PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: rastalant on December 18, 2001, 12:11:07 PM
-
http://cube.ign.com/news/40543.html
If you read the thing they keep asking the guy at gekko(ibm guy) how does gamecube compare to the Emotion Engine. Not one time did he say its more powerful, he kept saying there to different to compare. Hmmmmmmm.......makes you wonder if a he couldn\'t answer the question is gamecube more powerful than ps2? From the looks of it well............. Whats your thoughts on this.........;) ;) :cool: :cool::bounce:
-
its simple
ps2 = polygon monster
gamecube = texture monster
xbox = crushes both systems in both areas
-
Originally posted by Metal_Gear_Ray
its simple
ps2 = polygon monster
gamecube = texture monster
xbox = crushes both systems in both areas
So true xbox is a beast. As for as gamecube I still don\'t see why they call it teaturezilla. If you want teatures just look at halo, nfl fever, project gothem, and doa3.
-
I agree, I haven\'t seen very hi-res textures on GC yet (except for Rogue leader)
-
The the is that the EE is probably the most powerful frocessor out of all of them. The problem is that\'s it\'s forced to do alot of effects that Nintendo Flipper GPU and Xbox\'s NV2A do through hardware thus leveling out the playing field so you see that all systems look pretty much the same.
-
Originally posted by Metal_Gear_Ray
I agree, I haven\'t seen very hi-res textures on GC yet (except for Rogue leader)
I know I agree.......
-
IMO, they all are about equal in terms of overall performance. GC can do things that Xbox and PS2 can\'t, whereas PS2 can do other things that Xbox and GC can\'t. Then there is Xbox that can also do things that PS2 and GC can\'t. There is no "perfect" console that maintains the eaz of development and performance of all the other consoles.
-
Originally posted by seven
IMO, they all are about equal in terms of overall performance. GC can do things that Xbox and PS2 can\'t, whereas PS2 can do other things that Xbox and GC can\'t. Then there is Xbox that can also do things that PS2 and GC can\'t. There is no "perfect" console that maintains the eaz of development and performance of all the other consoles.
Hmmmmmm......that is something to think about believe or not I even think ps2 has some advantages over xbox. So I guess every consoles has its advantages, but xbox just looks the best.:D
-
I think X-Box is the most powerful...with its 80 and more gigaflops...we can\'t argue about it...
...but who cares...look at VirtuaFighter4 on PS2...it\'s amazing !!!
It\'s the King ! :)
-
Who. Cares?
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
I think X-Box is the most powerful...with its 80 and more gigaflops...we can\'t argue about it...
...but who cares...look at VirtuaFighter4 on PS2...it\'s amazing !!!
It\'s the King ! :)
Yeah look at those 80 GIGAFLOPS!!!! and yeah, those 300 BILLIONS polygons per second are reeeeeaaaallly blowing me away!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:
yep, Mircosoft. You\'ve done it again.
-
Originally posted by seven
Yeah look at those 80 GIGAFLOPS!!!! and yeah, those 300 BILLIONS polygons per second are reeeeeaaaallly blowing me away!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:
yep, Mircosoft. You\'ve done it again.
Don\'t get me wrong...PS2 is a great machine and probably will remain my favourite console...but I have to admit that X-Box can do better graphics and sound...and it\'s a must with one year and half of advantage...it\'s how technology works...
-
I agree with BizioEE, the xbox can do anything the PS2 can (graphically) and then some--it\'s just the advantage of being newer hardware.
Seven, one of the biggest PS2 zealots around here, will have you believe otherwise.
-
Don\'t get me wrong...PS2 is a great machine and probably will remain my favourite console...
BizioEE, since you also understand a lot of technical stuff and participate in the technical posts, I would have expected more of your reply. My post had nothing to do with PS2 for one, but all about Microsoft\'s great marketing to make their console look to be the "ultimate" machine in raw performance. Sadly, it seems to be working, even with you.
What makes me think that? Look at what you posted:
I think X-Box is the most powerful...with its 80 and more gigaflops...we can\'t argue about it...
80 GFLOPS. You got to be kidding me right? Are you telling me that the Pentium III in the Xbox does 80 GFLOPS? Or maybe the beefed up Geforece 3 in there? HAHAHA.. please...
If the Xbox was really to process 80 Giga-Floatingpoint Operations per Second (compared to the EE\'s 6.2), then I really wonder why the Xbox can only do 125 mio pps (or 300 for that matter). That must be the most complete bull**** I have ever heard.
Like I said, what ever Microsoft is publishing on big numbers is sure paying off. Got to give their marketing credit. :(
but I have to admit that X-Box can do better graphics and sound...
Admit? Admit what? That current Xbox titles look better than current PS2\'s titles? I won\'t deny that the Xbox has some really beautiful games (DOA3 being the one), but judging the hardware\'s capability on 1 game which utilizes the Xbox more than any other fighter on PS2 is sad. Is it fair to compare it? If you want to compare games, compare them by genre. DOA3 might be the best looking fighter on any platform right now, but to what are you comparing it? The rushed TTT on PS2, the port DOA2: Hardcore? Be fair man. I ain\'t denying that DOA3 looks great, but at least be fair when you comparing it to games on other platforms.
and it\'s a must with one year and half of advantage...it\'s how technology works...
