed with the TOL pictures...which means that if I resize the 1024x768 pics that'd probably look worse off then if I didn't.

That's exactly the point. Unless you're using a small, low resolution monitor, lower resolutions have to be upscaled to fit your screen if you're playing it full screen.

To put it a different way, have you ever tried to play a low resolution movie you downloaded off the internet? You'll notice that when you play the movie in full-screen mode, it looks much worse (sometimes unbearably bad) than if you play it at its native size, which usually takes up only a very small portion of your screen. That's what happens when any lower resolution image has to be stretched to fit a larger screen.

In addition, in games, there's also the fact that the textures also scale up and down with the resolution. When you pick a higher resolution, the textures also get "bigger," and therefore sharper and all-around better looking. This is also why you need a good videocard for high resolutions; moving those much larger textures in and out of memory puts a much larger strain on your videocard (higher bandwidth slots, like AGP8x and especially PCI-Express also show their worth a lot more at high resolutions, but that's neither here nor there).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kyuu on 2006-08-09 05:42 ]</font>

[kazuma56]

well I still stand on the ground that the difference between those 4 shots I took are minimal at best... 1600x 1200 (or whatever the resolution is) would probably look better then 1024x768 or 1280 x 1024 but imo, anything after 1024x768 is minimal (barring the resolutions my monitor cannot display because i cannot compare them).

[Kyuu]

On 2006-08-09 10:43, kazuma56 wrote:
well I still stand on the ground that the difference between those 4 shots I took are minimal at best... 1600x 1200 (or whatever the resolution is) would probably look better then 1024x768 or 1280 x 1024 but imo, anything after 1024x768 is minimal (barring the resolutions my monitor cannot display because i cannot compare them).

I don't entirely disagree with you there. As I mentioned before, I don't generally bother going above 1280x960 resolution because the differences just aren't as apparent once you get into the high resolutions. If my computer can handle it, sure, I'll go up to 1600x1200, but I'd rather have a smooth framerate. Also, having 8x anisotropic filtering and 4x antialiasing gives you a bigger difference than going into the super high resolutions.