PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: koolkev on November 10, 2001, 05:46:56 PM
-
Well after all the hype on how much better x-box was supposed to be ,and how much more powerful and all that bull chit, Ive seen it ,and played it and it aint got nothin on PS2. No better graphics or anything else. x-box beats dreamcast but thats about it. It definately aint better than PS2. And thats a fact!
-
Hype? There is hype for the X-Box? when did this happen?
All I remember is a TRAINLOAD of hype for PS2, with nothing more than a slap on the wrist, so to speak, of goodness. PS2 SUCKED ASS (you can quote me on that) when it first came out,and has only became worthwhile in my mind last month. Give XBox some time before you judge it, hypocrite. X-Box games already look as good or better than PS2, now let the gameplay catch up.
Early next year and late this year we will see:
Raw is War (for you wrestling fans)
Soul Calibur 2
Project Ego
Jet Set Radio Future
GUNVALKYRIE
Max Payne
Halo
etc,etc,etc.
Try playing what they offer before making any judgements. I don\'t remember ANY PS2 games getting a 9.7 at launch like Halo got from Gamespot, or a 9.4 like DOA3 got from IGN. Madden got in the 9\'s, etc.
Wait, hold on, I remember you, why did I just type all that? It will fall on deaf ears, no doubt.
Eric Jacob
-
Originally posted by koolkev
Well after all the hype on how much better x-box was supposed to be ,and how much more powerful and all that bull chit, Ive seen it ,and played it and it aint got nothin on PS2. No better graphics or anything else. x-box beats dreamcast but thats about it. It definately aint better than PS2. And thats a fact!
I hate to break it to ya, but your whole graphics rant is an opinion, not a fact
-
heh heh.... That confirms it.... I\'m sick of Xbox.... GameCube it is!
-
Yeah I agree with koolkev, I played Xbox and Gamecube earlyer today(when I was getting Splashdown..Awesome) the xbox was a little disappointing, I was hoping for mind-blowing graphics. Munch for instance had fog and bland textures, compared to Jak and Daxter it just doesn\'t compare graphically and from what I\'ve read it doesn\'t compare gameplay wise either.
Nfl Fever was ok the gameplay was good, not as good as NFL2K2 though. HALO was good the graphics are good, I was expecting to be blown away because of all the hype surrounding the games looks and I was a little impressed by some textures. To bad FPS aren\'t my kind of games.
Gamecube totally disappointed me. What was all that about GC having the best texture abilitys Luigi\'s Mansion\'s sucked. the lighting was good, not as good as Silent Hill 2 though. Gameplay was fun at first but I soon became tired of the whole thing. Rouge leader on the other hand looked great amazing lighting the one and only game so far that really interested me was SW:RL
I\'m may sound biased toward GC and Xbox, but I\'m not. It\'s just that they can\'t compare with PS2 line-up right now . Hopefully they will both be getting great games next year, then all gamers will have a great exciting time with there console of choice.
-
ajoh432, don\'t base your opinion of the Xbox on Koolkev\'s obviously biased comments. Go play it for yourself and then make the decision.
-
Hehe..
SSX got a 9.3 though.. Still a very good game :)
-
X-Box had hype for a Year, it didn\'t live up to it... PS2 is good, yadda yadda.
(-Edited for content)
-
Originally posted by koolkev
YES THERE WAS ALOT OF HYPE ABOUT XBOX U IDIOT. THATS ALL U BEEN HEARIN ABOUT FOR THE PAST YEAR AND IT DONT LIVE UP IT EITHER. PS2 IS STILL THE BEST GAMING CONSOLE , U GOT IT ****HEAD!
Chill out. Posting posts like that will do nothing but start a flame war and get you banned. Try debating instead of arguing.
-
Originally posted by koolkev
YES THERE WAS ALOT OF HYPE ABOUT XBOX U IDIOT. THATS ALL U BEEN HEARIN ABOUT FOR THE PAST YEAR AND IT DONT LIVE UP IT EITHER. PS2 IS STILL THE BEST GAMING CONSOLE , U GOT IT ****HEAD!
Hey! No need for name calling koolkev! AlteredBeast was just saying he hadn\'t seen much hype surround the Xbox, that\'s all. He has his own opinion and you have yours. You can\'t get mad over a little opinion, can you?
-
HEY, IWAS STATING MY DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE XBOX AFTER PLAYING IT AT GAMESTOP.COM ,IM NOT SAYING IT AINT NO GOOD,IM SAYING IT DONT LIVE UP TO THE HYPE OF BLOWING ALL OTHER CONSOLES AWAY IN GRAPHICS AS IT WAS BEING PORTRAYED TO DO,LIKE I SAID I THINK PS2 GRAPHICS ARE JUST AS GOOD, IF NOT BETTER THAN XBOX. I WAS EXPECTING MIND BLOWING GRAPHICS FROM XBOX AND I WAS NOT IMPRESSED,I WAS ACTUALLY DISSAPOINTED! PS2 IS BETTER!
-
Originally posted by IronFist
ajoh432, don\'t base your opinion of the Xbox on Koolkev\'s obviously biased comments. Go play it for yourself and then make the decision.
Ya... I should edit that... I\'m getting second thoughts...
-
Nothing on my PS2 looks nearly as good (graphically) as Halo or DOA3.
-
Originally posted by koolkev
HEY, IWAS STATING MY DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE XBOX AFTER PLAYING IT AT GAMESTOP.COM ,IM NOT SAYING IT AINT NO GOOD,IM SAYING IT DONT LIVE UP TO THE HYPE OF BLOWING ALL OTHER CONSOLES AWAY IN GRAPHICS AS IT WAS BEING PORTRAYED TO DO,LIKE I SAID I THINK PS2 GRAPHICS ARE JUST AS GOOD, IF NOT BETTER THAN XBOX. I WAS EXPECTING MIND BLOWING GRAPHICS FROM XBOX AND I WAS NOT IMPRESSED,I WAS ACTUALLY DISSAPOINTED! PS2 IS BETTER!
Your right it doesn\'t blow away PS2 and GC graphically. In some cases Xbox looks better than PS2 and GC and other time PS2 may llok better aswell as the the GC being better than both. It all depends on the developers and there know how. Right now PS2 is better IMO.
Nothing on my PS2 looks nearly as good (graphically) as Halo or DOA3.
What games do you have for PS2? GT3 alone looks as good if not better in some cases than Halo and visa versa.
-
U ALL KEEP COMPARING IT WITH GAMES THAT PS2 DONT HAVE. TRY COMPARING GAMES THAT BOTH HAVE(LIKE I DID) SUCH AS EASPORTS MADDEN 2002. SPORTS GAMES ARE THE BEST GAMES ANYWAY . MADDEN 2002 ON PS2 IS THE SAME OR MABE EVEN BETTER THAN ON XBOX! AND BY THE WAY ITS THE BEST GAME EVER ! PERIOD!
-
Originally posted by koolkev
U ALL KEEP COMPARING IT WITH GAMES THAT PS2 DONT HAVE. TRY COMPARING GAMES THAT BOTH HAVE(LIKE I DID) SUCH AS EASPORTS MADDEN 2002. SPORTS GAMES ARE THE BEST GAMES ANYWAY . MADDEN 2002 ON PS2 IS THE SAME OR MABE EVEN BETTER THAN ON XBOX! AND BY THE WAY ITS THE BEST GAME EVER ! PERIOD!
Ok you can stop stating opinions as fact. You may like Madden alot but it\'s not the "best game ever" period.
PS: take of caps lock. All caps means your yelling. Please.:D
-
koolkev, you would be one \'kool\' dude if you tried to use puncuation and capitalization.
Take off caps lock...now.
IGN said that Madden on X-Box was better than on PS2. That being said, you love Madden, alot. So your favorite game on the world is the best on X-Box, a console you find disappointing! hahahaha
I am glad all the fanboys are back, I get such a kick out of stupi stuff like that. If I were a mod (Altered strokes chin) I would ban you, among others, based on sheer stupidity.
Eric Jacob
-
Originally posted by AlteredBeast
koolkev, you would be one \'kool\' dude if you tried to use puncuation and capitalization.
Take off caps lock...now.
IGN said that Madden on X-Box was better than on PS2. That being said, you love Madden, alot. So your favorite game on the world is the best on X-Box, a console you find disappointing! hahahaha
I am glad all the fanboys are back, I get such a kick out of stupi stuff like that. If I were a mod (Altered strokes chin) I would ban you, among others, based on sheer stupidity.
Eric Jacob
Yeah AlteredBeast this is off topic but what\'s wrong with your picture? Did you try changing it and it didn\'t work? By the way you have a good point about he madden xbox thing.
-
Ryu hosts it on his server...I believe, and his picture is gone too, so I am guessing that his server or whatever my picture is saved on, is down.
:)
If it is down until 2500, I just may have to select a new one ;)
Eric Jacob
-
Originally posted by AlteredBeast
Ryu hosts it on his server...I believe, and his picture is gone too, so I am guessing that his server or whatever my picture is saved on, is down.
:)
If it is down until 2500, I just may have to select a new one ;)
Eric Jacob
Cool, I think I want a picture now. Maybe a picture of all three systems together. Maybe I could encourage people to stop being so biased.:D
-
I doubt it, consolemaster (boy, I havent seen him in ages), had a sega logo thing as his pic once, yet some idiots still accused him of being a sony fanboy. Idiots will always be idiots, pick something funny like my current Altered Beast one, which, you gotta admit, is pretty fruity, or something really memorable, like ddaryl\'s old spinning "steal your face" logo, or mm\'s old chimp pic.
Eric Jacob
-
Originally posted by AlteredBeast
I doubt it, consolemaster (boy, I havent seen him in ages), had a sega logo thing as his pic once, yet some idiots still accused him of being a sony fanboy. Idiots will always be idiots, pick something funny like my current Altered Beast one, which, you gotta admit, is pretty fruity, or something really memorable, like ddaryl\'s old spinning "steal your face" logo, or mm\'s old chimp pic.