Yeah, look what they managed to do with 1 1/2 years of time... If you\'re so wise on about how technology progresses, explain to me what leap there is in technology on
a.) a PC (x86 based) in a time period of 2 years,
b.) and then also tell me how big that leap is on Xbox (a very PCish platform), compared to PS2 (unique architecture).
I for one am very interested.
If you\'re wondering what I am on to, it\'s easy; what makes the Xbox so much newer in terms of technology? Can it be compared to how a PC progresses in 2 years?
And WHEN will people finaly get it that PS2 is totally new and takes more time to master than a easy "PC-Console"? The PS2 gives the developers freedom, but with that freedom, comes also the sacrifice of making it very hard to learn. So I am not necesserally saying that PS2 beats Xbox just because of it\'s new and unique architecture, but that it should be considered. Saying that it\'s better because it\'s newer is a moot point. If you still think so, then explain to me why Mac\'s are considerally better for graphical stuff than new PC\'s? -Just something to think about.
I agree with BizioEE, the xbox can do anything the PS2 can (graphically) and then some--it\'s just the advantage of being newer hardware.
anything? It\'s funny that I hear a lot of developers saying that the PS2 can master weahter-like effects better than the other consoles. Since the EE and GS also give the PS2 more freedom (it\'s harder, but if you want to achieve something and you\'ve got the talent, it\'s doable), I am sure developers will be able to do certain things that aren\'t possible on Xbox. But anyway, here\'s something interesting and although it\'s from IGN, it\'s still to make you wonder:
"The textures in the PS2 version are actually identical to those in the Xbox version, and the PS2 engine uses a few reflection effects not found on the Xbox (although the bump-mapping, pixel shading and the like are unique to Microsoft\'s system)."[/i]
- Silent Hill 2: where did the grain effect go? Might be due to other reasons (but doesn\'t necesserally have to), it still makes you wonder.
Seven, one of the biggest PS2 zealots around here, will have you believe otherwise.
And Watchdog the probably best example of blind ignorance. Ey Watchdog, I\'ll remember your remark about how Xbox can do anything PS2 can...
-
Seven, unlike you I am not threatened by the xbox.
Grow up man.
__________
anything? It\'s funny that I hear a lot of developers saying that the PS2 can master weahter-like effects better than the other consoles.
__________
Funny, I\'ve never heard this, nor really seen this. Nothing that I haven\'t seen on xbox: I\'ve seen rain fall on the PS2 and xbox, I\'ve seen blizzards on both consoles, high winds...couldn\'t relly tell a difference. It\'s just particle effects and all next gen systems can do them.
__________
Since the EE and GS also give the PS2 more freedom (it\'s harder, but if you want to achieve something and you\'ve got the talent, it\'s doable), I am sure developers will be able to do certain things that aren\'t possible on Xbox. But anyway, here\'s something interesting and although it\'s from IGN, it\'s still to make you wonder:
__________
Actually, the xbox archetecture give WAY more freedom--that\'s the whole knock against the PS2--you have to program with the RAM constraints, streaming and dual archetecture. The xbox leaves everything open, gives devs options, that\'s why everyone likes it so much.
If you take these same talented people and put them on the xbox, they\'ll produce better looking and sounding games.
_________
Test Drive:
"The textures in the PS2 version are actually identical to those in the Xbox version, and the PS2 engine uses a few reflection effects not found on the Xbox (although the bump-mapping, pixel shading and the like are unique to Microsoft\'s system)."
_________
Yeah, and if both systems did a port of Double Dragon the textures would be identical too--what\'s your point? Test Drive doesn\'t have the world\'s best textures. It\'s one game, one developer, one engine. You are saying the xbox couldn\'t do the reflection effects? C\'mon, get your head out of your ass.
_________
Silent Hill 2: where did the grain effect go? Might be due to other reasons (but doesn\'t necesserally have to), it still makes you wonder.
_________
The grain is there--you get the option to turn it on or off. Play the game, read a review/preview--don\'t go making blind assumtions.
And the xbox can do anything the PS2 can--I judge by the facts, by what devs say and what I see. Ports usually are terrible games, marred by bad framerates. Yet, when a EA, a dev notorious for bad ports, ports to GC and xbox, framerate issues and bad textures go away. And these are from inferior consoles?
Look at the people here that have ACTUALLY PLAYED THE XBOX (read: you haven\'t) they say the same thing I am--it\'s more powerful. Look at Brute Force and Project Ego or Halo and DOA3--take your pick. The fact of the matter is that PS2 can\'t compete graphically--the xbox chip is more advanced, can do things hardware that PS2 has to do software (5.1, bump mapping, etc)--and this is the very least.
