x-box didnt live up to hype, PS2 still the best

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.

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.