PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => PS3 Discussion => Topic started by: Kurt Angle on October 11, 2003, 08:52:45 AM
-
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Fgamespot%2Fimages%2F2003%2Fscreen0%2F914761_20031009_screen001.jpg&hash=e4ab88e67237322588ce528fa80aadada2bb9063)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Fgamespot%2Fimages%2F2003%2Fscreen0%2F914761_20031009_screen002.jpg&hash=a75371ac4a32a6fca726af60154fbe8d56e167b7)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Fgamespot%2Fimages%2F2003%2Fscreen0%2F914761_20031009_screen003.jpg&hash=06ecd4f1b9caab649e1cb763eeae053064b6a6c5)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Fgamespot%2Fimages%2F2003%2Fscreen0%2F914761_20031009_screen004.jpg&hash=9955e0dedee142e7015cb511b747bdd9c24d67e4)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Fgamespot%2Fimages%2F2003%2Fscreen0%2F914761_20031009_screen005.jpg&hash=c41e1c7a8b920018a57a480eb05fbad81c998671)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Fgamespot%2Fimages%2F2003%2Fscreen0%2F914761_20031009_screen006.jpg&hash=a7f37382196f918857a5d61fc936f4965195b9af)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Fgamespot%2Fimages%2F2003%2Fscreen0%2F914761_20031009_screen007.jpg&hash=487135fcf841c65dfc6b53b6d9acbc9d09c8cd63)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Fgamespot%2Fimages%2F2003%2Fscreen0%2F914761_20031009_screen008.jpg&hash=5c2f02b9a85ffb7764e728ad42fdebe9720c6f9d)
-
more
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Fgamespot%2Fimages%2F2003%2Fscreen0%2F914761_20031009_screen009.jpg&hash=56c895dae9a1e263d08e82b5aa2a50a5e49458b8)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Fgamespot%2Fimages%2F2003%2Fscreen0%2F914761_20031009_screen010.jpg&hash=0b02f1fba836ca69a3c88bb00d7d172b652dea93)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Fgamespot%2Fimages%2F2003%2Fscreen0%2F914761_20031009_screen011.jpg&hash=05b7fb52fd5f7efa7cb5f85b416f9e18fff5a797)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Fgamespot%2Fimages%2F2003%2Fscreen0%2F914761_20031009_screen012.jpg&hash=76cffdf7a4a5ffd7716d3ceb97b9cf2cccda9f3c)
-
Jebus those are some big ass rims.
Are those spinners in the first pic of the second post?
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
Are those spinners in the first pic of the second post?
I believe so
-
Why does this game look exactly like midnight club 2? :P
-
Ok.We ve seen the screens.Nice lighting effects, nice car models(btw: no day time?), nice speed effects....What about the frame rate?
btw:there is something wrong in the first pic
-
60fps.
No daytime.
And I think it looks more like Burnout 2.
-
Are those ps2 shots? Anyway, that Z and that tiburon look mean. I think this game should be good if they dont make the handling really slow and the game 3fps (nfs:Hp2). If i can somehow drift in this game then im sold. Im not getting my hopes up though.
3D Rims, yeay!
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
60fps.
No daytime.
And I think it looks more like Burnout 2.
Are you sure this runs at constant 60 fps??The XBOX version might but I doubt it on PS2.
-
yeah right, cause on xbox all games run at 60fps :laughing:
-
Its 60fps on PS2
Geez, just check out NFSHP2... the PS2 version was the best and its being dev\'d by the same company.
I think it looks great, those are probably PC screens though going by the res.
Download the vids on the official site (PS2 vids) this game looks sweet. XBOX is yet to prove itself to me in the racing department.
-
I\'m certainly looking forward to this game, it looks so much better than Midnight Club 2. The cities are nicely detailed and those wet roads and reflections look mighty impressive.
-
Originally posted by politiepet
yeah right, cause on xbox all games run at 60fps :laughing:
No.But usually multi-platform released titles run at better frame rates on XBOX.If not usually the PS2 version has downgraded graphics
-
yeah....okay....
point taken ;)
-
Since when did Need For Speed have rice cars, just look at that Focus tricked out but stock exahust??? yay this looks good though!
