Why dp PS2 games look so jagged?
>>10432185Lack of aliasing
>>10432185Sony was too cocky coming from the PS1 and didn't think to futureproof enough their new system, specially as most of the development went towards having a DVD player. As such, the console looks a generation behind the XBOX or the GC, sometimes even the DC. It looks low definition by default because of the jaggies
>>10432185>Why dp PS2 games look so jagged?Predominantly interlaced content.
>>10432185>why is op such a homo?
>>10432185because sony is the edgy console
>>10432185CRTs naturally did a pretty good job of hiding that.
480i
>>10432185no vaseline
>>10432246>>10433037Everyone bitching about PS2 interlacing misses the point that the overwhelming majority of players used composite for Dreamcast, Xbox, and Gamecube. This is indisputable. The sales of EDTV's proves this. The fact these consoles only shipped with composite cables proves this. The availability and price of official component/RGB cables today proves this—they are often more expensive than the console itself.
>>10432185No antialiasing, sub-480 graphics a lot of the time, interlacing out the ass. Looks alright on a 15khz TV though. Might as well emulate in HD otherwise.
>>10433085It doesn't matter what people used I don't even know why you're bringing it up
>>10432189This
>>10432239>Has glaring artifacts on their first two wildly successful consoles>Finally gets 3d right with their third one>Ends up in last placeWhy was Sony like this?
>>10433203>I don't even know why you're bringing it up>>10432246>Predominantly interlaced content>>10433037>480i
>jaggedNever noticed an issue ever.
>>10434650Right, so it was a dumb point. If we pretend it's 2004 then interlacing doesn't count. And if we stop pretending it's 2004, then rgb and such are expensive options, which isn't even true. In summary, a meaningless tangent
>>10434646But they didn't get it right with the PS3; that system had a proper GPU slapped into it after Sony realized the Cell processor couldn't carry the entire system on it's back, so the GPU they slapped in isn't really equiped as well as the 360's GPU at handling games of that era. Anything more impressive is usually offloaded to the Cell processor.
The PS2 has 4MB of dedicated video memory, which isn't much. The Dreamcast had 8MB. Xbox and Gamecube used system RAM instead.Many PS2 games reduced VRAM usage by lowering the resolution. 512x448 is a common target for PS2 games, compared to 640x480 for "full" SD. Another way to reduce VRAM usage is to do field rendering. This halves the vertical resolution by drawing interlaced fields instead of frames and introduces combing artifacts. Ridge Racer V does this. Those techniques introduce plenty of jaggies by themselves, but on PS2 hardware, they also disable progressive output which makes it even worse.
>>10435272So basically Sony cheapened out on the PS2 to make way for the DVD
>>10435272Most GC games are 512x448 as well
>>10435280No, Sony bet on a specific way of doing graphics. By using blazing fast VRAM and immensely hacky ways to process effects, they can make a less complex graphics chip while still being like 80% of the way there in visual. The VRAM on the PS2 has a bus width of 2560-bit. That's not a typo. Its bandwidth is 48GB/s. For reference, the Xbox 360's VRAM bandwidth is 22.4GB/s. It took until 2006 for the PC market to produce a card with that much bandwidth. And RAM that fast isn't cheap. But at the heart of the design is the fact that Sony had the manufacturing capability to make every chip in it, and Sony wanted to make every chip in it. Making fast RAM is easier than making a relatively fully featured graphics chip.
