I find it incredible that on IGN/GameSpy both the X-Box and Playstation 2 have identical movies and screenshots.
Personally I'd say what they've been showing off so-far has been X-Box only. S'pose it looks good but dunno... the last few games that have been shown off for the X-Box just haven't looked even half as nice on the X-Box as the preview movies did.
I'm still trying to grasp how the hell they can achieve so much better graphics on the X-Box than even a number of the top-end PC titles.
Hell even Prince of Persia Sands of Time just about runs on default graphics on my Pentium 4 2.5GHz / PC2700 512MB / AGP8x FX5200 64MB / ATA-133 IBM HDD
That's quite a damn sight beyond the X-Box, but still it aparently easily beats it. I'm also at a loss to figure out how the X-Box NV21A is capable of 80million vertices / second while the desktop NV21 (GF3) is only capable of 35million. :S
Then you get on to the Playstation 2, that beyond all reason seems to be able to keep pace with modern games from screenshots. Killzone did look very good, although most of the PS2's graphics comes from the screen effect they add.
This is Black is almost entirely basic graphics. Look at Dawn of War, that has truely awesome graphics, but it's all standard effects. It's still very clearly using a minorly altered Warcraft3 engine... yet achieves a much more modern look.
What I can't fathom really is how they can use so little ram to achieve so much. I mean like Crystal have been able to expand the PS2 VRAM from 4MB to 20MB, because of their streaming tech.. but still 20MB isn't that much when you think about it.
I think it's probably more like a magic trick. You know like how a magician will divert your attention with something else so you don't have time to see that what they're actually doing is quite simplistic; but because you don't fully notice, it becomes an illusion. Still I can't think of any graphics tricks to achieve that level of graphics on the PS2.
