Don't trust early analysis spec. sheets and especually vs. sheets(there both usually all old as they always think they are still reliable so they don't update them and it sounds nicer to them), how much Vram on ps2 is developer desision it's included in PS2's 32MB of main ram on the CPU(ps2 has pushed too far pass 4MB of vram). At first every one thought the 4mb of ram on GS was it but thats just a buffer in which all the rendering is done so no external bandwidth is needed (only for texture streaming) Sonys not as stupid as those typicle JOURNALIST are too put less vram than their last system(if still have the the older ps box it says like 8MB of VRAM I think, not sure but 4 is still a 32-64bit era vram). As for bump mapping yes ps2 can do even normal mapping(don't be tricked it's just another name for dot-3 bump-mapping) in software. Thats just what it is, xbox cpu is only 3GFLOPS so it is made for gameplay and phisics off to the side only and it's hardware makes up for that with built in tricks(which is what they really are). PS2 GS is made only to do polys and textures with some hardware tricks off to the side (bump-mapping too but only stationary emboss witch is something on any photoshop) so it make some developers think all of ps2 is limited, but ps2 has 6.2GFLOPS which that and the VU's(suprisingly they are only now starting to figure out how to use them more heavely) are design to push gameplay, phisics, and sophistacated graphics(the only limitation in porting is money and themselves). And MGS2 dosn't take up much of ps2 but on xbox it was still harder to accoplish the AI with gameplay and stuff, cause the 3GFLOPS. They did it but it proves that the ps2 can handle more than whats on MGS2(as for rendering that too......GOD they only came close to rendering Dreamcast 3mill with good looking heads, meh ps2 can push 18,750,000 with 2 texture layers on all polys and tricks enabled, and software tricks like bump-mapping and shadows don't effect that performance).EDIT:forgot to add that that xbox can still do much better then whats on MGS2 graphicly too(der)


Bump-map

Chapions of norroth contains pre-calculated to the light as all their games using the same engine
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen012.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen007.jpg

Malice has real-time calculated to light bump maping
Gamespot: Did you have to make any compromises to ensure that Malice would run well on the PS2?

Argonaut: The only compromises are with the technology. We have no features such as hardware bump mapping, so we've had to create an equivalent in software without any performance degradation. The PS2 has been out long enough now, whereby our teams are able to produce some astounding quality in their work.

Go to gamespot for this dev. Q&A. But unfortionatly they didn't even spot this nor did IGN's review(pathetic)

http://www.gamesasylum.com/images/ar...04215736-6.jpg
Light is close to static but has a brighter light on the the side. Look at the bird how his chest plates texture look flat, plain on one side but on the other whare the light is(rim light due to position and stance) stands out, and look at the ground though the textures here are big you can see the bumps are moved with the lighting of the area. The white portion of bird's head is complex(and in position of the light) even on the low poly creature.

http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/malice_112102_3.jpg
This one the light is more in my favor

http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/malice_112102_4.jpg
The stone wall is the best thing in this screen

http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/malice_112102_1.jpg
This is a really bright static light area, so it doesn't look like it on the floor. The shield is using the trick that they use to turn b-m into water on xbox games, and looks simalar to it here IMO. And you can see that wall texture is going in a different direction than the same wall in pic 1

http://www.ltstudios.com/images/Malice/PND.jpg
The dark lighting in the back of the round pipe thingy shows off how realisticly rough b-mapping can be(which they should use in games instead of the faked out glossed everything) though it's hard to see in the back with the rez. This shot shows that bump-mapping can look like normal textures if you don't look at the effect as a whole and part of it close up. I played the demo of Riddick and saw screens and walls do this too but when you see them move to your flashlight you see it is b-mapped, and not a art techneque(or just pre-calculated). Not to say anything about it just saying the rougher surfaces are what they are ment to be (me no likey the overdone glossy CG film everything looking DOOM3 B-Mapping, but surface dependant realism in Riddick)

They use a mixture of XB and PS2 screens for no reason in newer screen updates at IGN and GameSpot(hmm wonder why). But to tell if they are reliable PS2 shots you have to notice the XB uses more of that uneeded shine trick utilized in it to give it a more CG feel(plus due to time and budget a few things arn't as detailed or b-mapped, like the tree guy), and the PS2 ver they didn't bother with the shadow technology sept for malice cause of money and date time even though it was delayed it's cause it was almost cancled so they wernt working on it within that time(and looks ok but they should of at least done stationary projected textures for area shadows and smoothy SH2 shadows for everything else, or better yet ps2 SC:PD shadowing, oh well I don't care too much for graphics unless they are GT4 real)And noticably the lighting is sometimes brighter, dimmer lights in more areas than the xbox, also why it doesn't stand out half the time(maybe I may buy it to examine it further, but the game aint not no that great so I ll wait till it $10.00). And on IGN 11/21/02 screens are all ps2 and don’t show up on XB section, and past that screens are of older b-mapless builds. As for Killzone it only pushes the polygons on screen(but are out done by Jak3) but id say they aren't using all the poly their engine can do mostly due to time and even a better effort could change a lot, and a little bit cause of budget costs right now(as most other games).
And here is a note:100 10,000 poly model people would equel 1,000,000 polys and there would be more than enough for the BG, APEX add says those 500,000 poly courses and 11,000 model cars. Do the math and you realize thats not too much for any 128 system(even DC). Jak1 pushes close to over 10,000,000 polys at times but Jak3 has far less and smoother L.O.D with much bigger and dynamic areas. Meaning it's pointless to say that Killzone fully utilizes ps2 enough to need that much L.O.D., and it's more about cost then the numbers(as iv' aready said just above).


None of this is a fan-boy rant just another look at a muchly different design of a system. Then again mostly all fanboyism is just by others opinion of you.