-
^^
Unless you have been living under a rock for a year, this game has been known for quite some time, its out next month.
I gotta dissagree with the Xbox comment. Most multi platform games are first dev\'d on the PS2 and then ported, and most generally dont take into consideration that Xbox is more powerful on paper... they just slap them together and ship them out.
Take a look at NFSHP2, Collin MacRae Rally 3/4, Burnout etc...
-
I gotta dissagree with the Xbox comment. Most multi platform games are first dev\'d on the PS2 and then ported, and most generally dont take into consideration that Xbox is more powerful on paper... they just slap them together and ship them out.
And on the contrary, the same could be said about PS2. ;)
The more accurate statement would be that most multi platform games in general are not built with the respective console\'s strength in mind and generally don\'t do the hardware justice in either cases.
Such statements like "Xbox is more powerful" are simply misleading and not very accurate.
-
When I commented on multiplatform released titles running at smoother rates on XBOX I didnt take into consideration which is the most powerfull.
-
Originally posted by seven
Such statements like "Xbox is more powerful" are simply misleading and not very accurate.
Learn to read, I said more powerful \'on paper\'.
Most multi platform games are firstly dev\'d on the PS2, then are ported to the other consoles. This is generally because the PS2 version would be the one that would sell the most, unless other versions have exclusive features...
-
actually ##Racer## I merely corrected you, as developers don\'t work with \'paper specs\'. I thought that was obvious?
I take it you were trying to make a point, that developers don\'t take into consideration that xbox is more powerful and therefore usually don\'t enhance them further - would that be correct? Regardless of what your point was, \'xbox being more powerful \'on paper\'\' is a flawed assessement. In the context you are using it, anyway.
-
XBOX is easier to develop for and port games on it though.Unless the title was built with the PS2 in mind but thats usually not what happens.A nice example is Bounty Hunter.Looking 10 times better on XBOX with many kinds of effects and running at smoother frame rates while the PS2 looks like a first generation game with choppy frame rates, low quality models, blurry textures and lack of special effects.Then the PS2 version of Time Splitters comes in mind that looks 10 times better than the PS2 version of Bounty Hunter (which was a port of a game that looked better than Time Splitters in some areas).
-
How many people actually played bounty hunter? I don\'t see how that is a nice example.
-
seven, the proof is in the games, thats why I said \'on paper\'. Sure, Xbox \'on paper\' is more powerful, but take alook at the games....
It was just a statement. You people are so anal. Just because the Xbox is more powerful, doesn\'t necessarily mean the dev\'s are gonna use its extra power. I was also referring to NFSHP2, considering it IS a NFS thread... Play the PS2 and Xbox version and you will know what I mean, PS2 version is incredible compared to the completely flawed Xbox version, both graphically and gameplay wise, yet the Xbox is \'more powerful\'.
-
Originally posted by Soul Reaver
How many people actually played bounty hunter? I don\'t see how that is a nice example.
Yeah as if the the quality of graphics depends on how many play a game :rolleyes:
Its not my fault if you havent playied both version or none of them
-
##Racer##
How do you conclude that the Xbox is more powerful \'on paper\'? I thought we were past the time when people use MHz and MBs to compare consoles...
-
^^
We are, thats just the thing that you \'dont seem to get\'. Proof is in the games, and IMO opinion, 4 out of every 5 games that are on both consoles tend to be better on PS2. Now whether this is because of lazy devs, time constraints or the fact that the Xbox is just \'overhyped\', I\'ll let you decide. Alot of people simply assume that the Xbox version of a mutli platform game would be better then the PS2 version simply because its \'more powerful\'.
Anyway, judgeing by the new IGN preview of Underground, it looks like the Xbox version will be graphically superior to a large extent over the PS2 version, and its about time.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
btw:there is something wrong in the first pic
Yup, the wheels on the car are multi-spoke, the reflection on the road shows five spokers, like TSW Stealths.
Either they\'ve been really lazy of these shots are fake.
-
exactly
-
I know the PS2 can do some lovely graphics but these look enhanced by someone who\'s never heard of proof-reading.
I\'ve always loved the NFS games though so I\'ll probably end up buying it on one of the platforms anyway.
-
I only liked the first NFS game but this one has caught my interest somewhat. Hope it turns out good.
