PS2 isn't 128bpp colour... there is no such thing!
highest right now is 48bpp colour, which is used only on high demand graphics cards which are coded specifically for the machines they run on - and there is no intention for home PCs to have it now or anytime in the near future.
the point being is that at 24bit colour our eyes find it hard to distinguish individual colour palettes, and at FULL 32bit colour almost EVERYONE cannot tell differences.
As most processors will do current 4 - 32bit colour strings in a single instruction, upgrading to a colour resolution we wouldn't be able to tell the difference from would just be plain stupid!
you'll find the Playstation2 uses standard 32bpp just like a normal PC Graphics card, only it is Layer Pixel Aliaser allows for the smoothness of the pixels... add this to the fact that it output of 512x384 for standard TVs and 1024x768 for High Definition TVs (multiply the values by 4:3 respectively and divide by 2 for Widescreen mode) and this is what consoles output ... reason for that also is because there is no point in using a resolution that cannot be handled by the TV it is going to.
There is no need to understand Hex to use OpenGL as it is a C/C++ language you just need to understand them and memorise the functions
there appear to be ALOT of misconceptions about the technology used within consoles and that of which the PC can provide ... try to remember that (usually) consoles use something called a RISC processor which means that only a single information string is calculated per cycle, whereas PC's utilise the MISC processor which is capable of mulitple tasks per cycle.
I mean think of consoles as men and PCs as women ...
a console is streamlined for a single objective, you try anything it is remotely unfamilar with or a second task - it'll sit down and mope ... whereas the PC is like 60 tasks, yeah no problem - but every so often breaks down and crys for no reason
Personally i think anyone who makes games shouldn't think about new techology is the new requirements, but as the new limits on what is being developed.
I'm not gonna buy a game that looks like a dog, but i'm also not gonna get one that requires me to fork out for a new bloody upgrade just to play... and although everyone has a powerful processor now - as most games are 3D and rely MORE on the 3D card that is what you're aiming at!
Not the processor but the 3D Card (especially with DB titles)
I can tell you now, there is little to no difference on my DBpro work if i simply take my GeForce2 and put it in my P2-266 becuase DBpro is almost COMPLETELY 3D driven as most games nowadays are ...
relying far to much on the GPU rather than utilising this f*ckin' power processors that are a buck a dozen!!
Quake3 is probably the best example, the engine is actually almost identical to Quake2! the only real difference is its using OpenGL only as the render'r and the graphics are updated (plus format updates but they had to for the new graphics
)
Doom3 will no doubt be another example of relying to heavily on new technology rather than programming better for old!
my co-workers are actually quite stunned that through all the features I have gameSpace working faster at rendering 3D than 3DMax with Pentium Optimisations, and the reason for this is because i'm not only using processor optimisations but i'm also using a Reduced Information Stream Routine - which allows me to specify what the graphics card will handle, what the processor will handle and how it is to be handled ... becuase the processor is capable of alot of processes per second, most of which arn't used unless you're using several other programs - as gameSpace IS several other programs in one, all its processes are done through priority and take up these extra spaces per program i have
but as priority is to the one which is currently being used the others go into background mode, it means i have ALOT more power for the program
Anata aru kowagaru no watashi! 