It annoys me to respond to your posts because I come off sounding like an xbox fanboy. How can you go on this crusade when you have no one that agrees with your "theories"? Remember a little while ago when I actually cared enough and dug up articles that systematically "proved" (I know you can never prove anything, but at least I found people who share my viewpoint) every point of yours wrong? Where did your promised articles that backed up your points go? Maybe I missed that responce. I do remember you saying something like "biased article" or "they don\'t know what they are talking about" or something of that sort. I guess we should believe you then. Hmm.
I\'m done, but here\'s a tip: buy the xbox like I and many others here did, you might not be so stubborn or closeminded then.
-
Look I don\'t care what the damn numbers are most the console makers probably make them up I want to see them in action before i judge. I have to admit i like ps2 better at the moment beacuse bill just gets up my nose he\'s the richest person on earth but no thats not enough he has to get into consoles i don\'t know maybe im an idiot ( wait I am an idiot) but I don\'t realy care!
-
I didn\'t think it was microsoft that can out and said that it can do 80 and more gigaflops, i thought it was a developer that was testing the hardware out, but don\'t hold me to that, as i am probably wrong, i can\'t remeber exactly who said it can do that.
Also Seven why are you saying stuff about MS marketing when Sony said the same things about the PS2,they said it could do 70 million polys a second, no console in a game would be able to reach the performance that the companys say, apart from nintendo which said the GC and do 12 million polys a second.
2Fast you are right they should just in joy the games, and not worry about what the company say that the consoles can do!
-
EA games better on GC and XBox than the PS2 versions? Have you played SSX Tricky lately?
Some devs are actually repulsed by the XBox\'s unified memory and are claiming that it\'s slowing things down more than they like. Each and every device has to wait for the other device to finish the memory access before it\'s turn. I know an EA developer who\'s flat out claiming that box is actually slowest of all the three for the reason mentioned, and he programs for all three consoles. Also, his experience with x86 architecture is much bigger than with PS2 or GC. XBox definitely produces best graphics, he says, but it\'s slowest... Frankly, I have no idea what to think about all that.
-
Funny, I\'ve never heard this, nor really seen this. Nothing that I haven\'t seen on xbox: I\'ve seen rain fall on the PS2 and xbox, I\'ve seen blizzards on both consoles, high winds...couldn\'t relly tell a difference. It\'s just particle effects and all next gen systems can do them.
A game that looks and feels like MGS2? Sorry, I haven\'t seen one yet, not even on PS2. I am just quoting what a lot of developers are saying. But when I actually give an example, it suddendly gets called a port:
Yeah, and if both systems did a port of Double Dragon the textures would be identical too--what\'s your point? Test Drive doesn\'t have the world\'s best textures. It\'s one game, one developer, one engine. You are saying the xbox couldn\'t do the reflection effects? C\'mon, get your head out of your ass.
A port? Port of which system? Test Drive 5 for PSX? Yes 1 game, 1 developer who is developing this game for both systems. I think it is very relevant. But of course, eventhough the nicer looking reflections are absent, it gives us every reason to believe that it could be done... :rolleyes:
Actually, the xbox archetecture give WAY more freedom--that\'s the whole knock against the PS2--you have to program with the RAM constraints, streaming and dual archetecture. The xbox leaves everything open, gives devs options, that\'s why everyone likes it so much.
Woah, listen up guys! Watchdog is a developer! But since my opinion can\'t be taken as a trusted source, I\'ll quote something by the Square developer that was recently posted on the ArsTechnica forums:
"As far as possible PS2 bias goes, I\'m a fan of it\'s architecture because it\'s fully exposed to the developer and it\'s very configurable providing a plethora of options to tinker with... That makes people like me happy..."
ArsTechnica Thread (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=39309975&m=5050993713&p=4)
Other developers have also said that the PS2 gives them freedom in every possible way. Developers like Xbox as a platform because it\'s EASY and give even untalented developers a chance to program something that\'s really pretty. Get it right.
And the xbox can do anything the PS2 can--I judge by the facts, by what devs say and what I see. Ports usually are terrible games, marred by bad framerates. Yet, when a EA, a dev notorious for bad ports, ports to GC and xbox, framerate issues and bad textures go away. And these are from inferior consoles?
I believe Marconelly already answered this. Opposed to what you are also saying, I find it also very interesting about what some EA developers said (quoted by Marconelly). If you remember back, I said the same a while back.
Also Seven why are you saying stuff about MS marketing when Sony said the same things about the PS2,they said it could do 70 million polys a second, no console in a game would be able to reach the performance that the companys say, apart from nintendo which said the GC and do 12 million polys a second.
Ethan, If you read the other thread, you will see that there are developers that are exceeding this number. So these numbers, believe it or not, are much more valid then you may think. Secondly, everyone knows these numbers are not in-game numbers - but Sony also posted estimates with effects on which come close to the number you\'ll have during in-game. And Sony published messured numbers of the VU1 performing perspective transformation calculations (66 million pps) and rendering on the GS (75 million pps), unlike Nintendo who mades estimates of how many polys their games probably would have. Now you tell me, what\'s better? Estimates or messured numbers? Now ask a developer what he thinks about Microsoft\'s numbers, and he\'ll probably laugh away. Sad but true.