-
Originally posted by JP
I only liked the first NFS game but this one has caught my interest somewhat. Hope it turns out good.
Best one so far IMO is the first Hot Pursuit on PSOne, it was seriously good for stats.
-
We are, thats just the thing that you \'dont seem to get\'. Proof is in the games, and IMO opinion, 4 out of every 5 games that are on both consoles tend to be better on PS2. Now whether this is because of lazy devs, time constraints or the fact that the Xbox is just \'overhyped\', I\'ll let you decide. Alot of people simply assume that the Xbox version of a mutli platform game would be better then the PS2 version simply because its \'more powerful\'.
Sigh. Seems you have a comprehension problem. You\'re just evading the point. Just for the record, I hate having to explain things as if I were speaking to a 5 year old... You said Xbox is more powerful - I pretty much disagree with that. Care to point out how you\'ve reached this conclusion?
The thing I\'m trying to get at, is that a multiplatform game looking better has little to do with which console is more powerful, as they are unoptimized and usually target a specific console (in this case PS2 or Xbox). Optimized games are rarely good for portings, as they are coded to the console\'s strength - that\'s why you will hardly find a game like ZOE2 on Xbox and a Halo 2 on PS2. Given that both consoles have such different strengths, I\'m would like to know from you, how do you quantify each console\'s strengths to reach a conclusion that one is more powerful than the other. Get it?
-
Personally I believe that because XBOX is capable of doing great some particular effects like bump mapping and high ress textures developers are depending a lot on these to make a good looking game.And they get nice results from these easily.They dont go further to manipulate the console\'s capabilities differently.On PS2 because effects have to be programmed through software and PS2 cant handle these specific effects as well as XBOX developers usually have to find other paths and ways to make a game look impressive.
You ve got games for example like ZOE2, SH3, R&C, J&D etc each using different techniques to look impressive.I like that variety.
-
Seven, I am so glad your from Switzerland and English isn\'t your first language because something has seriously gone wrong here.
You ask how I came to the conclusion that the Xbox was more powerful? I said Xbox is more powerful \'on paper\', ie specs. You then said that devs dont work \'on paper\'. I then said that the proof is in the games at to which console is \'more powerful\'.
Forget it. I don\'t have comprehension issues, you just need to learn how to communicate. You have to be thick as bricks. You asked me how I find one console more powerful then the other, given they are so different.... read my previous posts... I think the term \'on paper\' is going to keep poping up... Regardless of whether a dev uses ALL the available power on one console, and less on another, it still doesn\'t make the latter console a less powerful system.
BTW those aren\'t PS2 screens.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Yeah as if the the quality of graphics depends on how many play a game :rolleyes:
Its not my fault if you havent playied both version or none of them
By "not a good example," I meant not many people can relate to the game.
I didn\'t say anything about graphics being affected.
-
Originally posted by ##RaCeR##
seven, the proof is in the games, thats why I said \'on paper\'. Sure, Xbox \'on paper\' is more powerful, but take alook at the games....
It was just a statement. You people are so anal. Just because the Xbox is more powerful, doesn\'t necessarily mean the dev\'s are gonna use its extra power. I was also referring to NFSHP2, considering it IS a NFS thread... Play the PS2 and Xbox version and you will know what I mean, PS2 version is incredible compared to the completely flawed Xbox version, both graphically and gameplay wise, yet the Xbox is \'more powerful\'.
Cmon people, why still live in denial all these years?
PC>XBOX>GC>PS2.
Can u name 10 cross platform games that is better on PS2 and worst on XBOX??
Umm...err NFS:HP2....umm errr....ummm....errr....umm....
Can u name 10 cross platform games that is better on PS2 and worst on XBOX??
SC2, BurnOut 2, and just about every other multi platform game on the planet...(i\'m only taking about consoles, PC of course will have the best version 95% of the time).
Don\'t believe me? Just go to gamespot.com and see which version of the game is best.
Most of the time, the XBOX can produce better version even with average port. The only reason NFSl:HP2 was crappy on the XBOX was because it\'s a different developer, but for NFS:Underground, Black Box is the developer for all the versions.
