Even more terrible sales figures for Nintendo

[Private Hudson]

Originally posted by OB1
[B]
[quote]Uh-huh. Show me some proof to back up your claims.

I don't need to go wading through endless links to tell you the reason the PS2 was difficult to develope for was because it was DIFFERENT. It offers unlimted freedom in how you wish to code the game (hence why the EE was made to be so powerful).

The reason, however, that the textures were extremely poor (at least early on) was because of the radical use of the VRAM/Texture Cache. Which is used soley to store the framebuffers (and stream the textures at high speed).

They go hand in hand, but the reason you'll see more and more effects implemented by the PS2 as time goes on is because of this freedom. Remember when PS2 has no anti-aliasing? Now there are half a dozen AA techniques that can be used very effectively. Remember when Self-Shadowing was thought to be impossible? What about bump-mapping? In the future, it's possible that you will be seeing effects on the PS2 that the GCN and XBox simply cannot do. Although I really don't know how likely that is.

Every developer at launch complained about not having libraries to develope with. Complained about being thrown straight into the "metal" of the machine, not knowing where to start. I'm not claiming that the PS2 wasn't hard to develope for, as it generally takes a lot more effort to do some simple effects that are handled through hardware on say, the XBox. I'm just explaining WHY it's hard to develope for.

It is when you foolishly call ZOE 2's cel-shading better than WW's.

I merely meant that I found ZOE2 to be arguably more impressive graphically, seeing as they are both Cel-Shaded, I thought the comparison was valid. I never intended to claim ZOE2 used a more advanced form of Cel-Shading (or what have you), if that's what you think.