The true differentiating factor is the use of that cinematographic blue filter which they dropped on PC. Also, notice how those vents in that parking area are not emitting steam on Ps2. The only objective metrics we have are screen resolution and frame-rate. Long story short : Ps2 looks alright but PC's 480p and color reproduction is a significant upgrade over the Ps2 version overall.
I like to think that the PC CD-ROM version would be like if GTA 3 had been released for the Dreamcast or Game Cube since the Dreamcast's GD-Rom was only 1.2 GB and the Game Cube's Mini-DVDs were only 1.4 GB. I remember that many Game Cube games had an extreme reduction in texture quality and assets in general because of that. (this is very notable in Need for Speed Carbon, even though the Game Cube was much more powerful than the PS2, its assets had to be reduced to fit on the disc)
The Ps2 version has extremely low resolution textures. DC's VQ HW decompression means that you can store 5x more textures within the same amount of allocated memory space. Long story short, not only GTA3 fits on 1 GD-Rom, the game would most certainly boast higher resolution textures to boot. That's on top of much superior image quality and color reproduction mind you. GTA3 would have certainly looked better than the Ps2 version. (Like every single cross-platform game to have ever been released on both machines lol.)
Yeah, the disc size disparity did hurt GC releases of multiplatform games. Even when it was just something like extras being cut. Those were still good extras you were not getting for the same $50 the PS2/Xbox version cost. As the generation dragged on, this would have been an albatross around the Dreamcast's neck had it survived longer than it did.
While the PC version did come on a CD, you weren't playing it directly off of the CD, you were installing the game to the HDD. Once uncompressed that install size was well over the 1.2 GB of a Dreamcast disc.
And a good bit of that was textures, although you can't tell it from the ps2 version. A 1024x1024 texture on ps2 takes up 1/4 of ps2 vram...or about 260k compressed on DC.
There is a lot of differences, some of it are completely unexplainable in terms of how lazy, broken or downgraded PC version was even in comparison with PS2. But that was totally normal, PC ports of Rockstar games were always delayed, broken, downgraded, etc.
@@danielhao5790 If you're PC player, if you specifically hate remastered graphics, if you're advanced user and hardcore classic GTA fan that can set up a dozen of mods and fixes, if you're still okay dealing with a dozen of PC ports/PS2 downsides and issues. Then yes. But too many console players, casual players out there and other ifs to call the worst PS2 version and garbage PC port "better" and prefer it over working out of the box definitive edition.
PlayStation 2 version of Grand Theft Auto III is the closest one to the original concept 👍 Thus the atmosphere in this version is the best. The low-detailed graphics and smudginess perfectly demonstrates the gritty streets of New York. There are many additional elements like gas pumps etc. Ports often have missing things but it is hard to blame the developers because the game was quite complex, especially for 2001. PC version is not the worst though. I am curious how the final port for Dreamcast will look 💪
@@christianweber9089hahaha don't lie bro, PS2 in a normal process can do 72 million polygons meanwhile Dreamcast nearly can do 7 million polygons, it's impossible to Dreamcast move GTA 3.
@@daniellechuga7414 72 million polygons per second? That is even above PS3 probably. According to Naughty Dog (one of the few companies that truly pushes the hardware to its limits) said in a trailer of The Precursor Legacy that the PS2 was able to run between 10 and 20 million polygons per second.
@@Charlie-eq3dj it's a good question...it's not like PC hardware couldn't do it. Me speculating, could of had something to do with Sony asking for differences for the multi-plats. Or low end PC compatibility. Who knows?
@@Charlie-eq3dj Just like any bloom/smoke/fog effects at the time, motion blur was done by essentially drawing the same things over and over hundreds of times per frame. The PS2 is good at this because the GS has a ridiculous amount of fillrate and bandwidth. You know the fur effect on most Colossi in SOTC? They just render the same texture 6-7 times with different transparencies and gaps. Nowadays these effects are done differently. But back then PC GPUs were not made for this. That's why PC games looked clean and sharp while PS2 games were sprinkled with effects.
@@mimimimeow But even if the PCs then weren't good at this, why not have an option in the graphic settings to enable disable these effect that way those with newer cards or later generation of gamers can enjoy the game the way it was meant and those back in the early 2000s with weaker graphic cards can turn down the effects and have a decent frame rate? So let me ask this, could a console like the Dreamcast produce similar effects? Forget about frame rate for a sec. Could the console do these effects and if it could, what games displays such effects? Thanks.
Wouldn't run at all on my 1ghz Pentium III PC around 5 years back. Vice City ran fine though and for the record the PS2 version looks far better. Fun fact this was the first GTA developed for consoles and not PC.
@@jonpirovsky Frame rate was about 5fps I had a geforce 4200ti graphics card and 512MB ram I didn't understand it either as I more than met the recommended requirements.
Seria interessante se a rockstar decidisse fazer um remake de gta 3 para ps2 depois de ter lançado o san andreas, seria interessante o gta 3 todo otimizado
@@fordmanx3 No need to wonder I will tell you they would have been a bit better than PS2 with a higher frame rate and slightly worse than the Original Xbox.
What you mean GTA 1 it's expansions and GTA 2 where developed specifically for PC then ported to consoles it wasn't till GTA 3 that they were developed for consoles first then ported to PC etc.