Eric Jacob
Your right, damn I can\'t think of a good picture. I want something funny and memorable. I must find a good picture!!!!!
-
maybe its just me, but is koolkev over 8 years old?
-
Originally posted by mm
maybe its just me, but is koolkev over 8 years old?
I think hes 9, 10 is pushing it
-
how can you ever read his statements and take them as the truth
their are very few people on this forum whose opinions i trust - and koolkev is not one of them
anyway let this fool rant all he wants
-
Originally posted by koolkev
X-Box had hype for a Year, it didn\'t live up to it... PS2 is good, yadda yadda.
(-Edited for content)
Give me one game on the PS2 that has realtime graphics like DOA3, Rogue Leader 2, Brute Force or Yeager and I will let you live.
Xbox has Halo, DOA3, Project Gotham, NFL Fever, and Madden 2002 for Launch that are best launch titles.
PS2 had SSX and Madden 2001 for top games for their launch.
Any questions?
If there is any console that hasn\'t lived up to the hype, its clearly PS2. Its a year later and they finally are getting some good games, while xbox gets them at launch. Just imagine next year.
PS2 has had hype for three years! doh!
-
WHOAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
XBOX MUST SUCK. KOOLKEV SAID SO!!!
I HOPE I\'M AS KOOL AS HIM,I\'M WRITING IN CAPITALS JUST TOO BE AS KOOL AS HIM
-
Give me one game on the PS2 that has realtime graphics like DOA3, Rogue Leader 2, Brute Force or Yeager
I\'d like to see a real-time movie of Yeager, is there one available?
-
If we all based are opinions of ps2 on it\'s launch games at the system launch it would have died. All launches are weak the games are always rushed and you only have about 2 or 3 games worth buying. All the good games don\'t come out at launch.
but xbox still has some decent launch games. I may or may not get it at launch I don\'t know. I am not all the excited about gaming that much anymore.
-
This is the second time I am typing this up because the first time I did something stupid and deleted everything (It\'s a long story ;)). So this might be a little sloppy.
I am not taking KoolKev\'s side (he is a biased fanboy), but I don\'t agree with some things that you said Docwiz.
Originally posted by Docwiz
Give me one game on the PS2 that has realtime graphics like DOA3, Rogue Leader 2, Brute Force or Yeager and I will let you live.
Right now, the PS2 doesn\'t have anything that is that good. But it does have some things that are almost that good. The Xbox has the PS2 beat in graphics right now, but that doesn\'t mean it always will. And it doesn\'t mean that the PS2 doesn\'t have any graphically impressive games of its own. I\'m sure you\'ve heard this list numerous times, but I think these games deserve credit where credit is due: Devil May Cry, MGS2, Jak & Daxter, FFX, ICO, Virtua Fighter 4, Outcast 2, Baldur\'s Gate: Dark Alliance.
Xbox has Halo, DOA3, Project Gotham, NFL Fever, and Madden 2002 for Launch that are best launch titles.
PS2 had SSX and Madden 2001 for top games for their launch.
Any questions?
I have a question. Why did you leave out lots of great PS2 launch games? Here is a better comparison:
Xbox........................................................PS2
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halo....................................................Timesplitters
DOA3..................................................DOA2:HC/TTT
Project Gotham...................................Ridge Racer V
NFL Fever/Madden 2002.....................Madden 2001
Amped/THPS2X...................................SSX
***Note: Amped and Ridge Racer V are not really known as being great launch games, but I included them to show how similar the two launches really are.
Other than those great games, the rest of the games in both launches are less-than-stellar. So why is the Xbox launch is so much better than the PS2 launch was? Oh yeah. Because the PS2 launch was a year ago. :rolleyes:
If there is any console that hasn\'t lived up to the hype, its clearly PS2. Its a year later and they finally are getting some good games...
In your opinion. In my opinion, it has had great games right from the start.
...while xbox gets them at launch. Just imagine next year.
That can go both ways. If the PS2 games are looking so good right now (and IMO, they are), just imagine next year for the PS2.
And I think that the Xbox is going to pull a PS2. It will have a pretty good launch, then have a big drout of games for a half year and only have a couple must have titles during that time. I have been trying to find some must have Xbox titles after the launch, and all I can think of is Project Ego and maybe some Sega games (a very big maybe because I\'ve never been a big fan of most of their games).
Now hopefully I can post this post right this time. :)
-
IRONFISTAnd I think that the Xbox is going to pull a PS2. It will have a pretty good launch, then have a big drout of games for a half year and only have a couple must have titles during that time. I have been trying to find some must have Xbox titles after the launch, and all I can think of is Project Ego and maybe some Sega games (a very big maybe because I\'ve never been a big fan of most of
Well gunvalkyrie,new legends,jsrf,brute force,enclave, Malice,XAvier fox,project ego,Hunter: the reckoning,MGSX(DATE TBA), Dino Crisis 3.
Xbox 2002 looks likes the best time for me too purchase one if I don\'t get one at launch or later.
-
Originally posted by koolkev
U ALL KEEP COMPARING IT WITH GAMES THAT PS2 DONT HAVE. TRY COMPARING GAMES THAT BOTH HAVE(LIKE I DID) SUCH AS EASPORTS MADDEN 2002. SPORTS GAMES ARE THE BEST GAMES ANYWAY . MADDEN 2002 ON PS2 IS THE SAME OR MABE EVEN BETTER THAN ON XBOX! AND BY THE WAY ITS THE BEST GAME EVER ! PERIOD!
HAHAHA you moron! Madden was ported over to the Xbox you FOOL, so it didn\'t take advantage of the extra power, if it was built from the ground up, thwn i believe you would see a difference, quite abit at that, i can\'t remeber what games you said you played for the Xbox, so can you please tell, you can\'t tell me that you played Halo, or Dead or Alive 3, because all the reviews have said how good the graphics are in both of these games, i bet you only played the munch demo.hehehe
Why can\'t you just enjoy all the consoles, that is what i am doing and i am alot happier then what you seem to be.
This november i will be playing PS2, XBOX and GC, and i can\'t bloody wait!!!!
-
I was going to say the same thing Hunt did. And the PS2 cannot match graphics with GC or xbox, this year, next year, etc. It\'s a hardware bottleneck, it\'s older hardware. It\'s not a fault of the PS2.
I have to admit that the GC controller is awesoem too.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
I was going to say the same thing Hunt did. And the PS2 cannot match graphics with GC or xbox, this year, next year, etc. It\'s a hardware bottleneck, it\'s older hardware. It\'s not a fault of the PS2.
I have to admit that the GC controller is awesoem too.
LOL @ Watchdog. I bet you have no idea what your saying and basing a lot on some tech article some other guy wrote. Prove me wrong buddy. If it was for hardware (technology), PS2 has the newest hardware, and yes, you guessed it; X-Box comes in last. :p
-
Sigh. You\'re an ass seven.
I don\'t truly understand the PS2 archetecture, but many people do and they have spoken in favour of the xbox. I do however understand xbox hardware.
I\'ve seen spec sheets, and maxxed out, the PS2 can\'t touch the xbox or GC. Why do you take this as a personal affront? The PS2 is older hardware, by over a year. At the rate that hardware improves, it\'s just common sense that the PS2 cannot match the newer xbox and GC. There have been hundreds of comparissons done and it is undeniable. You trying to argue the point is sad.
It\'s like saying that the DC is arguably more powerful than the PS2--it\'s just not true. The proof is in the graphics of these 1st gen GC and xbox games. That alone should shut you up. If ignorance is bliss, you are high and dreaming in technocolour.
-
Originally posted by Docwiz
Give me one game on the PS2 that has realtime graphics like DOA3, Rogue Leader 2, Brute Force or Yeager and I will let you live.
off the top of my head
i could say MGS2 but ill be called a PS2 fanboy so ill just say 2 words !
TIMESPLITTERS TWO !
ah 60Frames Per Second First Person Shotting HEAVEN !
-
Sigh. You\'re an ass seven.
Why thank you for the nice compliment. :) No need to get personal my friend. That\'s as low as you can get.
I don\'t truly understand the PS2 archetecture, but many people do and they have spoken in favour of the xbox. I do however understand xbox hardware.
Okay, I\'ll play the ass my friend. Get me some of those articles. I will love to see them, since the majority of articles I have read in the past have proven not to know damn about the PS2\'s hardware. It\'s up to you to prove me wrong now.
I\'ve seen spec sheets, and maxxed out, the PS2 can\'t touch the xbox or GC. Why do you take this as a personal affront? The PS2 is older hardware, by over a year. At the rate that hardware improves, it\'s just common sense that the PS2 cannot match the newer xbox and GC. There have been hundreds of comparissons done and it is undeniable. You trying to argue the point is sad.
You\'re talking about maxxed out specs... care to explain what that means? As far as I know, not even the developers know what "maxxed out" is. But I am sure one of your articles can explain what not even the developers know at the moment. :rolleyes: Very funny Watchdog.
It\'s like saying that the DC is arguably more powerful than the PS2--it\'s just not true. The proof is in the graphics of these 1st gen GC and xbox games. That alone should shut you up. If ignorance is bliss, you are high and dreaming in technocolour.
By the way, you\'re getting this all the wrong way. Reread my post please: where did I write anything about which console is more powerful? The only thing I am out on is that X-Box does not have the newest hardware, technology wise. It\'s a fact, trust me, unlike you I know my facts.