Some of you guys in here (not you Ethan) should really get a bit out of these forums here. Go visit some technical forums where people who actually know their stuff post and you might be a bit more open minded. But saying that Xbox is superior to the PS2 in every way and not admiting to the faults it may have is very sad and shows the lack of technical understanding in here. Just because the Xbox has all the obvious numbers higher doesn\'t mean it\'s better in every aspect.
-
EA games better on GC and XBox than the PS2 versions? Have you played SSX Tricky lately?
Some devs are actually repulsed by the XBox\'s unified memory and are claiming that it\'s slowing things down more than they like. Each and every device has to wait for the other device to finish the memory access before it\'s turn. I know an EA developer who\'s flat out claiming that box is actually slowest of all the three for the reason mentioned, and he programs for all three consoles. Also, his experience with x86 architecture is much bigger than with PS2 or GC. XBox definitely produces best graphics, he says, but it\'s slowest... Frankly, I have no idea what to think about all that.
I have not enough technical knowledge to prove it\'s wrong...but I think that each new thing give developers some problem at first...and I think some have still to understand how to use UMA properly...
...I still remember all the complaints at Capcom about the streaming techniques on PS2,AA problems,etc...and they said at fist..."well...right now we\'re working on something...but we cannot show you nothing because...err...you shouldn\'t understand if it\'s for PSone or PS2...[developers\'s laugh]"...
...but look at what developers have achieved and are achieving...DMC,MGS2,J&D,BG: DA,GT3,FFX...and yes...that was more and more drastic on PS2...but X-Box needs more and more time too to be fully understood...I read that UMA architecture has all the necessary bandwidth to fully express each single spec of the X-Box...but it doesn\'t mean it\'s easy...developers will have to fight to achieve the best from this console ! ----> The bottom line is that Xbox is a well-balanced graphics system that will generally be capable of approaching the specs being claimed for it. "Capable" is not the same as "easy" -- this level of performance will require exemplary programming, taking full advantage of the fact that Xbox is a fixed platform to which code can be carefully tuned....""Xbox has a unified memory architecture (UMA), whereby the GPU and CPU share a single memory space, with memory control provided by the GPU. This is in marked contrast to the separate memories used for high-performance 3D in PCs. UMA has a significant advantage in that it allows the CPU, DVD and disk controllers, and GPU to access common data without copying; for example, models and textures can be streamed off the DVD into memory and used directly by the GPU. However, the history of UMA is spotty; witness IBM\'s PCjr UMA, which stopped the CPU virtually dead in its tracks by allotting two out of every three memory cycles to graphics. Not surprisingly, this is the aspect of Xbox that has aroused the greatest degree of public skepticism, so the accompanying text box entitled "Xbox Memory Bandwidth" discusses Xbox\'s memory bandwidth in high-end scenarios. The short version of the bandwidth story is that while there are scenarios in which Xbox could run out of bandwidth, there should be more than enough for most cases, particularly those that leverage the GPU\'s programmable pipeline. Under virtually any set of assumptions, Xbox has adequate memory bandwidth to handle 50 Mtris/sec. in real-world use, and usually plenty to hit the pipeline limits of the chip."" ...I\'ll find the link...
However...if you look at DOA3,you realize that graphics are not only beautiful but even ultra fast and smooth...and look at JSRF...it looks amazing with smooth and fast action...and Brute Force(and it\'s only the beginning)...so...I don\'t see any problem with UMA...
if some developers have problem with UMA at first it doesn\'t mean UMA is a problem !
...a word to the wise...let\'s try to be a bit more coherent ;)
-
I really can see both sides of the argument in here, but to tell you the truth the xbox should be more powerful then the PS2 because the ps2 came out a year before the xbox.
But i would say the best thing is to have this discussion in a years time, that way developers will know the ps2 pretty much inside out and should be a power house, and we can see what it really can do, and the xbox should be flying by then as well, as the learning curve is not as bad, don\'t get me wrong it will take a little while to get use to it, but you just have to look at games like Halo and DoA3 to see that the developers are alreadt getting to grips with the xbox, and just think they were launch titles, that didn\'t have the full hardware until what 4-5 months before the console launch.
But hey just in joy the game guys, that is what it is all about the fun!:D
-
BizioEE, since you also understand a lot of technical stuff and participate in the technical posts, I would have expected more of your reply. My post had nothing to do with PS2 for one, but all about Microsoft\'s great marketing to make their console look to be the "ultimate" machine in raw performance. Sadly, it seems to be working, even with you.
not in my case :)...I don\'t think X-Box is the best hardware(overall) neither because MS are claiming so nor because developers like Tecmo say it\'s 4/5 times more powerful than PS2...I\'ve formed a general idea for the "real specs" of this machine(I read a lot of article from unbiased and reliable source(at least it seems so :) ---graphics capabilities,sound capabilities,bandwidth,rendering bandwidth,effective texture bandwidth,etc) and for what I see(DOA3,Halo,PG,Project Ego,JSRF,Brute Force,etc)...nothing more...nothing less...