-
Originally posted by ##RaCeR##
I don\'t have comprehension issues, you just need to learn how to communicate.
:laughing: Im almost compelled to make that my new sig.;)
-
##Racer##, lets go through some comprehension lessons:
Seven, I am so glad your from Switzerland and English isn\'t your first language because something has seriously gone wrong here.
We\'ll get to that later.
You ask how I came to the conclusion that the Xbox was more powerful?
Correct. To be precise, I was replying to this statement when I asked that:
by ##Racer##
I gotta dissagree with the Xbox comment. Most multi platform games are first dev\'d on the PS2 and then ported, and most generally dont take into consideration that Xbox is more powerful on paper... they just slap them together and ship them out.
I then corrected you by saying that such statement are very misleading and not very accurate. You then launched a personal insult by telling me to learn to read (how ironic) and obviously made a big difference by including \'on paper\' which hardly makes a difference in the first place, since I was refering to \'paper-specs\'.
Then you go on off a rant on why multiplatform games usually look better on PS2m which at this point is totally irrelevant to the topic we\'re arguing.
At this point and following my reply, the discussion should have been over. It wasn\'t as you continued with the following:
by ##Racer##
seven, the proof is in the games, thats why I said \'on paper\'. Sure, Xbox \'on paper\' is more powerful, but take alook at the games....
So let me get this straight: you are saying that Xbox is more powerful on paper and as evidence, you use the games you just used as proof to show how multiplatform games look better on PS2? Either way, your statement rivals the quality of a 5 year old, so I find such statements about english not being my first language laughable, rather sad actually.
After repeated attempts of asking how you conclude that the Xbox is more powerful, you always bring up the games. This however makes so sense as we are
1.) talking about paper-specs (theoretical max)
2.) games are for one subjective and are limited by the developers programming experties
and thus your answer makes little sense to beginn with, therefore the repeated attempts of asking. If you stay with your answer \'the games\' then I still would like to see how you reach that conclusion that Xbox games look better than the PS2 games. In average? Best vs Best? How do you quantify which console is \'more powerful\' when looking at games? Despite the fact that games are hardly a valid indicator of a console\'s performance.
Regardless of whether a dev uses ALL the available power on one console, and less on another, it still doesn\'t make the latter console a less powerful system.
Correct. So why are you using games as proof that xbox is more powerfull on paper, when you yourself admit to the fact that games aren\'t necessarely relative to the console\'s performance?
-
Originally posted by Soul Reaver
By "not a good example," I meant not many people can relate to the game.
I didn\'t say anything about graphics being affected.
Irrelevant then
-
Originally posted by seven
##Racer##, lets go through some comprehension lessons:
We\'ll get to that later.
Correct. To be precise, I was replying to this statement when I asked that:
I then corrected you by saying that such statement are very misleading and not very accurate. You then launched a personal insult by telling me to learn to read (how ironic) and obviously made a big difference by including \'on paper\' which hardly makes a difference in the first place, since I was refering to \'paper-specs\'.
Then you go on off a rant on why multiplatform games usually look better on PS2m which at this point is totally irrelevant to the topic we\'re arguing.
At this point and following my reply, the discussion should have been over. It wasn\'t as you continued with the following:
So let me get this straight: you are saying that Xbox is more powerful on paper and as evidence, you use the games you just used as proof to show how multiplatform games look better on PS2? Either way, your statement rivals the quality of a 5 year old, so I find such statements about english not being my first language laughable, rather sad actually.
After repeated attempts of asking how you conclude that the Xbox is more powerful, you always bring up the games. This however makes so sense as we are
1.) talking about paper-specs (theoretical max)
2.) games are for one subjective and are limited by the developers programming experties
and thus your answer makes little sense to beginn with, therefore the repeated attempts of asking. If you stay with your answer \'the games\' then I still would like to see how you reach that conclusion that Xbox games look better than the PS2 games. In average? Best vs Best? How do you quantify which console is \'more powerful\' when looking at games? Despite the fact that games are hardly a valid indicator of a console\'s performance.
Correct. So why are you using games as proof that xbox is more powerfull on paper, when you yourself admit to the fact that games aren\'t necessarely relative to the console\'s performance?
I don\'t think you\'re getting his point....:rolleyes:
-
politiepet:
I don\'t think you\'re getting his point....