Do you determin the hardware by its release date or the technology involved? What does X-Box have that makes it so newer than PS2\'s hardware? The release date? Come on... I am speaking about the technology here, not about which console is released first. If X-Box really had newer technology, it wouldn\'t have a PC CPU/GPU slapped into one box. It\'s funny that even Intel themselves state that the Pentium III is weak for graphics and that the architecture is all build upon a technology that is dying and over 20 years old. The Emotion Engine on the other hand is brand new, and beyond that, the only true 128-bit parallel processor unit there is. More inovation? It\'s the first to feature small memory and large buses - something that requires the developers to rethink their way of programming software. And here you are, someone who doesn\'t even know damn about the PS2\'s hardware (a "I think I know-it-all") and say "And the PS2 cannot match graphics with GC or xbox, this year, next year, etc. It\'s a hardware bottleneck, it\'s older hardware. It\'s not a fault of the PS2."
Ain\'t that laughable? What really gets me pissed now days are people like you who read some article here and there and then seem to think they know it all. Well, it\'s sad, but a lot of those writers actually don\'t understand the complexity of the PS2 themselves, yet they state that the PS2 lacks this and that and will never be able to compete. How bad is that? Developers are proving that the PS2 has some great stuff in there - and I believe that the PS2 will deliever.
X-Box on the other hand is at its first generation software, which is looking impressive. The other thing though is, that this first generation software (specifically talking about DoA3 here) is already taking a lot out of its hardware. It\'s not suprising that X-Box is looking already that good (PC similar architecture, very easy development, DirectX support) - just don\'t expect it to get \'much\' better.
Judging the PS2 right now is just not fair. They are two completly different consoles with a totally different hardware. It will take more time for developers to really tap the power of the PS2, but it\'s coming. But yeah, you\'ve got your articles that prove otherwise, ey? Dream on buddy, time and the developers will hopefully shut people like you up.
-
Yes, the xbox has older archetecture, but it is more powerful. Just because it\'s newer technologically speaking, does not mean that it is more powerful.
Go to IGN, pick up any magazine, go anywhere and at some point they probably did a spec comparison. In the points that matter like RAM, fill rate, poly pushing power, bandwidth, the xbox is ahead and often by a fair margin. When you start looking at the GPU\'s vertex shaders and onboard anti alaising, the gap becomes even larger.
You wanted a link? So I looked over a few of my usual review suspects and low and behold the first one garnered a pretty solid hit. These guy know their sh!t.
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/ps2tech/
They also covered the xbox:
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/xboxtech/default.asp
This debate is ridiculous. Suggesting that the PS2 is more or as powerful as the xbox/GC is foolish.
-
Originally posted by mm
maybe its just me, but is koolkev over 8 years old?
Now, now MM.. You are not giving credit where credit is due. jamie84 is 8 years old! How dare you mix them up! ;)
-
Okay, Watchdog,
Yes, the xbox has older archetecture, but it is more powerful.
Thank you, that\'s all I was on about. I never said anything about which console is more powerful. I don\'t know why you are pulling this into a "which console is more powerful" debate again.
Go to IGN, pick up any magazine, go anywhere and at some point they probably did a spec comparison. In the points that matter like RAM, fill rate, poly pushing power, bandwidth, the xbox is ahead and often by a fair margin. When you start looking at the GPU\'s vertex shaders and onboard anti alaising, the gap becomes even larger.
Sigh] Watchdog. You really have no idea do you? Yes, if I wanted to compare specs, then I would head over to the IGN folks that have absolutely no idea of technical stuff. They play games and nothing more. Spec wise, you can simply not compare the PS2 to the X-Box. You mention RAM, fill rate, polly pushing power, bandwidth etc. PS2 is build for streaming. Naturally, it will have less memory. Is your point valid? No, it isn\'t. Again, you have proven to have absolutely no idea of how the PS2 was ment to be used and assume like many others outthere that it runs just like a PC. This is simply not the case. Comparing specs are simply useless. If you want to compare consoles, you compare the techical aspects (taking into consideration that PS2 works different than a normal PC).
You wanted a link? So I looked over a few of my usual review suspects and low and behold the first one garnered a pretty solid hit. These guy know their sh!t.
Okay Watchdog, I took the time necessary to read through those two articles and analyse them. I was pretty suprised, since I expected more of a biased article there. Now that I\'ve read it though, I don\'t see the big talk about which console is powerful. Neither article really compared the two and gave some kind of conclusion over which console is more powerful. Of course it is logical to assume that Xbox is more powerful, but since PS2 has the newer technology, I think it\'s going to be pretty close in the long run. X-Box has some undeniable advantages, especially it being so easy, but both have there problems and only time will show. In the PS2 analys, they even admited at the end, that even they were unsure of many things of how the PS2 works and it developers will be able to tap that big potential it has. This proved my point right, that many of these writers do not understand the PS2 in its complex ways - some being better and some being worse.
But instead of throwing me another article and let me debate about it, answer me the following question out of your own opinion:
The X-Box article stated pretty clear what many of us have concluded: The X-Box is pretty much a PC (Win2000 kerne, PIII, Interfaces, DirectX etc) when it comes to the technical stuff. If Xbox is sooo easy to develop and has so much of power, why aren\'t the 1st generation games showing it? And don\'t even try to compare it with the PS2, since even your posted article takes care of that, confirming it having a huge learning curve for developers.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
These guy know their sh!t.
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/ps2tech/
They also covered the xbox:
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/xboxtech/default.asp
Hmm... a PS2 article over a year old from a PC biased site to prove how well understood the architecture is? The description of the GS begins by stating the lack of documentation available, yet moves on to describe what a huge limitation it could wind up being. Did you catch the conclusion, the part giving no idea how the graphics would eventually look?
"With the bandwidth and pixel-pipeline limitations of the Graphics Synthesizer, it\'s very possible that the PS2 performance has been overestimated. Only time will tell. The big-budget PS2 titles such as Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec, Final Fantasy X, and Metal Gear Solid 2 won\'t be out until next year."
Fortunately the link offered to an xbox article by the same author is from last month and we get to see how things turned out one year later...
"Everyone pointed and laughed at the PlayStation 2 for using RDRAM and having a paltry 4MB framebuffer, but when we saw Gran Turismo 3, ICO, and Metal Gear Solid 2, all we could do is point and gasp."
Unfortunately the authors are still fixated on the old PC architecture mentality as shown in the line immediately following the one above...
"The fixed platform allowed developers to design their games to take full advantage of the hardware. If 32MB of RDRAM and 4MB of graphics RAM can do Gran Turismo 3, imagine what LightSpeed DDR RAM and a NVIDIA GPU with Pixel/Vertex shaders could do."
With Project Gotham as proof, we don\'t have to imagine anymore do we? Well, at least we now know the source for some of WatchDog\'s fuzzy thinking. I know it won\'t work but let me try sum up the situation for the infidel Dawg as simply as possible;
Sony came to the conclusion the future of graphically intensive processing would come by way of using a powerful CPU designed for the purpose coupled with an adequate yet flexible GS.
Microsoft has given an old hag a new hat, some plastic surgery, and is pimpin‘er up n down the street hoping to squeeze in a few extra tricks before she goes teats up.
Some of us don\'t care how hot the old skank looks, ah-ight?
-
PC biased, lol, now I\'ve heard it all. They dealt with the hardware and talked about it knowledgably and fairly. It was good journalism, and that\'s the plain truth.
Newer technology, but the principles and concepts are still largely the same: push those polys through the pipe. Given that, the bandwidth and ram are not where they should be to match the xbox.
But your PC argument is not invalid. Many devs have stated that they were rushed to get their games out. Also, let\'s not forget that many devs are not familiar coding for a PC (ever play a Sega game?--they are pretty bad). And most importantly, the xbox isn\'t simply PC cards shoved into a motherboard. The archetecture is streamlined and integrated--it is a complete shift of focus. It would like to see Id\'s first xbox game--that would be a good indication of what the xbox is capable of.
The more time devs spend with any machine the better they understand it: shortcuts will be found, nuances will be discovered--let\'s not forget that most consoles were, for all intents and purposes PCish. The xbox is no different. Optimization of code alone can make the difference from a stuttering frame rate to a smooth one. PC like or not the xbox is a new piece of hardware that cannot be completely explored this quickly.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
PC like or not the xbox is a new piece of hardware that cannot be completely explored this quickly.
Ture ........
Such is the joys of CONSOLES !
the PS2, XBox and Gamecube will all have a long and productive development cycle and this takes years.......
we have still to see the full potential from any of these consoles (and prob\' won\'t until a few years yet).
just look at the PSx it took 3 to 4 years bofre we started to see some of the game we now take for granted
Metal Gear Solid
Final Fantasy 7
Gran Turismo
all of which where probabily not though possible at the start of the consoles life.
-
Oh that\'s right, I forgot around here biased is a dirty word. Never mind the site makes its leanings plain to see and has no qualms about proclaiming the fact while introducing the xbox specs. No insult intended.
I\'ve always been willing to wait a year or two after launch before expecting to see the xbox hardware near full speed. Just arguing the same should be done in the three or four years it\'s been projected to take to do the same thing with the PS2 architecture. Or should we now consider PS2 so similar to the xbox we needn\'t bother? Seeing as how Watchdog has informed us several times programers consider the PS2 to be maxed out. Yeah, let\'s just take the ol\' Dawgs word for it :rolleyes:
-
Well I think the DC is as good as the PS2 if not better so I guess you proved my point. I have a PS2, DC and will be picking up a Gamecube and Xbox this week. It is about the games not the systems Fan Boy. :)
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
Yes, the xbox has older archetecture, but it is more powerful. Just because it\'s newer technologically speaking, does not mean that it is more powerful.
Go to IGN, pick up any magazine, go anywhere and at some point they probably did a spec comparison. In the points that matter like RAM, fill rate, poly pushing power, bandwidth, the xbox is ahead and often by a fair margin. When you start looking at the GPU\'s vertex shaders and onboard anti alaising, the gap becomes even larger.
You wanted a link? So I looked over a few of my usual review suspects and low and behold the first one garnered a pretty solid hit. These guy know their sh!t.