Você deve estar com problemas de visão, pois a versão de ps2 sofre com a queda de framehate, deixando o jogo com imagem embaçada, e sem nitidez, tudo no Pc é mais fluido e mais bonito, a versão de ps2 usa um filtro para clarear a imagem, nada mais😂 O Port para PS2 é extremamente ruim
i barely played it on PS2 at all. What i did play a lot on PS2 was Vice City. And by the time San Andreas came out i was already playing games mostly on PC.
@@SomeOrangeCat Would've had improved textures too, like the Xbox and PC versions of San Andreas over the PS2 version did. Making use of the extra VRAM available. Still would've been nice if we'd at least got GTA 3 on DC if nothing else, GTA 2 is fine, but way less fun to play. I do always wonder why they skipped GameCube too given how much more powerful it was than the PS2, Nintendo had mature games on there too, so I can't imagine they said no to it.
@@gnrtx-36969 not at all, it was a Pentium 4 at 2GHz, a good one but not the fastest, and a geforce 4 MX 440 wich was the economic line of nvidia cards. It moved games like a champ. Played GTA III and Vice city perfectly at 1024x768. Hitman 2 was beautiful too, Morrowind, Mafia,etc
Well they would have needed to have their best developers on it as GTA 2 ran awful on Dreamcast it was even worse than PS1 due to incompetent developers porting it 😅
@@antoniocruz4035 DC additionally supports VQ decompression for textures. Compression ratio is around 5:1. So you need 5x less space to store textures on GD-ROM.
I think is the same effect, but Vice City seems to tint the screen with a yellowish tone to give an old 80´s tv show vibe. But disabling it in Vice City makes everything look sharp but lacking in "style", at least it looks better than when you disable it in GTA 3.
Las portadas del GTA 3 de PC y PS2 PAL son las únicas que no tienen el helicóptero 🚁 en la esquina superior izquierda (todos los GTA los tienen en sus portadas)
Those who claim that given the size of the GTA III disc on PC, it would have fit the Dreamcast, fail to acknowledge that RenderWare had always run poorly on the Dreamcast. To port the game to that platform would have required either a massive downscale in visuals or a complete rework with a different game engine.
Alone in the Dark The New Nightmare It's a game made on the RenderWare engine, and below (link) you can see the difference between the Dreamcast and PlayStation 2 versions. (Dreamcast = 480p, PS2 = 240p) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ksRpq5EPtIo.html
@@juanignacioaschura9437 This is one large game world though, with lots of backtracking. Can you imagine how annoying having to swap discs that often would be?
It's too early to compare these. When DC-version is released, i bet it will run same framerate as PS2. DC will look overall better than PS2, but have less polys on character -models, or simply less meaningless characters on screen.
Mucho se habla en los comentarios de dreamcast. Como fan de dreamcast me agrada mucho ese hecho. Pero lo cierto es que la dreamcast hubiera sufrido bastante en ese mundo abierto y con tantos elementos en pantalla y su maravillosa VRAM no creo que hubiera servido de mucho. En aquel año ya se sabria hacer un buen uso del lector de dreamcast y de su ram, pero probablemente hubiera sido igual o peor a la version de ps en todos o casi todos los sentidos. Pero por otro lado hubiese sido la forma mas barata de tener el juego con mucha diferencia y la mejor relacion calidad-precio. Sin duda eso es una gran ventaja
There's no hard drive to decompress the data to like a PC has, so you're stuck with 1.2GB per disc. So your options are: cut/compress content, or make the game so linear that disc swapping no longer feels like an issue.
hahaha don't lie moron, PS2 in a normal process can do 72 million polygons meanwhile Dreamcast nearly can do 7 million polygons, it's impossible to Dreamcast move GTA 3.
@@SomeOrangeCat não é bem assim, para você ter certeza disso, precisa saber o quanto de ram está sendo usada no momento do jogo, e creio que você não saiba! Tudo precisa ser estudado, o DREAMCAST armazena texturas na vram, deixando a ram livre, é diferente do PS2 que usa a ram para fazer tudo, resultando assim na queda de desempenho que vemos no vídeo, imagem toda embaçada.
I think the only one of these I've played all the way through was Vice City on the PC. That soundtrack really reeled me in. The PC version of 3 is higher res, but lacks all the pretty visual flourishes the PS2 version has. I think that's how a DC version would have looked too: Crisper, but visually lacking any kind of woe factor.
Nah, but looking at this game makes me feel like I've been drinking all day...ugh.. The over use of motion blur ruins it and the frame rate dipping doesn't help.
Average PC bloke when developers put a slightly creative color and humid palette, lol. People used to whine about GTA SA being too orangey now they all want it back.
You can disable the "trails" option in the games´s menu and you will get a cleaner picture, but sadly it will affect the game´s shading, looking a little bit muted or lifeless.
@@dan_perry Unless you can produce some metrics that people were buying new systems instead of getting under warranty repairs, you're just talking out your ass.
@@SomeOrangeCat I saw it first hand...the local repair shop were loaded with them. Oh and I never talk outta my ass. Thats your specialty. Everything I tell this channel is first hand, my opinion, or verifiable.
@@RiasatSalminSami Yeah, GTA 3 was developed first with console in mind but in the case of Rockstar, it doesn't matter that much. Both GTA 1 and 2 were made first for PC, but they have the same framerate problems.