...I could be wrong...I\'m not saying I\'m 100% sure X-Box is the "ultimate" machine...I have no idea...
What makes me think that? Look at what you posted:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think X-Box is the most powerful...with its 80 and more gigaflops...we can\'t argue about it...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80 GFLOPS. You got to be kidding me right? Are you telling me that the Pentium III in the Xbox does 80 GFLOPS? Or maybe the beefed up Geforece 3 in there? HAHAHA.. please...
If the Xbox was really to process 80 Giga-Floatingpoint Operations per Second (compared to the EE\'s 6.2), then I really wonder why the Xbox can only do 125 mio pps (or 300 for that matter). That must be the most complete bull**** I have ever heard.
Like I said, what ever Microsoft is publishing on big numbers is sure paying off. Got to give their marketing credit.
well...I was hurried :)...I spent 3 sec to make this postI think X-Box is the most powerful...with its 80 and more gigaflops...we can\'t argue about it...
...I meant that X-Box seems to have better performance almost in everything...but I can\'t be sure...how could I...I\'m not an unbiased,expert and talented developer who spent a lot of time on all the next generation consoles !
-
Marconelly--again I have never heard that, and have a suspician that you are making it up.
Ethan, that\'s all I\'ve ever said, is that it should because it\'s newer, but Seven seems to be on a mission.
That square quote is not from a multi-platform dev and therefore means nothing. If you\'d like I could find a quote from bungie or Lanning...
__________
Some devs are actually repulsed by the XBox\'s unified memory and are claiming that it\'s slowing things down more than they like.
__________
Again, EVERY article I have read says the exact opposite. You sound a lot like Seven.
Go hug your PS2.
-
That square quote is not from a multi-platform dev and therefore means nothing. If you\'d like I could find a quote from bungie or Lanning...
Huh, Square is working on Final Fantasy XI which is supposed to be multi-platform. Great try proving my (his) opinion wrong. :rolleyes:
Again, EVERY article I have read says the exact opposite. You sound a lot like Seven.
Again, great job proving him wrong. :rolleyes: But Watchdog, out of curiousity; who wrote those articles? People with good technical (but sometimes faulty) knowledge or developers who program for the damn system? :D
Seems to me every time a developer says something negative about Xbox, that their opinion and experiences have to be questioned - *and Watchdog gets his tech-theoretical-articles* "..but here it says [insert theoretical calculations here]"
LOL. Pathetic.
-
While I believe the PS2 has much more potential, I\'ll let my eyes do the analyzing of power.
Neither Halo nor DOA3 would be done perfectly on the PS2. The visuals would degrade, and if there\'s one main area the PS2 will never touch, it would be textures. I love my PS2 as much as the next guy, but I know what I see.
-
DM, I think exactly the same way. Try telling Seven this though--gr0an.
Yes Seven, I know you are notorious for pointing out the technical knowledge flaws of some vetted and professional journalist, but you provide none of your own. You expect us to believe your ramblings and calculations? Give your head a shake.
And Square has never said--ever--they would publish for the xbox--this is a rumour and until there is an official announcement you can\'t use it as proof. Besides, since Square is only making games for PS2 now, they would be doing themselves a disservice if they said the hardware made them make sacrifices. Of course they are going to say it lets them fulfill their vision. Again, give your head a shake and use some common sense.
And furthermore Square doesn\'t say anything about the xbox--so again, you are making no valid points.
__________
Seems to me every time a developer says something negative about Xbox, that their opinion and experiences have to be questioned - *and Watchdog gets his tech-theoretical-articles* "..but here it says [insert theoretical calculations here]"
__________
It seems to me you have dug up articles from Sony, Naughty Dog and Square--not exactly credible sources when discussing MS.
You Sir, are the one who is truly pathetic.
Take off your PS2 colored glasses and take a look at xbox\'s graphics--this is all the proof I\'ll ever need.
-
Watchdog: I think you took the wrong turn when you joined these forums..
TeamXbox (http://www.teamxbox.com) is that way.. -->
-
Originally posted by datamage
While I believe the PS2 has much more potential, I\'ll let my eyes do the analyzing of power.
Neither Halo nor DOA3 would be done perfectly on the PS2. The visuals would degrade, and if there\'s one main area the PS2 will never touch, it would be textures. I love my PS2 as much as the next guy, but I know what I see.
So true once you look at halo textures I don\'t think ps2 could match that. DOA3 is just downright amazing I know that wouldn\'t be ported perfectly on ps2. PS2 is still an amazing system.
-
Coming from a PS2 zealot like you Fatson I could care less. I can appreciate the merits of two consoles *gasp* perhaps you should try.
If you look at all my posts I come down on xbox fanboys too. The problem is that most of those types don\'t last here very long. Since this is a PS2 forum, people like you and Seven are tolerated--it isn\'t for your open mindedness that is for certain.
-
Originally posted by fastson
Watchdog: I think you took the wrong turn when you joined these forums..