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/ps2tech/
They also covered the xbox:
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/xboxtech/default.asp
This debate is ridiculous. Suggesting that the PS2 is more or as powerful as the xbox/GC is foolish.
I would say the Emotion Engine is a newer MIPS designed Embedded processor. I think it is more powerful than that Intel 733MHz processor inside the XBox.
The technology behind both CPU\'s is old, no matter what the story may be. Intel has its own sorry poor azz performance bottleneck problems with its poor azz floating point unit. So I would say Mr MIPS beats good ol’ Intel in Raw floating point performance :D
-
Yes, but you probably know that CPU speed is not as important as it once was. It used to be that CPU was the only thing that mattered, that changed once 3D graphics became the standard.
Heretic, shut up; you\'re talking out of your ass. I never once said the PS2 was maxxed out. I did say that the PS2 will not be able to match the xbox in terms of graphics.
There are no "leanings" in that article. They went through the hardware fairly, pointing out weaknesses in both pieces of hardware. Perhaps if you understood the concepts you could appreciate that.
-
Can i do an example?
Do you remember the KiroII vs. GeForce2?
If you read specs you can think that GeForce2 should destroy in all games KiroII.
But was not.
What was the trick?
GeForce2 use brute force to solve his poly/bandw problem, KiroII was designed with different HW arch. to solve the same problem with less power needing.
Yes... GeForce2 had T&L... had DDR... had more clock speed etc..
but at the and different design with less money had the same result. (not in all games... but remember who lead the market).
I don\'t know if the kyro will have a future... but this was in some kind the same situation with XBox and PS2.
HW design is TOTALY different... where XBox can use the brute force (numbers you read on that specs) maybe PS2 can use other optimization ways (embedded with that system).
You can easly understand concept on XBox \'cause it\'s very VERY similar at PC world (directX included...)... PS2 it\'s too new to be fully understood reading some article.
IMO
-
Yeah I remember KiroII vs. GeForce2. And looking at the KiroII, it is easy to see why it performs as it does. It still doesn\'t offer performance ofa GF2, but it comes close.
The PS2 and xbox are a different story.
-
thank you Heretic. I did notice that biasnes in the article, but didn\'t think it was too revelent. Now that this is getting into one big performance debate, it is though. And yes, you\'re absolutely right: they say that they don\'t know a lot about the \'GS\', but then still review it and make unfair assumptions about it having huge bottlenecks. Not quite right in my eyes.
Newer technology, but the principles and concepts are still largely the same: push those polys through the pipe. Given that, the bandwidth and ram are not where they should be to match the xbox.
That\'s exactly where most people go wrong. The princible of streaming technics is the exact oposit of having a lot of memory. Streaming cuts down memory, but requires higher bandwidth. By saying this Watchdog, you proved once again that your knowledge is very poor.
But your PC argument is not invalid. Many devs have stated that they were rushed to get their games out. Also, let\'s not forget that many devs are not familiar coding for a PC (ever play a Sega game?--they are pretty bad). And most importantly, the xbox isn\'t simply PC cards shoved into a motherboard. The archetecture is streamlined and integrated--it is a complete shift of focus. It would like to see Id\'s first xbox game--that would be a good indication of what the xbox is capable of.
Of course it is valid. Read the above points again. They even admit to be huge supporters of the PC scene. Can we expect an unbiased article from them? And no, Watchdog, the X-Box is much more like a PC than you would like to admit. The only difference is that it has a UMA and that there are only 64 MB available. The Pentium is pretty much the same: slow and weak for 3D calculations, yet it has to be involved if anything wants to be shown on screen. Streamlined architecture? 6.4 GB/s for everything? Don\'t forget it\'s using a UMA. The other thing is memory efficiency (I know what Microsoft stated, but can this source be trusted?). I also heard from a developer at Electronic Arts that X-Box supposedly has a remarkable lower pixelfillrate than what Microsoft has posted - and lower than PS2 too. Since I can\'t necesserally prove this by an article confirming this, I\'ll leave it up to you what you want to think about this.
The more time devs spend with any machine the better they understand it: shortcuts will be found, nuances will be discovered--let\'s not forget that most consoles were, for all intents and purposes PCish. The xbox is no different. Optimization of code alone can make the difference from a stuttering frame rate to a smooth one. PC like or not the xbox is a new piece of hardware that cannot be completely explored this quickly.
Of course, but the improvements won\'t be as high as what we can expect with PS2. X-Box is already getting most of its potential on screen with current 1st generation games. The improvement won\'t be that big, since its a
- PC similar architecture
- DirectX support
- unlike PCs, fixed platform
- copy data to ram, then work with them (PC/PSX/Dreamcast way of programming)
Eventhough, the Xbox is supposed to be 3 to 4 times more powerful - current games are mearly, if even, better than current PS2 games in terms of graphics that are still improving drastically. Why is PS2 so different than a PC/Xbox/Dreamcast/PSX system?
- High bandwidths, low memory -> max. performance high use of bandwidth to keep memory usage down.
- parallel processing unit. -> using both VU parallel is very hard.
- development on PS2 -> Pretty "raw" in comparasment to PC development
- Streaming techniques -> latency problem
- Vector unit programming
The other thing that is drastically different on the X-Box from the PS2 is the general process of processing data. Since the data is stored in the Xbox\'s RAM first, CPU/GPU can request this data over the bus at any time. On PS2 it works a little different. Since you only have 32 MB of RAM and 4 MB of VRAM (especially the 4 MB of VRAM is critical), you need to copy, process, delete on the fly. You can\'t just copy all your data onto the RAM and call them once you feel like it, it has to be done on the move, or else you block up the whole bandwidth and the whole process comes to stop. Therefore X-Box developers don\'t really have to worry about latency, where as PS2 developers do, since data needs to get to its destination exactly at the right time (when it is needed) so that it can be deleted and swapped with new data really really fast. PSX, Dreamcast, Xbox - they all use the PC way of processing its data, in comparasment to the PS2 way that is totally new and unique. Debate what you want about, but developers know how to develop on Xbox since it\'s nothing new. Hell, even the developers state that it\'s a dream to develop on! And here you are and say that developers don\'t know how to develop on PC? LOL. Yes, Xbox can be optimized, but not to that extend as we will see on PS2. The performance analyser will take on a big role in this case, since it shows exactly how much the bandwidth and CPU/GPU usage is.
So Watchdog, I am still waiting for your answer on the following question:
If Xbox is so easy to develop for (and developers admit it), why aren\'t 1st generation games already blowing away PS2? It should, no matter how hard you try to make development on Xbox seem. It isn\'t.
-
It\'s the idea that should be considered.
There is NOT only one way to have a result (same or SIMILAR).
You can use brute force when you have the numbers and tricks and optimization in the cases you don\'t have enough of it.
An hw architecture can have different wrong points and weak ones. If you don\'t desing correctly your software you can go at 10 fps also on the more power hw never built.
Also in PC or XBox games programmers use tricks and specific optimization for their code... for example compressed textures...etc.
But... i repeat... there is not only a way to obtain similar result. You can listen at a original 16 song CD and, in the same way i can use 1/10 of the CD space to listen the same 16 songs in MP3 format. I change the HW and the "architecture", my MP3 sound is not perfect as your 44Khz 16bit stereo sound... but the result is so similar that i don\'t feel the difference.
You can use different way to produce graphics effect... if you have enough power to produce "live-like" effect... well done... but if i can have the same effect using "tricks" i\'ll see the same effects without having that power.
Here i use the word "trick" but can be also different optimization for different hardware.
Last thing: here i\'m not saying "this" is better than "that"...
-
Sorry sammer, but your analogy with music makes no sense--they are two completely different things.
-
seven, you are most welcome and I return your thanks tenfold. In my first reply I had considered just offering the advice not to waste too much time playing Watchdog\'s game along with a few on topic comments. After reading those links Watchdog gave to try and back his claims I felt compelled to join in instead but there is only so much that can be done when the one you\'re trying to reason with is playing stupid.
One last try...
Originally posted by Watchdog
Sigh. You\'re an ass [edit: member name]
I don\'t truly understand the PS2 archetecture, but many people do and they have spoken in favour of the xbox. I do however understand xbox hardware.
I\'ve seen spec sheets, and maxxed out, the PS2 can\'t touch the xbox or GC
Watchdog admits a lack of understanding yet relies on spec sheets for determining what the PS2 "maxxed out" can do vs xbox or GC. Who is the Watchdog to be calling anyone "ass"? It\'s clear who is talking out theirs and it ain\'t me.
Just for emphasis I\'ll re-quote the comments of some of those non-biased :rolleyes: authors Watchdog relies on who do understand the PS2 architecture:
"Everyone pointed and laughed at the PlayStation 2 for using RDRAM and having a paltry 4MB framebuffer, but when we saw Gran Turismo 3, ICO, and Metal Gear Solid 2, all we could do is point and gasp."
Seeing is believing. That\'s why I\'m willing to give xbox another year or two to live up to the hype (hey look, I got back on topic ;) ) and have a chance to show it can\'t be touched graphically by the PS2, even though I have seen no real reason at this point to think it will be able to.
-
You say it\'s bias because it goes against your views. It\'s a common theme around here.
That\'s not where I go wrong. Texture memory is a problem and bandwidth, streamed or not, is just as vital to the PS2 as it is to the xbox. Also the streaming capabilities do not seem to be as efficient as Sony led on. 6.4 GB/s is plenty for the xbox--you are wrong. Pentium is not slow and of course it\'s weak for 3d, that\'s what the Nvida is for! UMA is a strength, not a weakness, get your facts straight. It gives devs the ability to chose where and how to use it. Sure it could use virtual RAM (for instance), but the strengths of the box out weight the rest.
