helicamen
That may be true. But the grafics should be better.
want better graphics on the PS2? then i'm sorry to say you're out of luck, the PS2 is old, obsolete hardware, fact is GT4 graphics are inredibly good considering the system's limitations, so good in fact, that it trounces most PC games when it comes to sheer detail... but it still looks worse because:
-it's intercaled when compared to PC games (and some xbox games)
-It's EXTREMLEY low res to achive that level of detail.
- in sheer polygon output many games out there just outclass it, but even then, the look is still very high quality.
and you don't even seem to know what you're talking about... the graphics are fine, get it? it's the RESOLUTION that sucks, you seem to be very confused.. and you even admit it yourself by saying that photomode looked great but the actual in game graphics sucked... well, here's a fact for you buddy, the graphics are rendered exactly the same way, it's the same engine in game and in photomode. the difference is only resolution, antialias and post rendering effects such as motion blur.. but it's rendered using the SAME engine.
you can't expect better graphics, period, it's a PS2, you can't change that fact. the PS2 is about 200 times slower than current PC high end videocards..
what i'm trying to say for you to understand, is that if GT4 was ported to the PC, with out any graphical updates.. it would look JUST like in photomode.