TeamXbox (http://www.teamxbox.com) is that way.. -->
Hahaha:laughing: , well he atleast post intelligently, I wouldn\'t say the same about teamxbox members
-
Watchdog: I think you took the wrong turn when you joined these forums..
TeamXbox is that way.. -->
No need for that. While Watchdog may lean towards the Xbox, he is no troll. You don\'t see him starting threads on why the Xbox is supreme do you?
-
Thanks for the support, guys.
It may seem like I lean towards the xbox, but I don\'t think I do. Right now I\'m a little high on xbox, but that\'ll pass. Having both consoles give me the option (and the freedom) to experience the best of both. Last month I borrowed and loved ICO (much too short though). This month has been all about Halo and MGS. I plan on tackling J&D and Amped over Christmas.
This really is the only way to enjoy video games. I wouldn\'t limit my movies to only Paramount ones, why would anyone want to limit their games in a similar manner?
-
I agree with you entirely Watchdog, now its time for me to start saving money for a xbox, well since I just got a job it shouldn\'t be to hard
-
Yes Seven, I know you are notorious for pointing out the technical knowledge flaws of some vetted and professional journalist, but you provide none of your own. You expect us to believe your ramblings and calculations? Give your head a shake.
My ramblings and calculations? Please, rather those of developers who know what they say. You can give me any tech-article that\'s written from some writer, but I\'ll take the opinion and experiences of developers any day. Again, I\'ll say;
Seems to me every time a developer says something negative about Xbox, that their opinion and experiences have to be questioned.
And Square has never said--ever--they would publish for the xbox--this is a rumour and until there is an official announcement you can\'t use it as proof. Besides, since Square is only making games for PS2 now, they would be doing themselves a disservice if they said the hardware made them make sacrifices. Of course they are going to say it lets them fulfill their vision. Again, give your head a shake and use some common sense.
Where did I say it\'s official that Square is developing for Xbox? Where did I use something like that as proof? You sometimes got your head too high up your ass - and if you already put words in my mouth, at least to it right.
I said: "Huh, Square is working on Final Fantasy XI which is supposed to be multi-platform. Great try proving my (his) opinion wrong."
Mark the supposed in my post. Means I am not sure, but it is an assumption. It might not be true, but it could very well be true, since Square said at a few ocassions that they would like FFXI to be multi-console.
It seems to me you have dug up articles from Sony, Naughty Dog and Square--not exactly credible sources when discussing MS.
LOL, I haven\'t even started yet. Where did I use any articles or opinions from Square or ND employees against Xbox? I only used them to prove how much freedom PS2 gives developers and that the polygon counts can be higher then what Sony has posted. Nothing against Xbox here?
If you want to get it right, reread Marconelly\'s post. It said EA and not Square, Naughty Dog or what ever. Now you either believe it or you leave it, but bringing up your x, y and z articles don\'t prove one damn thing if a developer says they can\'t do it practically.
Hahaha , well he atleast post intelligently, I wouldn\'t say the same about teamxbox members
That is debatable.
-
Originally posted by seven
That is debatable.
Maybe to you, but if you read is his post he never does any bashing and he knows when he is wrong, he holds his own opinions and is a multiple console fan
-
Originally posted by Bozco
Maybe to you, but if you read is his post he never does any bashing and he knows when he is wrong, he holds his own opinions and is a multiple console fan
Well, I was more thinking about the "well he atleast post intelligently"... but I guess it just gets to me when Watchdog has to bring up old arguments and call me PS2 fanboy on crusade, biggest PS2 zealots around here etc, but yet not back up what he posts and make his arguement/opinion and tech-articles to be better than what developers have said. There is really no chance of debating intelligently with Watchdog, because he fails to admit when he posts something wrong or that Xbox may not be the "superiour in every way" console.
-
Seven, in a different thread a week or two ago, I brought in about 7 different sources that pretty much crushed your argument. You didn\'t respond. I\'m not doing it again.
__________
Where did I say it\'s official that Square is developing for Xbox? Where did I use something like that as proof? You sometimes got your head too high up your ass - and if you already put words in my mouth, at least to it right.
I said: "Huh, Square is working on Final Fantasy XI which is supposed to be multi-platform. Great try proving my (his) opinion wrong."
Mark the supposed in my post. Means I am not sure, but it is an assumption. It might not be true, but it could very well be true, since Square said at a few ocassions that they would like FFXI to be multi-console.
___________
*shakes his head* Square has never said they are making an xbox game, Square has never made an xbox game. These statements are true. Now since those statements are true speculating that Square might make a game for the xbox and since they might make a game for xbox they become multiplatform?
Those comments about FFX being multiconsole were made BEFORE Sony bought up Square stock. Since then there has been no talk whatsoever. Square is a Sony only dev and is on VERY good terms with Sony so they say very nice things about the console.
Quotes from sources like these hold very little weight. Shall I dig up what Lanning said about PS2? No, I think not.