I also heard from a developer at Electronic Arts that X-Box supposedly has a remarkable higher pixelfillrate than what Microsoft has posted - and way higher than PS2 too. Since I can\'t necesserally prove this by an article confirming this, I\'ll leave it up to you what you want to think about this.
The above means nothing to anyone. Get my point. My friend Sally who works for Acclaim said the xbox can prepare a 4 course meal, but I can\'t verify this.
_____________________________________
Of course, but the improvements won\'t be as high as what we can expect with PS2. X-Box is already getting most of its potential on screen with current 1st generation games. The improvement won\'t be that big, since its a
PC similar architecture
DirectX support
unlike PCs, fixed platform
copy data to ram, then work with them (PC/PSX/Dreamcast way of programming)
___________________________________
How do you know this? You are talking out of your ass as usual. Brute Force and Project Ego are already looking beyond the launch games and they are still early in development. The genesis and snes were old (as you say) technology too, but the graphics were a quantum leap ahead of its launch titles. Just because it is PC-like, does not negate the dev learning curve. Most rational people concede that the PS2 cannot match the xbox\'s graphics, you however, are not a rational person.
I would not say that the PS2 is improving drastically in terms of graphics. There are better looking games coming out now, but I do not see a drastic improvement over, say, Tekken. Just because there are some nice looking games out does not mean anything. This could just as easily be attributed to better artistry, better programmers, smarter people. It\'s probably a combination of those things plus people are working their way through the PS2. It is not any one factor.
The xbox\'s data doesn\'t have to travel over a bus--it\'s all integrated. You are talking about PC developing, again, get your facts straight before you shoot your mouth off.
With the xbox there is no AGP bottleneck, the XGPU is fully programmable with pixel shaders vertex shaders, and the OS kernal has been trimmed down to almost nothing. Equating the xbox as nothing more than a PC in disguise is ignorance.
Again, just because the PS2 is unique doean\'t mean it is better.
______________________
If Xbox is so easy to develop for (and developers admit it), why aren\'t 1st generation games already blowing away PS2? It should, no matter how hard you try to make development on Xbox seem. It isn\'t.
_______________________
I\'ve answered this question already, but I guess reading is a weak point for you. Developers have said that the snes, genesis, gameboy, psx were all easy to develop for. Did the games for each of these systems get better as time wore on? Absolutely. All these systems were also very PC-like in terms of how data is stored and manipulated within the hardware. This whole xbox=pc debate wouldn\'t even exist if this was Sega\'s machine and not MS\'s. Programmers have barely touched the xbox\'s programmable chip. The games already look better than PS2\'s and this is their first try. With every system there is a learning curve, the xbox is no different.
-
woah, hold it there Watchdog. Now you are going too far.
That\'s not where I go wrong. Texture memory is a problem and bandwidth, streamed or not, is just as vital to the PS2 as it is to the xbox. Also the streaming capabilities do not seem to be as efficient as Sony led on. 6.4 GB/s is plenty for the xbox--you are wrong. Pentium is not slow and of course it\'s weak for 3d, that\'s what the Nvida is for! UMA is a strength, not a weakness, get your facts straight. It gives devs the ability to chose where and how to use it. Sure it could use virtual RAM (for instance), but the strengths of the box out weight the rest.
I usually don\'t get personal Watchdog, but you my friend (trying very hard to stay polite), have absolutely no idea. I should have took Heretic\'s advice and left this debate, because devoting my time to a technical "no-body" is simply a waste. It would be lame on my side to just leave it at that though, so I will give it one last try - so please pay good attention. You won\'t have it repeated from me a second time.
This time, I will use some quotes out of an article posted and written by ArsTechnica (well know source for technical reference on PC hardware):
The major difference between static apps and dynamic apps are their bandwidth needs. Since a static app can drop all its instructions and data into a cache without worrying too much about needing to fetch some more anytime soon, systems designed for such applications feature large caches connected by relatively low bandwidth pipes. Dynamic apps, on the other hand, can make do with smaller caches, but since they transfer so much data they need much more bandwidth between them.
Pay good attention to the highlighted stuff (making it easier for you to follow).
Incase it hasn\'t sunk in yet, read the following:
Here\'s a goofy example to help you visualize what I\'m talking about: imagine a series of large buckets, connected by pipes to a main tank, with a cow lapping water out of each bucket. Since cows don\'t drink too fast, the pipes don\'t have to be too large to keep the buckets full and the cows happy. Now imagine that same setup, except with elephants on the other end instead of cows. The elephants are sucking water out so fast that you\'ve got to do something drastic to keep them happy. One option would be to enlarge the pipes just a little (*cough* AGP *cough*), and stick insanely large buckets on the ends of them (*cough* 64MB GeForce *cough*). You then fill the buckets up to the top every morning, leave the water on all day, and pray to God that the elephants don\'t get too thirsty. This only works to a certain extent though, because a really thirsty elephant would still end up draining the bucket faster than you can fill it. And what happens when the elephants have kids, and the kids are even thirstier? You\'re only delaying the inevitable with this solution, because the problem isn\'t with the buckets, it\'s with the pipes (assuming an infinite supply of water). A better approach would be to just ditch the buckets altogether and make the pipes really, really large. You\'d also want to stick some pans on the ends of the pipes as a place to collect the water before it gets consumed, but the pans don\'t have to be that big because the water isn\'t staying in them very long.
Take into consideration that this is just explaining what streaming is and what its advantage is. Since the Xbox isn\'t limited through a AGP it doesn\'t quite apply here - although the Xbox isn\'t used for streaming technics (UMA with only 6.4 GB/s make streaming useless).
The PS2\'s approach is causing developers to rethink how they move data inside the machine. In a comment in the /. thread about my PS2 article, one ex-PS2 developer noted that the VU caches are too small to store a whole model or 32-bit texture, so programmers were pulling their hair out trying to figure out how to deal with the size limitation. He pointed out that one group that had had PS2 development units for a while took the strategy of constantly downloading textures and models into the VU and processors, instead of downloading them once, caching them, and working on them inside the cache. This approach was running the 10-channel DMAC at 90% capacity! This kind of aggressive use of bandwidth resources is exactly the kind of thing PS2 developers will have to do. Between the RAMBUS memory banks, the 10-channel DMAC and the 128-bit internal data bus, the PS2 has bandwidth to burn--what it doesn\'t have is internal cache. Currently, developers are thinking in terms of 3D cards with large on-board memory that can cache large models and textures, and modestly sized L1 and L2 caches for storing code and data.
The PS2 is the exact opposite, though. There\'s memory-to-processor bandwidth out the wazoo. The RIMMS are the cache, and the available bandwidth is such that you can get away with storing everything there and downloading it on the fly. So with the PS2, code and data have to be constantly streamed over the wide internal buses in order arrive at the functional units right when they\'re needed. Of course, then the trick is scheduling the memory transfers so that you always have what you need on hand and latency doesn\'t kill you.
The above explains pretty nicely what advantage you have with streaming techniques and where the problem lyes for the developers. The above also explains, why bandwidth is a key factor to keep memory low (or in other words, why we can afford little memory if the bandwidth are big enough). I hope you were able to get that into your skull Watchdog. I honestly can\'t go lower than that.
How do you know this? You are talking out of your ass as usual. Brute Force and Project Ego are already looking beyond the launch games and they are still early in development. The genesis and snes were old (as you say) technology too, but the graphics were a quantum leap ahead of its launch titles. Just because it is PC-like, does not negate the dev learning curve. Most rational people concede that the PS2 cannot match the xbox\'s graphics, you however, are not a rational person.
LOL. So basically, everyone who doesn\'t share your opinion is not being rational? No, unlike you I have some technical understanding on the stuff I post. Too bad it seems to be too high for your understanding. I\'ve seen Project Ego and it does not wow me after seing FFX in action and other games. And again, you\'re putting words in my mouth that I never said. I never said Xbox won\'t improve, I said Xbox won\'t improve by as much as the PS2 will. How does ProjectEgo look so much better than DoA3? We can make a poll if you want - just to see what the other members think of how much the graphics leap is between those 2 games. By Xbox being PC-like, it already has a big advantage over the PS2. I posted above why it has an advantage:
PC-like architecture: FACT
DirectX support: FACT
Unlike PC\'s fixed platform: FACT
copy data to RAM, then work with them: FACT
Genesis/SNES: You might not be aware of this, but I will point this out none-the-less: What is old now, wasn\'t old back then. If you honestly think that todays developers haven\'t made a leap in knowledge and development techniques since then, then you\'re nothing but a little moron leaving in a dreamworld. Wake up Watchdog, you\'re points are getting pretty lame.
I would not say that the PS2 is improving drastically in terms of graphics. There are better looking games coming out now, but I do not see a drastic improvement over, say, Tekken. Just because there are some nice looking games out does not mean anything. This could just as easily be attributed to better artistry, better programmers, smarter people. It\'s probably a combination of those things plus people are working their way through the PS2. It is not any one factor.
I know VF4 isn\'t out yet, but if you have seen the direct feed from TGS and played the arcade version (PS2 version is arcade perfect as it seems), then you will notice quite a big difference in a) Polygon count, b) no prerendered backgrounds, c) texture detail and d) lightning and visual effects. You can also compare the never released GT2000 to the finalized version of GT3 which also features a big leap in those areas. Other games that look much more impressive are: Balders Gate: Dark Aliance, Final Fantasy X, MGS2, WRC, Burnout, Ace Combat 4 and others. I could point out every aspect that improved by a great margin in these games, but I think I will leave it at that for now.
With the xbox there is no AGP bottleneck, the XGPU is fully programmable with pixel shaders vertex shaders, and the OS kernal has been trimmed down to almost nothing. Equating the xbox as nothing more than a PC in disguise is ignorance.