You tell me... what was his point?
-
^^
Your joking right?
-
Nope. Did you even have one, besides the point about multiplatform games and NFS which I didn\'t even argue?
Incase you still didn\'t get it, I merely disagreed with a sentence in your first post that got this started. I even highlighted it in my last post above. Seeing that we\'ve been wandering in circles though, I\'m not sure if I am keen on further explenation.
-
Originally posted by seven
politiepet:
You tell me... what was his point?
He\'s not even trying to prove that xbox is more powerful on paper!
xbox being more powerful on paper is a fact (if you disagree on that, there really is no point in arguing with you)
what he was trying to prove is that while xbox is more powerful on paper, the games prove that that is irrelevant, because the ports don\'t show of this superior power....
-
Originally posted by Green Meanie
I know the PS2 can do some lovely graphics but these look enhanced by someone who\'s never heard of proof-reading.
Find some videos of the game. It really does look this good, and even better in motion.
-
Originally posted by politiepet
He\'s not even trying to prove that xbox is more powerful on paper!
xbox being more powerful on paper is a fact (if you disagree on that, there really is no point in arguing with you)
what he was trying to prove is that while xbox is more powerful on paper, the games prove that that is irrelevant, because the ports don\'t show of this superior power....
I disagreed with that statement. The XBOX has shown superiority across almost 99% of all cross platform games that appears on both XBOX and PS2. Just because the XBOX have ONE lousy version of NFS:HP2 doesn\'t remove the FACT it(XBOX) has superior versions 99% of the time of other games.
-
He\'s not even trying to prove that xbox is more powerful on paper!
xbox being more powerful on paper is a fact (if you disagree on that, there really is no point in arguing with you)
what he was trying to prove is that while xbox is more powerful on paper, the games prove that that is irrelevant, because the ports don\'t show of this superior power....
Then I guess you didn\'t get my point, which was in disagreement to the claim of Xbox being superiour. If you want to continue this argument, please do.
I have no doubts that Xbox is superiour in few, distinct areas - however PS2 is superiour in a few, distinct areas as well. So I ask you as well, how do you quantify which console is overall superiour given that they both have lack things the other does better?
This ignorance is getting sad among these forums here. If you claim something, you should be able to back yourself up. Neither you or ##Racer## have up so far shown any evidence of \'xbox\'s superiority\'.
-
paul,
I\'m not saying I agreed, I\'m just trying to explain what he said.
and seven,
......ehrm.... I\'m not at all pro xbox, actually I\'m much more pro ps2 than pro xbox, but saying that xbox isn\'t at least a bit more powerful is ignorant. Sure ps2 is superior in a few aspects, but overall xbox is a bit more powerful. and that\'s as far as I\'ll go in bringing back this (by now) pointless console debate
-
politiepet;
this has nothing to do with bias. You can be pro anything you wish, it doesn\'t change the facts - or in this case the performance of one console over the other.
Given that both consoles have strengths and weaknesses, I find it ignorant to proclaim one to be better than the other. Sure, it is better in very distinct cases, but that in itself does not justify such claims of xbox is more powerful on paper (or the opposite for that matter).
The question I\'m seeking is, given that PS2 has a large advantage in raw fillrate and Xbox in texture compression and pixel effects, how do you reach the conclusion that Xbox is better overall? This is, if anything, subjective and your personal opinion. Given that ##Racer## brought up \'paper-specs\' though, it\'s pure ignorance to make such claims as he did, which are not only false, but very misleading as well (see my first post to this thread).
That\'s all I ever argued. If you disagree and have facts or any kind evidence to prove me wrong, please do.
-
this is pointless, I\'m not gonna argue bout specs 3 years after release....xbox is overall a slight bit more powerful.
the reason I showed my bias (or non-bias for that matter) is to stop you from saying I\'m just a fanboy...
-
I never have, nor will I accuse you now of being a fanboy. ;)
xbox is overall a slight bit more powerful.
lol. define slight? How can something be "more powerful" when it lacks certain things the other console does better? You have not addressed this yet, neither has Racer. Unless you have an answer to this, please, don\'t bother replying as it would be a waste to both your and my time.