___________
LOL, I haven\'t even started yet. Where did I use any articles or opinions from Square or ND employees against Xbox? I only used them to prove how much freedom PS2 gives developers and that the polygon counts can be higher then what Sony has posted. Nothing against Xbox here?
___________
No, but what are you trying to prove with these sources? Wait a minute, I\'m going to see what Bill Gates has to say about the xbox--that\'ll get us to the bottom of this once and for all.
___________
If you want to get it right, reread Marconelly\'s post. It said EA and not Square, Naughty Dog or what ever. Now you either believe it or you leave it, but bringing up your x, y and z articles don\'t prove one damn thing if a developer says they can\'t do it practically.
___________
Yes, he said
__________
Some devs are actually repulsed by the XBox\'s unified memory and are claiming that it\'s slowing things down more than they like. Each and every device has to wait for the other device to finish the memory access before it\'s turn. I know an EA developer who\'s flat out claiming that box is actually slowest of all the three for the reason mentioned, and he programs for all three consoles. Also, his experience with x86 architecture is much bigger than with PS2 or GC. XBox definitely produces best graphics, he says, but it\'s slowest... Frankly, I have no idea what to think about all that.
__________
Hm sounds like an Enquirer article to me. No article with reference, no mention of a source. I might as well quote my Aunt Jenny for all the credibility of this guy\'s source--she might not know anything about video games, but she can make a mean minced pie! In other words it is meaningless.
Say, just the other day I was talking to Jerry of Activision and he said the PS2 is a POS. How would you respond to this? If EA did say something like that I\'m sure there would be posts all over the web with PS2 fanboys dancing in the street. I\'m looking out my window now and besides the old drunk, no one is out on the street tonight. Must not have happened.
BTW, Bozco, you won\'t regret it. The xbox is great and a couple hundred bucks is nothing really. It is the only way to play (multiconsole that is).
-
Seven, in a different thread a week or two ago, I brought in about 7 different sources that pretty much crushed your argument. You didn\'t respond. I\'m not doing it again.
I know. I\'ve read those, but if you have been paying any attention to what I\'ve been posting the last few hours in this thread, you will actually see that I judge the opinions and experiences of some developers higher than your tech-theories. One can be easily fooled with calculations which prove theorie x true. You are just betting a bit too much on your credible sources. I think you should pay a bit more attention to what developers say rather than your articles that probably aren\'t even accurate.
*shakes his head* Square has never said they are making an xbox game, Square has never made an xbox game. These statements are true. Now since those statements are true speculating that Square might make a game for the xbox and since they might make a game for xbox they become multiplatform?
Those comments about FFX being multiconsole were made BEFORE Sony bought up Square stock. Since then there has been no talk whatsoever. Square is a Sony only dev and is on VERY good terms with Sony so they say very nice things about the console.
Quotes from sources like these hold very little weight. Shall I dig up what Lanning said about PS2? No, I think not.
Go read for yourself. I posted the link on page 1 in this thread. Be my guest. If you\'re so convinced of your super Xbox, I gladly let you debate it with him rather then me (seing that this is getting us no where).
No, but what are you trying to prove with these sources? Wait a minute, I\'m going to see what Bill Gates has to say about the xbox--that\'ll get us to the bottom of this once and for all.
Sony\'s numbers are being proven accurate by developers, not by Sony. Present your numbers at some developers and they wil tell you they\'re probably ****ed up. But go ahead, ask Billy. I am sure he\'ll make you even more happy and ignorant.
Yes, he said EA thinks blah blah blah. No article with reference, no mention of a source. Therefore, it is meaningless. Say, just the other day I was talking to Jerry of Activision and he said the PS2 is a POS. How would you respond to this? If EA did say something like that I\'m sure there would be posts all over the web with PS2 fanboys dancing in the street. I\'m looking out my window now and besides the old drunk, no one is out on the street tonight. Must not have happened.
That\'s right. Debate it with your tech-articles and if it doesn\'t work - call it meaningless. Typicall and most easy way to get off topic. So let\'s all believe Watchdog, his our ultimate developer (even though no experience yet), he will lead us with his articles and we shall all see the light. Damn the guys (Pitpull Sindicate) who think Xbox doesn\'t have better reflections cause it couldn\'t be done... :rolleyes:
I told you. Get out of your dreamworld and visit some forums with developers. You might be able to pick up some usefull information which weighs more than any tech-article you can find on the internet.
-
I do read that forum and in the thread you linked to didn\'t one guy say the Firing Squad article was really good? I remember quoting the Firing Squad article a few times to shoot down your "theories".
At any rate Seven I don\'t care. That forum is no different from any other--filled with random people. They could be the guys that get coffee for the dev team or they could be little stuart from down the street or they could be actually who they say they are.
It makes no difference to me. I can see the difference on the television screen in front of me, and all the long winded BS you can write won\'t change that. And like I said, if all these "devs" from that forum like the PS2 so much and think it\'s more powerful or has about the same power as the xbox why are their remarks never made public? Why do they hide in a forum and in anonymity? Seems dubious to me. Xbox devs seem to have no shortage of nice things to say or comparisons to make. And why are your sources always in Sony\'s back pocket (pun intended)--ie Square, Naughty Dog, etc.?