Of course it having no AGP bottleneck, programmable GPU and strippped down Win2000 kernel does make it a PC. :rolleyes:
Are we going to debate again about how PCish the Xbox is? Please, check the articles you posted and read for yourself. By the way; first you refer to the Xbox as being PC-like but than say \'bla bla bla\' does not make it a PC in disguice? Make up your mind. I never said the Xbox is a PC in disguice. It is enough PC-like to have a huge advantage for developers over the newely designed PS2. FACT (also confirmed by developers).
-
The xbox\'s data doesn\'t have to travel over a bus--it\'s all integrated. You are talking about PC developing, again, get your facts straight before you shoot your mouth off.
Oh of course not.. the Xbox is one big "CPU/GPU with onboard 64 MB of memory chip" It doesn\'t need a bus for data to travel! :rolleyes:
LOL this is getting better by the reply. I\'m pissing my pants, it\'s so funny watching you talk about something while having absolutely no idea. Serious question: do you know what a bus is and why it is needed? :D
Again, just because the PS2 is unique doean\'t mean it is better.
Well, might not be better, but good enough to keep up with 1 1/2 years newer released hardware as it seems.
I\'ve answered this question already, but I guess reading is a weak point for you. Developers have said that the snes, genesis, gameboy, psx were all easy to develop for. Did the games for each of these systems get better as time wore on? Absolutely. All these systems were also very PC-like in terms of how data is stored and manipulated within the hardware. This whole xbox=pc debate wouldn\'t even exist if this was Sega\'s machine and not MS\'s. Programmers have barely touched the xbox\'s programmable chip. The games already look better than PS2\'s and this is their first try. With every system there is a learning curve, the xbox is no different.
I obviously asked again, since your answer was and is still insufficiant. SNES, Genesis, yes they were easy, but it was also a big challenge since games with graphics like that were getting more in. With PSX, a new era started, the era of 3D graphics which was totally new for developers, so there was lots of improvement to make. Now that we look back, that was 7 years ago and where do we stand today? 3D graphics aren\'t new anymore and Xbox isn\'t doing anything new that PC\'s haven\'t been doing the last one or two years. Unlike in those days, there is a fair share of knowledge where 3d graphics are concern. Comparing Xbox with PSX/Genesis/SNES is just like comparing the improvements made on a Excel programm today with one made in the early days of PC development. BTW: the Xbox games arguably look better. At this point, only DoA3 looks a step ahead, although VF4 will settle that again. I won\'t take anyother games into consideration of which we haven\'t seen any good video in-game footage.
PS: If your replies or IQ don\'t improve drastically with your next answer, consider this being my last reply in this debate to you.
-
Actually, I do understand hardware, I can read a technical manual without getting lost, and I\'m a computer consultant for the University of Windsor Ontario. So making that assumption makes you wrong yet again.
Your water bucket analogy, while colourful, is of absolutely no relevance. I understand how the PS2 manages data, but thanks just the same.
All that stuff is theory, and theory and real world are two completely different things. Yes I realize that streaming somewhat makes up for PS2\'s lack of memory, but if Sony were given another chance I\'m pretty sure they would do it differently. And again, implying that more memory would hamper or not help the PS2 is completely ridiculous. The PS2 would benefit greatly with more memory streaming or not. That there shows your ignorance not mine. The PS2 archetecture is not unlike the Saturn\'s--they both were relatively speaking, potentially powerful systems, that required programming trickery and acumen. The more straight forward system (PSX) won that round and had better performance and better games. This isn\'t necessarily how it\'ll turn out this time, but the funny thing about history is that it often repeats itself. But even given the best circumstances, the PS2 doesn\'t have the horsepower that the xbox has. That shouldn\'t even be argued about.
_______________
Genesis/SNES: You might not be aware of this, but I will point this out none-the-less: What is old now, wasn\'t old back then. If you honestly think that todays developers haven\'t made a leap in knowledge and development techniques since then, then you\'re nothing but a little moron leaving in a dreamworld. Wake up Watchdog, you\'re points are getting pretty lame.
_______________
Yes, reading comprehension isn\'t a strong suit for you is it? Apart from that, you are wrong anyway. The genesis and snes did not have revolutionary hardware for their respective generations. It was basically the same hardware/techniques that PCs had/used. So, yes infact, it wasn\'t "new" (what a ridiculous point to raise in the first place). Programmers were as good then as they are now (many would argue better actually). Implying that today\'s programmers are inherently better equiped to make games is ludicrus. Programmers of that age have been working with sprites and pixels and were just as well versed as today\'s programmers are working with polys and triangles. It\'s not that programmers and artists learned how to make prettier graphics and it was the programmers personal deficiencies that held the first generation of games back, it was the learning curve of the hardware. You obviously are stretching the truth quite far to make a point.
And all that nonsense of how certain games have improved is just that: nonsense. I could point you towards early revs of Halo and you would see an vast improvement too. What would we have proved then? I\'m not sure are you? Probably that both systems will improve. The only difference is that smaller publishing houses that don\'t have the resources to spill into long difficult dev cycles will be able to make their games shine more easily on the xbox or GC (we have forgetten about the GC, but my argument is the same for the little purple box).
I have no doubt that EA and Square and some Sony 1st party houses will be able to make nice looking games, but the smaller companies will struggle. But, to level the playing field, EA and Square, on xbox hardware would make games that look and preform better than PS2 games if they developed from the xbox hardware up (so that discounts EA\'s rushed Madden 2002, etc).
Yes the xbox is PC like, but it is not a PC in a box and that is the big diference here. You take directx out of the box and it is no more like a PC than the PSX is. THERE IS STILL A LEARNING CURVE.
Yes VF4 looks good, and I\'ll probably pick it up. BG:DA looks good too and that game will probably find it\'s way into my library. Unless, they are being realeased for xbox too, then I\'ll wait and get the better bersion.
-
Actually, I do understand hardware, I can read a technical manual without getting lost, and I\'m a computer consultant for the University of Windsor Ontario. So making that assumption makes you wrong yet again.
How someone with some technical understanding can post something like this:
The xbox\'s data doesn\'t have to travel over a bus--it\'s all integrated.
is really beyond my understanding. You have a lot to learn.
and btw: in case you haven\'t noticed, VB Code allows QUOTES. Please use them, it\'s getting annoying.
-
I can say that because it\'s true--there is no bus between the cpu and graphics board. They address each other through high-speed memory. Similarily, there is no agp bus or northbridge in the way further distancing itself from PCs and speeding the unit up considerably.
You insult my intelligence, then call me names on the account of your mistake. Looks like I\'ll be ending this deiscussion on the account of your limited knowledge of hardware.
BTW, I\'ll do quotes any way I feel like.
-
Originally posted by Ryu
I\'d like to see a real-time movie of Yeager, is there one available?
Yes there is... check out http://www.teamxbox.com and they might have it. Its been around for a couple of weeks.
-
Originally posted by IronFist
This is the second time I am typing this up because the first time I did something stupid and deleted everything (It\'s a long story ;)). So this might be a little sloppy.
I am not taking KoolKev\'s side (he is a biased fanboy), but I don\'t agree with some things that you said Docwiz.
Right now, the PS2 doesn\'t have anything that is that good. But it does have some things that are almost that good. The Xbox has the PS2 beat in graphics right now, but that doesn\'t mean it always will. And it doesn\'t mean that the PS2 doesn\'t have any graphically impressive games of its own. I\'m sure you\'ve heard this list numerous times, but I think these games deserve credit where credit is due: Devil May Cry, MGS2, Jak & Daxter, FFX, ICO, Virtua Fighter 4, Outcast 2, Baldur\'s Gate: Dark Alliance.
I have a question. Why did you leave out lots of great PS2 launch games? Here is a better comparison:
Xbox........................................................PS2
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halo....................................................Timesplitters
DOA3..................................................DOA2:HC/TTT
Project Gotham...................................Ridge Racer V
NFL Fever/Madden 2002.....................Madden 2001
Amped/THPS2X...................................SSX
***Note: Amped and Ridge Racer V are not really known as being great launch games, but I included them to show how similar the two launches really are.
Other than those great games, the rest of the games in both launches are less-than-stellar. So why is the Xbox launch is so much better than the PS2 launch was? Oh yeah. Because the PS2 launch was a year ago. :rolleyes:
In your opinion. In my opinion, it has had great games right from the start.
That can go both ways. If the PS2 games are looking so good right now (and IMO, they are), just imagine next year for the PS2.
And I think that the Xbox is going to pull a PS2. It will have a pretty good launch, then have a big drout of games for a half year and only have a couple must have titles during that time. I have been trying to find some must have Xbox titles after the launch, and all I can think of is Project Ego and maybe some Sega games (a very big maybe because I\'ve never been a big fan of most of their games).
Now hopefully I can post this post right this time. :)
The launch games of the PS2 are not even half the quality that the xbox launch titles are. Most of those that you listed at AAA titles for xbox at launch.
Remember, one massive thing. All of these games were started on PC\'s with 1/3rd the power of the final xbox hardware. So as much as the PS2 is going to get better, the Xbox will blow that away easily. The PS2\'s architecture is hard to program for and thus you really need to think like the architecture to get the most out of the PS2, in other words you have to be a Data from Star Trek to get the most out of the PS2. On Xbox you don\'t. As much as the first generation games for xbox look, you don\'t even want to deal with third generation games and it allows a lot of developers to get really awesome graphics and physics out of the xbox easily verses only the top 3 companys for PS2.
It doesn\'t have anything to do with the xbox launch being better because its one year later. Look at the gamecube. Thats a launch thats worse than PS2 even. As bad as the PS2 launch was it wasn\'t as bad as the gamecube launch... yuck.....
As far as the xbox, its going to have a lot of quality games, but they have not been anounced yet. Microsoft doesn\'t want to do a PS2 in which they didn\'t have ANY new games until March 2001. There are tons of games you have no idea about. Yeager and Brute Force is going to be released spring 2002. Microsoft will show more for japan and europe launch and then at E3 2002.