-
Ok, Seven, explain what ps2 and or GC can do better than the Xbox. Then in an overall view of things, how sidnificant are those advantages over xbox? Then we can compare them easier. Arguing like this is useless. Personally i dont really like xbox and i love ps2. I guess im just playing the devils advocate.
-
Seven: Just give it up. There\'s no point arguing about this anymore. How is XBOX superior overall??? Like 95% of all cross platform games are superior?? Isn\'t that HARD PROOF enough??
And pls cut that crap about XBOX superior a few things and PS2 superior a few things.
The PS2 is just OLDER and INFERIOR MACHINE(as hardware goes). Live with it and look foward to PS3.
-
Lord Nicon:
Ok, Seven, explain what ps2 and or GC can do better than the Xbox. Then in an overall view of things, how sidnificant are those advantages over xbox? Then we can compare them easier. Arguing like this is useless. Personally i dont really like xbox and i love ps2. I guess im just playing the devils advocate.
One example where the PS2 significantly outshines the Xbox is fillrate. Nice examples would be fillrate intensive games, such as Metal Gear Solid 2, ZOE2 (heavy on the particles/geometry side).
Paul:
Seven: Just give it up. There\'s no point arguing about this anymore. How is XBOX superior overall??? Like 95% of all cross platform games are superior?? Isn\'t that HARD PROOF enough??
95% of all cross platform games are seriously unoptimized for either platform and don\'t do either PS2 or Xbox justice in that regard and thus can\'t be used as reference. An optimized Xbox games looks like Halo 2 or DoA3 while an optimized game on PS2 would probably look like something like ZOE2 (not high on texturing, very high on framebuffer effects) or Jak II.
The PS2 is just OLDER and INFERIOR MACHINE(as hardware goes). Live with it and look foward to PS3.
This just shows your ignorance. How can you even state something that you can\'t comprehend? Fair enough, games in average look better on Xbox, though I never debated that. We were speaking about paper-specs (Racer brought this up). If you wish to prove PS2\'s inferiority, please do. I do hope you have stronger evidence than just the hardware\'s age.
God how I miss Reno from old PS2web. :rolleyes:
-
Seven PS2 might have some advantages over XBOX and vise versa but XBOX\'s advantages are more powerfull than PS2\'s.Also how many developers actually use PS2\'s capabilities?How many games need them?
For example high texture quality is a basic element in most games.
Its a case of
1)How much you need specific capabilities.
2)Which strengths are the most needed
3)What games need them
4)How much difference does one capability do compared to another?
XBOXs advantages over PS2\'s are more needed and do more difference when compared to PS2\'s weaknesses than the opposite.Texture quality in XBOX when compared to PS2 does more difference than PS2\'s particle capabilities when compared to XBOX.
What makes the PS2 though worthy enough to challenge XBOX in graphical capabilities its the flexibility.It enables developers to choose different ways to use the hardware.So we get game sthat are technically a wonder like the examples mentioned earlier(ZOE2, GT4, SH3, Jak2, R&C etc) that can be easily compared with any XBOX game.
XBOX is indeed more powerfull.But the final result is that numbers alone dont define a console\'s strength.But neither is flexibility..Its a matter of both.
So in my opinion you are all right(unless thats what Seven was trying to say all along and some didnt understand what he was trying to say).
Multiplatform titles dont explode a console\'s flexibility thats why PS2 usually gets the bad ports
-
Unicron!:
While I don\'t directly disagree with your post (which by the sums up at least partly what I started further up, congrats), I do however want to address a few points you brought up:
Seven PS2 might have some advantages over XBOX and vise versa but XBOX\'s advantages are more powerfull than PS2\'s.Also how many developers actually use PS2\'s capabilities?How many games need them?
For example high texture quality is a basic element in most games.
This is very subjective and not necessarely a fact, hence my repeated question, how does one quantify each console\'s strenght, to proclaim one to be more powerful than the other?
You obviously care more for texture quality - I however do not, as I believe it is dependent on art, not the numbers. For example, ZOE2 or even MGS2 look incredible realistic, despite them being quite low on texturing. Does that make it any less impressive than an Xbox title with x times the amount of textures? No. So how do you define which advantage is more important? I\'d say, it\'s largely dependend on what you as a developer want to do.