I\'ve said this before, but you remind me exactly of a little DC kid that swore up and down that the DC and PS2 were about even in terms of system power. He too had his favourite sites that gave him confidence, and I eventually stopped caring. Is that you tHuNdErFoRc3 who now calls himself Seven? I wouldn\'t be surprised.
I\'m now past caring about you and your crusade--like mostly everyone here. Notice how little support you get--need I remind you we are on a PS2 board? Take your argument to an xbox board and see how many supporters you find there.
I know, and most people here know too (judging from a lack of responces) that you are wrong. You will undoubtedly laugh, perhaps post an "lol" and call me pathetic, but I don\'t care. If it gives meaning to your small PS2-filled life I\'ll relent: "The xbox and PS2 are about equal in power. Everyone is wrong except me, Seven and some guys on a tech forum. Long live PS2."
-
As the saying goes, "Seeing is Believing". I have not yet seen the Xbox and will not comment on it. However, Sony has had a huge head start and after playing Project Eden I have relised that graphics mean nothing...rather look at GAMEPLAY.
-
Is it true that Halo has slowdown? I also heard it\'s only running at 30fps? I think it\'s in the IGN review of the game.
-
Originally posted by fastson
Watchdog: I think you took the wrong turn when you joined these forums..
TeamXbox (http://www.teamxbox.com) is that way.. -->
:laughing: That is the funniest thing I have seen you do on this forum yet. HAHAHAAHA
And as for the discussion xbox games where done in a matter of months and they look as good or better than ps2 games that where in 1-2 years of development. That says a lot for the system.
As for gamecube being less powerful. I don\'t see that the games look awesome. PS2 games look awesome. I think the true power of ps2 will never be captured no developer will spend the time and money.
-
Back to original topic:
Yeah, I believed I read at some GC site that mentioned Luigi Mansion and that new Wave racer game have to be traded off with lower resolution due to the special fx to compensate for a decent frame rate.
That doesn\'t sounds very convincing for a new system that is suppose to be so powerful. does it??
As for the Xbox, I haven\'t see it in action yet but judging from the screen shot and reports and the fact it\'s newer hardware, there\'s little doubt it\'s superior hardware to the PS2. But I don\'t believe the improvement is THAT significant...
But, it\'s really the games that counts and when it comes to games, the PS2 is currently king of the hill with all the fab games like GT3,J&D, MGS2, FFIX etc etc.
I don\'t doubt that the Xbox will be a major competitor(in fact, I see PS2 and X-box will take the biggest share of the market for this generation while i really don\'t see any threat from the GC although it\'ll still survive with it\'s niche kiddie market- i mean come on, the thing looks like a damn toy!).
anyway, I thing the upcoming Soul Calibur game will probably be a good comparison between the system but looking at the shots(all versions).....seems like it isn\'t that much of an improvement over the original SC on the DC either.
-
yall forgetting one thing its all about soft ware hardware doesnt make money or keep buyers happy so who has better soft ware ps 2 for now but x box wii catch up but they better hurry because sony keeps getting developers cranking out those awesome games like final fantsay x tell me thats not the prettiest game you have seen this year
-
I\'ve seen ppl saying that the XBox can to everything the ps2 can. Hehe actually that\'s not true. One effect that I think is pretty important is depth-of-field. That is the effect where you can focus on a person/object on screen and blur the rest. This effect is very, very important if you want to bring your graphics closer to real-life. (still a way off, but..) The nvidia chip don\'t have this effect, but I think the cube has it. This is just ONE thing the PS2 has that xbox don\'t.
One person wrote that he thought that the ATI gfx chip in the cube was similar to the ati\'s pc line cards. This is not right. The \'flipper\' chip was actuallt developed by an independent company who ATI bought after the chip design was finished, but before the cube was released. Everything else he said I totally agree on. *smart chap that one*;)
[FluKe]
-
Originally posted by Bozco
now its time for me to start saving money for a xbox
That\'s nice, we see that you\'re an Xbox fan, but there\'s no need to bring it up in this thread. (Gotcha. ;))
The nvidia chip don\'t have this effect, but I think the cube has it. This is just ONE thing the PS2 has that xbox don\'t.
That\'s pretty neat, I never thought about that. GC can do that, EA used it in Madden 2K2. It was more of a novelty there rather than a true-to-life camera technique. They exaggerated it too much, I think.
As for the Xbox, I don\'t believe the improvement is THAT significant...
i really don\'t see any threat from the GC, the thing looks like a damn toy!
You have it about right, at least from the looks of things. Each system has its ups and downs, but it looks like Xbox > PS2 > Gamecube in the power department.
Although, I don\'t know. With the load times and smoothness displayed in the current GC games, I might place it above PS2.
But like you said, the difference isn\'t significant. That\'s why each console is so appealing, the games that are good on each system stand right alongside those of the others.
...
Oh and by the way, the three systems - they\'re all toys. Sorry to be the one to break that to ya.
-Eik