If Devil May Cry was developed from scratch on the final hardware and final software XDK for the xbox it would put the PS2 to shame. No doubt about that. I am not talking about a simple port, I mean a game started from scratch and art started from scratch.
The Xbox has better hardware, better software, easy to create the top games graphically and with full phyiscs. They are only missing one thing and thats userbase.
If the xbox can get that last thing which is installed userbase, they will be very successfull.
Twelve months from now, your opinion of xbox is going to change. :)
-
Originally posted by ooseven
off the top of my head
i could say MGS2 but ill be called a PS2 fanboy so ill just say 2 words !
TIMESPLITTERS TWO !
ah 60Frames Per Second First Person Shotting HEAVEN !
Well, MGSX will be on xbox so thats no big deal and honestly Konami could do much better than even MGS2 on PS2, no doubt about that.
I havent seen the screenshots of Timespliters 2 even though again its coming to the xbox. With 60 frames per second pretty much being on every game except Halo on the xbox thats no biggie either.
-
Just to set you all strait....
More complicated hardware design != More powerfull hardware
The PS2 is more complicated than anything out there, but its also the most inefficient architecture out there and getting 100 percent of the real power (NOT HYPED) is something that only someone like DATA from Star Trek could do. You basically have to be a computer to get all you can get from the PS2. Sure a lot of software houses will say their game uses 100 percent of the PS2, but technically thats impossible. Only 3 percent of the companies producing software for the PS2 will have the best graphics with the best physics.
The case with the xbox is that you don\'t have to be in that top 3 percent to produce superior results. Now the xbox won\'t make a bad developer look good, that won\'t happen. However, it sure will help the good developers look like great developers. :)
Developers for xbox can make a game that is superior to the PS2 version and in less time and less money. Now if the xbox can get marketshare and an installed base then all hell could break loose.
We will see if that can happen. As of right now things look pretty good and there will be lots of cross over as people that bought PS2 will now buy xbox as well.
-
lol doc, yer sig cracks me up
thats like saying "buy american, buy ford"
when 95% of the parts are manufactured in japan and indonesia
-
It is kinda funny... My uncle manages an auto parts store in Sacramento CA and he says that the number one car that replacement parts are requested for is Ford while the most reliable cars are Hondas and Toyota trucks. Pretty sweet eh? I actually used to like the Ford F-150\'s until I saw them always being used by construction companies... the reason isn\'t because they are "Ford built tough," it\'s because they\'re "Ford, Built cheap." They can buy em by the uhh... "Boatload." Damn, these puns are bad. :)
-
Geez where did you guys come from, I thought this was a 2 person debate. Anyway, I wouldn\'t say that the PS2 launch games weren\'t half as good as xbox-there wasn\'t that big a disparity. They are significantly better though.
I just noticed this list:
__________________
Xbox........................................................PS2
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halo....................................................Timesplitters
DOA3..................................................DOA2:HC/TTT
Project Gotham...................................Ridge Racer V
NFL Fever/Madden 2002.....................Madden 2001
Amped/THPS2X...................................SSX
__________________
Halo looks tremendously better than timpsplitters, especially in multiplayer with lots of action happening.
DOA3 and DOA2--there really is no comparision. Same for PG and RRV. The football titles are close. Amped and SSX are close too, but SSX is a better game (by all accounts).
-
I can say that because it\'s true--there is no bus between the cpu and graphics board. They address each other through high-speed memory. Similarily, there is no agp bus or northbridge in the way further distancing itself from PCs and speeding the unit up considerably.
You insult my intelligence, then call me names on the account of your mistake. Looks like I\'ll be ending this deiscussion on the account of your limited knowledge of hardware.
Please get a PC dictionary or something and have a look at the term "bus". I never said there was a AGP on board either. Every architecture has some kind of bus, say internal (in the chip within the units) or external. Saying that there is no bus at all, simply shows what lack of knowledge you have in this area. But that\'s besides the point and has nothing to do with the above debate.
Your water bucket analogy, while colourful, is of absolutely no relevance. I understand how the PS2 manages data, but thanks just the same.
All that stuff is theory, and theory and real world are two completely different things. Yes I realize that streaming somewhat makes up for PS2\'s lack of memory, but if Sony were given another chance I\'m pretty sure they would do it differently. And again, implying that more memory would hamper or not help the PS2 is completely ridiculous. The PS2 would benefit greatly with more memory streaming or not. That there shows your ignorance not mine. The PS2 archetecture is not unlike the Saturn\'s--they both were relatively speaking, potentially powerful systems, that required programming trickery and acumen. The more straight forward system (PSX) won that round and had better performance and better games. This isn\'t necessarily how it\'ll turn out this time, but the funny thing about history is that it often repeats itself. But even given the best circumstances, the PS2 doesn\'t have the horsepower that the xbox has. That shouldn\'t even be argued about.
Oh please. Are we going to speculate about what Sony would do if they had another chance, or will you stick to the debate? I tryed more than once to get some facts through to you, why streaming makes up for the little memory and caches. While more is usually better, the bandwidth would also have to be higher, and if the bandwidth is higher, the chip would have to be more powerful. Obviously the chips have a certain amount of processing power and they (Sony, Thoshiba) matched the bandwidth and memory accoardingly. Just putting in more memory would be a waste if the processors can\'t cope with it. Again, you are totally misunderstanding the concept of streaming data.
Again, you state things like xbox has more horsepower, but don\'t even know enough about the PS2 to make these assumptions. That shows your ignorance, not mine. And what you call theory (streamin) is being done on PS2. Just asked or read any interview from Polyphony, Naughty Dog etc.
Yes, reading comprehension isn\'t a strong suit for you is it? Apart from that, you are wrong anyway. The genesis and snes did not have revolutionary hardware for their respective generations. It was basically the same hardware/techniques that PCs had/used. So, yes infact, it wasn\'t "new" (what a ridiculous point to raise in the first place). Programmers were as good then as they are now (many would argue better actually). Implying that today\'s programmers are inherently better equiped to make games is ludicrus. Programmers of that age have been working with sprites and pixels and were just as well versed as today\'s programmers are working with polys and triangles. It\'s not that programmers and artists learned how to make prettier graphics and it was the programmers personal deficiencies that held the first generation of games back, it was the learning curve of the hardware. You obviously are stretching the truth quite far to make a point.
You totally missed my point. You brought Genesis and PSX into this agruement only to prove that every console has its learning curve. I never stated otherwise. I did say though, that Xbox won\'t improve as much as PS2 will. You seem to think otherwise though, since Genesis and PSX were both consoles that improved greatly from its launches.
First of all, with PSX, 3d graphics were totally new. Of course it was also the hardware, but the hardware was one of the first to be powerful enough to process 3d graphics. Developers had to learn these techniques. Saying that programmers were as good then as they are now is simply not the case. In every programming language, improvements are made, libaries are added. This all add to the fact that programmers didn\'t have that much of an easy job in those days. Today, developers can get already alot out of a system through the knowledge that has been gathered over the past. Libaries are already around. While Xbox does have a learning curve, IMHO I doubt it will allow for greater improvement as we have seen on PSX in those days.
I have no doubt that EA and Square and some Sony 1st party houses will be able to make nice looking games, but the smaller companies will struggle. But, to level the playing field, EA and Square, on xbox hardware would make games that look and preform better than PS2 games if they developed from the xbox hardware up (so that discounts EA\'s rushed Madden 2002, etc).
This wouldn\'t be hard to believe, hence the fact that Xbox is an easier system to develop on. It\'s quite logical, isn\'t it? My point still is though, that maxxed out, PS2 isn\'t far behind Xbox. You can throw in any silly arguement about bottlenecks (and hey, you don\'t even understand how the PS2 works, so how funny is that?), little memory, horsepower or what ever, but that is pure ignorance on your side as long as you can\'t back it up with some reliable know-ledge or article (which you haven\'t as of yet).
THERE IS STILL A LEARNING CURVE.
WHERE DID I STATE OTHERWISE?
Honestly Watchdog, I have provem all your points wrong, but I guess some fanboys are just too full of it to even admit there faults. Eventhough you repeatedly prove that you have no idea how the PS2 works, you try so hard to prove that Xbox is sooo much more powerful. And that\'s pretty pathetic... :(
-
*toilet flushes*
Whats that sound Watchdog? Your arguments going down the drain.
Your debate has been shot down, and seeing that you think your on the winning side of this debate, I think you have problems, because everything seven said, is FACT, yours on the other hand, sounds like made up hoop-lah.
-
Firstly, my points are not being shot down.
No you are COMPLETELY WRONG. Sure in its loosest definition you could use "bus", but this is not the same as what it is in PC archetecture.
I typed in the words "xbox bus memory" in a search and this is what came up:
"http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,41849,00.html"
____________________
So even though the XGPU is based on nVidia\'s forthcoming NV20 chip that will be used in PCs, its performance is considerably faster than its PC brethren because there are no AGP video bus and north bridge in the way. The XGPU and CPU will both be directly accessing each other via the same high-speed memory with no buses in the middle.
____________________
It\'s been well documented that there is no bus (in PC terms) in the xbox. It is you that requires a tech dictionary.
Yes I read your little "fact" sheet on the streaming capabilities of the PS2--yes the theory all sounds pretty good, but in practise it doesn\'t work that well.
________________
While more is usually better, the bandwidth would also have to be higher, and if the bandwidth is higher, the chip would have to be more powerful. Obviously the chips have a certain amount of processing power and they (Sony, Thoshiba) matched the bandwidth and memory accoardingly. Just putting in more memory would be a waste if the processors can\'t cope with it
________________
And again you show that you really don\'t know what you are talking about. Firstly, if you even doubled the amount of RAM in the PS2 it would not be too much for the CPU or the bandwidth to handle. You say Sony made a conscious descision while adding ram to their box. Isn\'t it just as likely that Sony wanted to cut costs down because memory was expensive during that time? That\'s an interesting theory isn\'t it?