XBOX is indeed more powerfull.But the final result is that numbers alone dont define a console\'s strength.But neither is flexibility..Its a matter of both.
Talking about spec-sheets, I\'d still disagree with the first sentence, though I\'d agree to the fact that Xbox has various aspects which make for a good advantage. I\'m sure games like MGS2 are not replicatable on Xbox (see port) - ZOE2 being one of them and IMO the only game as of yet that really builds up on the PS2 main advantage - though a game like HALO2 is definately not possible on PS2 hence the bump mapping and texture detail. If it\'s Killzone style graphics or Halo2 - you be the judge as to what you prefer. That however does not make anything fact and this was my point all along.
-
I see were you\'re going, but it\'s a flawed ststement IMO (!), this way one could as well argue that the NES or commodore 64 (just examples) are equally powerful (and please notice that these are overexaggerated examples :rolleyes:)
-
actually, that\'s exactly my point and not far from the truth. Though when comparing very old hardware such as the NES or c64 (which can be emulated on almost every hardware now days) with todays console, I\'m not quite sure if you can find me something they do better. Same with N64 or PSX (which btw is emulated on PS2 and on Dreamcast)...
Speaking of which, up until today, the Amiga are superior in some very few areas compared todays PCs. You could also bring up programming languages which all have their strengths and weaknesses.
Since we are comparing Xbox and PS2 though which are within the same generation, I think the point I\'m getting at is all the more relevant: PS2 has a very strong advantage in fillrate (i.e. ZOE2) which should not be ignored. Of course Xbox has many other advantages as well, but in the end, who is to say which is better? It\'s all subjective and I think, that\'s where the argument (should) ends.
-
btw; here\'s a rather nice analogy to sum my point up:
You have a truck with 733 Hp and a lotus sports car (a Lotus Esthi) with 420 Hp. Which is better?
Messuring top speed, one could easily think that the one with more Hp is at an advantage, though once you consider that it\'s also 10 times heavier than the sportscar, that advantage doesn\'t mean anything. Given that the sportscar is the faster car, we wonder, is this the \'better\' one? Not once you consider what many things you can do with the truck (transportation) etc...
I think the truck (xbox) and sportscar (PS2) fit in quite nicely. They both have their things they do better than the other, yet it\'s all up to the driver to bring it on the road. That however doesn\'t change the facts of both instances in which the question \'which is better\' all becomes an opinion and not fact.
-
seven, you have too much time on your hands...
take your girlfriend out for ice cream or something...
-
heh, you\'re right, I really should. Though I felt like spicing things up a bit here - psx2central seems to get less attention now days. Besides, development is pretty boring at the moment overhere, so not much on my hands anyway. :D
-
Originally posted by seven
This is very subjective and not necessarely a fact, hence my repeated question, how does one quantify each console\'s strenght, to proclaim one to be more powerful than the other?
How much advantage has one console over the other.In case of PS2 advantages over XBOX\'s are less more powerfull than XBOX\'s advantages over PS2\'s.Although each console do have strengths the other lacks.
You obviously care more for texture quality - I however do not, as I believe it is dependent on art, not the numbers. For example, ZOE2 or even MGS2 look incredible realistic, despite them being quite low on texturing. Does that make it any less impressive than an Xbox title with x times the amount of textures? No. So how do you define which advantage is more important? I\'d say, it\'s largely dependend on what you as a developer want to do.
Thats the case of the PS2\'s flexibility.To tell you the truth I dont care much about textures as much as you think.I prefer PS2s variety.XBOX has many great looking games but I find them boring despite that, because its almost like watching at the same game only with different settings.But I dont judge on my personal preferences.PS2 though does a great job competing with XBOX on the graphics department.Actually an excellent job.
Talking about spec-sheets, I\'d still disagree with the first sentence, though I\'d agree to the fact that Xbox has various aspects which make for a good advantage. I\'m sure games like MGS2 are not replicatable on Xbox (see port) - ZOE2 being one of them and IMO the only game as of yet that really builds up on the PS2 main advantage - though a game like HALO2 is definately not possible on PS2 hence the bump mapping and texture detail. If it\'s Killzone style graphics or Halo2 - you be the judge as to what you prefer. That however does not make anything fact and this was my point all along.
