Originally posted by seven
Paul:
Ever heard of COMMON-SENSE? You have two sets of hardware - one lets you code to the metal, while the other only lets you program through an API, or libraries. Which of the two has more potential to be fully tapped? One where you are forced to use a set of libraries or the other one that gives you full control? The very fact that you are arguing this shows your lack of knowledge in the field of programming. Libraries or an API can only get you as far as the libraries are good for - however having full control over the hardware *can* give you absolute power because you can control every single thing.
Want proof? Look at how the PS2 evolved: from first not being able to produce any form of Anti-Aliasing, HDTV resolutions or Dolby Digital in realtime, developers were able to find alternative ways in achieving their goals. Anti Aliasing has been done, HDTV resolutions have been done and Dolby Digital has been pulled off in realtime aswell. Which console enjoyed the biggest advancement since launch? Certainly not Xbox - guess why.
Also, there are various interviews (one being from Free Radical Designs - Timesplitters 2) in which developers actually point out the lack of being able to code to the metal on Xbox.
Fillrate intensive games. Ie.: Metal Gear Solid 2 (possibly tanker scene with rain), definately ZOE2 - perhaps games like Jak II or Ratchet & Clank 2.
Seven: Your so called "proof" is hardly justifiable. And fyi, i\'m involved in lots of programming works and have even tinkered with Direct X to produce some home made games.
Anyway, let\'s go through your argument again:
(1) Anti-aliasing: err...what kind of anti-aliasing we\'re talking about? FSAA or some sort of so called "edge anti-aliasing"? Without doubt, there is some improvement from the horrible 1st gen games (DOA2:HC, Rage Racer..or was it Ridge Racer?). But after that, there is hardly any improvement. Most of the PS2 games nowdays looks fine for the main foreground characters/objects but the significant jaggies(shimmeries to be exact) is still abound with the background environment. XBOX games still looks sharper with less jaggies anyday...even when without FSAA.
(2) HDTV resoultion - the XBOX has higher HDTV resolution (720p or 1080p) compared to the PS2 (usually 480p). But this is no big deal since i don\'t have HDTV anyway...how many people have HDTV anyway?
(3) Dobly Digital in real-time - as far as I know there is only SSX Tricky(or was it SSX 2?) that has DTS surround sound. And just how many games are there that support this? Perhaps you can count it with one hand. The point is, yes DD enconding in real-time IS achievable on PS2, but the question is always = AT WHAT COST!!!!! I believe i\'d mentioned quite clearly previously, but u guys just keep yapping "this can be done on PS2! that can be done on PS2!". A Vu unit is sacrificed to do this. That is probably why the frame rates isn\'t as good as the XBOX version. And this is also probably the 99% of the rest of the games don\'t do it...BECAUSE IT CAN\'T BE DONE WITHOUT SACRIFICING OTHER MORE IMPORTANT ASPECT (like good frame rates!). Almost all XBOX games support DD5.1 by default...what\'s the big deal of 1 PS2 game( which really isn\'t that intense graphically) sporting some DTS sound effects when it is so common on the XBOX?
(4) TimeSplitter 2 - yah, so 1 developer complained about the XBOX because they couldn\'t get \'to the metal\' (but TS2 which still actually looks better on the XB)...but you seems like forgeting the 90% of developers who complained the PS2 is too damn weird to code for?? LOL.
(5) "Biggest advancement on the PS2" - This i actually can agree with you. From full of jaggies to noticeably less jaggies. Yes, it\'s one helluva great achievement!!! but in the end, no matter what kinda "achievement" the PS2 made (which hasn\'t shown much since the days of MGS2 and GT3..what year? 2001 or 2002? ), it still looks better on the XBOX and can be done easily(even despite the complain!).
Let\'s focus on the point of argument here(instead of some thrash talk about sales figure which some of you try to divert attention to).
So does DX really sucks?? It seems from the END RESULT from all perspective, DX have allow developers to access most of the hardware functions which is was DESIGNED FOR, on the first day.
And the result still looks better than anything on competing platform which is so difficult to do, and or still unachievable(bump mapping, pixel shading ex:).
It sure beats an archictecture which claims to be flexible, fairy tales about "untapped potential", can do anything (but skipping the details about the performance impact) and at the end of the day, it leaves nothing but a trail of inferior graphics and stories for fanboys to yap on ("untapped potential this, untapped potential that!"), with nothing superior to show for.
Some of you then try to divert the argument again to "XBOX is superior due to newer hardware...yadda yadda". Fine. Being newer hardware does have it\'s advantage, it\'s a given fact. But at the same time, there is not a shred of evidence showing DX is holding back the XBOX, but instead giving developers accessing most of it\'s feature on day one which is the way how development should work.
The only conclusion that can be come off this topic is:
(1) The PS2 has reached it\'s limit and there is nothing left there to tap except more jaggies for your enjoyment. Or perhaps you can hook a water tap and pull water out of it?? LOL.
(2) In the unlikely event the "untapped pontential" is true, after 5 years and NOBODY knows how to "tap it", it better stay there where it belongs coz the next generation of consoles is already here and it goes to show the failure of a much hyped architecture.
What\'s the use of having a million bucks in the bank if you\'re not allow to use it??
(3) "DX is shit" is something for PS2 fanboys to yell about coz they still believed all the hype of the PS2 after all these years....WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!!
Cheers.