I said, I don\'t understand the PS2\'s hardware--I\'m not sure you do either. I DO understand how the machine works; how it processes data. There is a difference.
You may have a point with the PSX and new 3d graphics, but you are completely off about the programmers of the snes and genesis. Given today\'s libraries would not have helped or even been relevant back then. The new libraries relate to new features of new chip sets. They would not help sega code a better 16 bit sonic the hedgehog. This point, more than any other, shows that you do not know what you are talking about.
_____________________
This wouldn\'t be hard to believe, hence the fact that Xbox is an easier system to develop on.
_____________________
You forgot more powerful.
_______________________
My point still is though, that maxxed out, PS2 isn\'t far behind Xbox.
_______________________
Maxxed out, no, the xbox has a mere 30 MP/s more give or take and that really isn\'t that big a gap. But there are a few problems with this assumption. Getting every ounce out of the PS2 is a herculean task, and I\'m not convinced it is possible or that devs will even spend the time and resources to bother--especially if the xbox userbase starts to rival the PS2\'s. Secondly, how the end result will look is an entirely different matter. Just the pixel and vertex shaders on the xbox chip themselves will make a huge difference in how the game will look. These are fully programable features too, and once devs start taking full advantage of that the gains will be tremendous. This will free up resources that can be used to other things.
_________________
Honestly Watchdog, I have provem all your points wrong, but I guess some fanboys are just too full of it to even admit there faults. Eventhough you repeatedly prove that you have no idea how the PS2 works, you try so hard to prove that Xbox is sooo much more powerful. And that\'s pretty pathetic...
________________
You\'ve proven nothing. Listen I own a PS2, a PSX and will eventually (before christmas) an xbox. A fanboy I am not, but whenever someone treats a console unfairly I feel the need to point it out to them. About a year ago someone not unlike you was preaching that the DC is just as powerful as the PS2, probably more so. We had a similar debate and he swore up and down that I didn\'t know anything, that I was a fanboy and that the PS2 is all "smoke and mirrors."
Just like a year ago, you are wrong, and I am pointing it out. You speak from this imaginary throne of knowledge when in fact you really don\'t understand what you are talking about. I\'m sure you have read dozens of articles concerning every piece of PS2 hardware and read PSM religiously, but it is clear to me that either you have no formal training or didn\'t bother to pay attention in class because while what you say sounds impressive enough, when you scratch through the surface it is aparent that there is nothing behind it. This is a PS board and that is why you have your supporters in this thread, but there are other active threads from other PS2 owners that pretty much say what I am saying: that the PS2, while a good system, doesn\'t have the hardware or ease of programmability to match the xbox or GC.
This isn\'t a flame against the PS2, it is the facts. But whether it be arrogance, ignorance or blatant fanboyism you cannot bring yourself to that conclusion.
And this argument shouldn\'t even exist; it shouldn\'t matter that the PS2 can\'t match the graphics of the newer consoles because a) it is starting to get some great games b) it is older; computer hardware doubles in power every six months--new technology or not. So I\'m finished with this thread--I don\'t care, really. You can think what you want and if it means that much to you I\'ll even say: "The xbox is maxxed out with DOA3. Programmers have figured it out. It\'s all uphill for the PS2--graphics are just going to keep getting better and it\'ll be the prettiest of all consoles."
My last contribution to this thread.
-
Originally posted by Docwiz
Well, MGSX will be on xbox so thats no big deal and honestly Konami could do much better than even MGS2 on PS2, no doubt about that.
I havent seen the screenshots of Timespliters 2 even though again its coming to the xbox. With 60 frames per second pretty much being on every game except Halo on the xbox thats no biggie either.
Uhm where did you hear that they confirmed MGSX for the XBox? The last interview I read with Kojima he said they\'re not even thinking about making an X-Box version coz they were too
busy with it for PS2 and are concentrating fully on PS2 at the moment.
-
Firstly, my points are not being shot down.
No you are COMPLETELY WRONG. Sure in its loosest definition you could use "bus", but this is not the same as what it is in PC archetecture.
I typed in the words "xbox bus memory" in a search and this is what came up:
"http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,41849,00.html"
____________________
So even though the XGPU is based on nVidia\'s forthcoming NV20 chip that will be used in PCs, its performance is considerably faster than its PC brethren because there are no AGP video bus and north bridge in the way. The XGPU and CPU will both be directly accessing each other via the same high-speed memory with no buses in the middle.
____________________
It\'s been well documented that there is no bus (in PC terms) in the xbox. It is you that requires a tech dictionary.
LOL man, you\'re hilarious! You could be a comedian! "There is no bus (in PC terms).." so in what terms are you talking? Again, I never said that there is a AGP or bottleneck involved in the term "bus". Come on watchdog, why are we debating about this anyway? The original debate was still that PS2 has newer hardware and makes up for the "bottlenecks" everyone seems to think it has. Now, are you going to stick to the debate or do you want to continue debating about something that is really useless?
Yes I read your little "fact" sheet on the streaming capabilities of the PS2--yes the theory all sounds pretty good, but in practise it doesn\'t work that well.
What\'s your problem? I already proved you wrong on this one. Read the above post from me (the one in green) and you get a quote about developers already using these methods. Only theory? In practise it doesn\'t work that well because the developers aren\'t familior with these methods. It\'s something new that will have to be learned and will be improved evenmore with time. This is why the PS2 can still greatly improve, more so than Xbox.
And again you show that you really don\'t know what you are talking about. Firstly, if you even doubled the amount of RAM in the PS2 it would not be too much for the CPU or the bandwidth to handle. You say Sony made a conscious descision while adding ram to their box. Isn\'t it just as likely that Sony wanted to cut costs down because memory was expensive during that time? That\'s an interesting theory isn\'t it?
Yes, the cost thing is an important aspect, but then you know why streaming is such a gift. Streaming minimizes memory, while maximizes the necessary bandwidth needed. The less memory you have, the more bandwidth is needed. More memory equals less bandwidth. Obviously, more memory and more bandwidth needs a more powerful processor to process since more data can be transfered. Logical isn\'t it?
Now before you state again that I don\'t know what I\'m talking, either
-->Prove me wrong<--
or just let it be. But going on about how costs can be saved on Sony\'s side is totally nonsense and prove nothing in this technical debate. Thank you.
I said, I don\'t understand the PS2\'s hardware--I\'m not sure you do either. I DO understand how the machine works; how it processes data. There is a difference.
I really like the way you contradict yourself.. but let me get this straight, you don\'t understand the PS2 hardware, but know how it works? How can you? As I and everyone else can read from your above posts, you don\'t know damn about how it works. Not even how the PS2 makes up for memory and caches while using streaming methods. So if you don\'t understand the PS2\'s hardware, who are you to debate about which console is more powerful and insult me by saying I don\'t know what I am talking about?
_____________________
This wouldn\'t be hard to believe, hence the fact that Xbox is an easier system to develop on.
_____________________
You forgot more powerful.
As I see we haven\'t learned anything. :( Still prejudging the PS2 upon your lack of technical knowledge on the PS2\'s hardware?
You\'ve proven nothing. Listen I own a PS2, a PSX and will eventually (before christmas) an xbox. A fanboy I am not, but whenever someone treats a console unfairly I feel the need to point it out to them. About a year ago someone not unlike you was preaching that the DC is just as powerful as the PS2, probably more so. We had a similar debate and he swore up and down that I didn\'t know anything, that I was a fanboy and that the PS2 is all "smoke and mirrors."
Are you know insulting me by calling me a fanboy? I might be biased, but I am not blind to the truth and I don\'t prejudge other consoles without knowing how they work. I also never stated that you are a fanboy.. what are you on about now?
Just like a year ago, you are wrong, and I am pointing it out.
Okay.. lets believe someone who doesn\'t understand the PS2\'s hardware, but is still smart enough to say things like "this console is more powerful bla bla bla". :rolleyes:
How do you do it?
This isn\'t a flame against the PS2, it is the facts. But whether it be arrogance, ignorance or blatant fanboyism you cannot bring yourself to that conclusion.
"Facts" from someone who doesn\'t understand the PS2\'s hardware? LOL. And btw; which "facts"? I can\'t see them.. care to point them out?
And this argument shouldn\'t even exist; it shouldn\'t matter that the PS2 can\'t match the graphics of the newer consoles because a) it is starting to get some great games b) it is older; computer hardware doubles in power every six months--new technology or not. So I\'m finished with this thread--I don\'t care, really. You can think what you want and if it means that much to you I\'ll even say: "The xbox is maxxed out with DOA3. Programmers have figured it out. It\'s all uphill for the PS2--graphics are just going to keep getting better and it\'ll be the prettiest of all consoles."
Yes, you are absolutely right, this arguement shouldn\'t even exist. I do find it very funny though, since you were the one that dragged us into this long debate. The debate originally started by me saying that PS2 has "newer" technology (oposed to what you said), but you had to drag this into a "my console is more powerful than yours" arguement. If I also may point out, you were the one that also stated "PS2 cannot match graphics with GC or xbox, this year, next year, etc. It\'s a hardware bottleneck, it\'s older hardware", eventhough you then later admit that you don\'t know how the PS2\'s hardware works.
Is this stupidity or blind fanboyism at its best?
My last contribution to this thread.
I won\'t take your word for it.. but it\'s sure a wise decision on your side. :p
-
I got in line last night for an X-box. After about an hour I changed my mind and left at 8:30. The reason I left is b/c the only game I want for X-box right now is DOA3. And I\'m not ready to pay $350+ for an improved DOA2, cause I already own DOA2.
Gunvalkyrie looks cool and RAW is WAR will be the bomb but neither one of those are out yet. So I\'ll put my money toward my creditcard bill for now and maybe pick up an X at the turn of the year.