I have to agree.PS2\'s games are a work of art technically.Thats what you like about PS2\'s graphics.And thats what I like too.Actually your points to proove that XBOX isnt more powerfull than PS2 agrees to what I stated before.Flexibility and power.XBOX\'s got the power, PS2s got the flexibility.Thats what balances these 2 consoles\' capabilities.Power doesnt solely define capabilities.Xbox has only that.What you see as PS2 and XBOX being as "powerfull" has nothing to do with power.Its not a matter of power.Its a matter of capabilities.
-
Unicron:
How much advantage has one console over the other.In case of PS2 advantages over XBOX\'s are less more powerfull than XBOX\'s advantages over PS2\'s.Although each console do have strengths the other lacks.
It\'s a big advantage actually - big enough that you have a style probably not repicable on Xbox (ZOE2). How can you say Xbox\'s advantages outweigh PS2\'s ones? It really depends on the game you want to develop, seriously.
I have to agree.PS2\'s games are a work of art technically.Thats what you like about PS2\'s graphics.And thats what I like too.Actually your points to proove that XBOX isnt more powerfull than PS2 agrees to what I stated before.Flexibility and power.XBOX\'s got the power, PS2s got the flexibility.Thats what balances these 2 consoles\' capabilities.Power doesnt solely define capabilities.Xbox has only that.What you see as PS2 and XBOX being as "powerfull" has nothing to do with power.Its not a matter of power.Its a matter of capabilities.
Actually, it\'s both. Flexibility through absolute freedom can only bring you so far. PS2 wouldn\'t be able to compete would it not be for the different approach Sony took with the hardware (large bandwidth, little memory).
-
This Thread is just dusted. It needs to be CLOSED.
God how I miss Reno from old PS2web.
Wow. God thats old. Used to be a member ages ago. Brings back memories.
-
My poor thread!!
:crying: :crying:
;)
Please continue :D :thumb:
-
Originally posted by seven
Unicron:
It\'s a big advantage actually - big enough that you have a style probably not repicable on Xbox (ZOE2). How can you say Xbox\'s advantages outweigh PS2\'s ones? It really depends on the game you want to develop, seriously.
If ZOE was ported to XBOX the biggest difference would have been complex effects like particles and probably the frame rate.Things that utilise the console\'s flexibility(programming hardware though software).The reason why we get variety in visuals that lack certain (commonly seen in games in other platforms) effects but with other distinctive effects (lacking in most games in other platforms).When you make a game using the XBOX capabilities and try to port it on PS2 you see many kinds of simple graphical elements being reduced at a greater degree (or disgarded) sometimes including the framerate as well(Splinter Cell comes in mind) that are capabilities coming directly from the hardware\'s power(automation of effects shown on screen).The reason why we get great(but similar) looking games on XBOX.
With other words I just repeated what I said before.XBOX\'s got the power PS2\'s got the flexibility.
Actually, it\'s both. Flexibility through absolute freedom can only bring you so far. PS2 wouldn\'t be able to compete would it not be for the different approach Sony took with the hardware (large bandwidth, little memory). [/B]
Well i didnt say the opposite.That was my point ;)
-
Unicron:
Wrong formulation ;) : It\'s the fillrate that makes the difference. PS2 has 2.4x the usable fillrate Xbox has. That\'s one of the reason why you have insane amount of particles and weather effects. Flexibility is the result of PS2 having an oversimplified yet incredibly fast rasterizer and two programmable VUs. To end this argument, I just think the two consoles are two different to really call one more powerful than the other. :-/
Wow. God thats old. Used to be a member ages ago. Brings back memories.
You remember him? Under what username did you post there? Reminds me of which, I haven\'t heard anything of Majorgamer since quite some time (months now)...
-
I also was a member at PS2Web. Long time ago tho but remember Reno and Majorgamer very well. In fact it\'s so long ago that I don\'t even remember my nick there hehe. It was a good place though
-
Originally posted by JP
I also was a member at PS2Web. Long time ago tho but remember Reno and Majorgamer very well. In fact it\'s so long ago that I don\'t even remember my nick there hehe. It was a good place though
Ditto