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

Originally posted by IronFist
This is the second time I am typing this up because the first time I did something stupid and deleted everything (It\'s a long story ).  So this might be a little sloppy.

I am not taking KoolKev\'s side (he is a biased fanboy), but I don\'t agree with some things that you said Docwiz.


Right now, the PS2 doesn\'t have anything that is that good.  But it does have some things that are almost that good.  The Xbox has the PS2 beat in graphics right now, but that doesn\'t mean it always will.  And it doesn\'t mean that the PS2 doesn\'t have any graphically impressive games of its own.  I\'m sure you\'ve heard this list numerous times, but I think these games deserve credit where credit is due:  Devil May Cry, MGS2, Jak & Daxter, FFX, ICO, Virtua Fighter 4, Outcast 2, Baldur\'s Gate: Dark Alliance.


I have a question.  Why did you leave out lots of great PS2 launch games?  Here is a better comparison:

Xbox........................................................PS2
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halo....................................................Timesplitters
DOA3..................................................DOA2:HC/TTT
Project Gotham...................................Ridge Racer V
NFL Fever/Madden 2002.....................Madden 2001
Amped/THPS2X...................................SSX

***Note:  Amped and Ridge Racer V are not really known as being great launch games, but I included them to show how similar the two launches really are.

Other than those great games, the rest of the games in both launches are less-than-stellar.  So why is the Xbox launch is so much better than the PS2 launch was?  Oh yeah.  Because the PS2 launch was a year ago. :rolleyes:


In your opinion.  In my opinion, it has had great games right from the start.

That can go both ways.  If the PS2 games are looking so good right now (and IMO, they are), just imagine next year for the PS2.

And I think that the Xbox is going to pull a PS2.  It will have a pretty good launch, then have a big drout of games for a half year and only have a couple must have titles during that time.  I have been trying to find some must have Xbox titles after the launch, and all I can think of is Project Ego and maybe some Sega games (a very big maybe because I\'ve never been a big fan of most of their games).

Now hopefully I can post this post right this time.

The launch games of the PS2 are not even half the quality that the xbox launch titles are.  Most of those that you listed at AAA titles for xbox at launch.

Remember, one massive thing.  All of these games were started on PC\'s with 1/3rd the power of the final xbox hardware.  So as much as the PS2 is going to get better, the Xbox will blow that away easily.  The PS2\'s architecture is hard to program for and thus you really need to think like the architecture to get the most out of the PS2, in other words you have to be a Data from Star Trek to get the most out of the PS2.  On Xbox you don\'t.  As much as the first generation games for xbox look, you don\'t even want to deal with third generation games and it allows a lot of developers to get really awesome graphics and physics out of the xbox easily verses only the top 3 companys for PS2.

It doesn\'t have anything to do with the xbox launch being better because its one year later.  Look at the gamecube.  Thats a launch thats worse than PS2 even.  As bad as the PS2 launch was it wasn\'t as bad as the gamecube launch... yuck.....

As far as the xbox, its going to have a lot of quality games, but they have not been anounced yet.  Microsoft doesn\'t want to do a PS2 in which they didn\'t have ANY new games until March 2001.  There are tons of games you have no idea about.   Yeager and Brute Force is going to be released spring 2002.  Microsoft will show more for japan and europe launch and then at E3 2002.

If Devil May Cry was developed from scratch on the final hardware and final software XDK for the xbox it would put the PS2 to shame.  No doubt about that.  I am not talking about a simple port, I mean a game started from scratch and art started from scratch.

The Xbox has better hardware, better software, easy to create the top games graphically and with full phyiscs.  They are only missing one thing and thats userbase.

If the xbox can get that last thing which is installed userbase,  they will be very successfull.

Twelve months from now, your opinion of xbox is going to change.

Originally posted by ooseven

off the top of my head
i could say MGS2 but ill be called a PS2 fanboy so ill just say 2 words !

TIMESPLITTERS TWO !

ah 60Frames Per Second  First Person Shotting HEAVEN !

Well, MGSX will be on xbox so thats no big deal and honestly Konami could do much better than even MGS2 on PS2, no doubt about that.

I havent seen the screenshots of Timespliters 2 even though again its coming to the xbox.  With 60 frames per second pretty much being on every game except Halo on the xbox thats no biggie either.

Just to set you all strait....

More complicated hardware design != More powerfull hardware


The PS2 is more complicated than anything out there, but its also the most inefficient architecture out there and getting 100 percent of the real power (NOT HYPED) is something that only someone like DATA from Star Trek could do.  You basically have to be a computer to get all you can get from the PS2.  Sure a lot of software houses will say their game uses 100 percent of the PS2, but technically thats impossible.   Only 3 percent of the companies producing software for the PS2 will have the best graphics with the best physics.  

The case with the xbox is that you don\'t have to be in that top 3 percent to produce superior results.  Now the xbox won\'t make a bad developer look good, that won\'t happen.  However, it sure will help the good developers look like great developers.

Developers for xbox can make a game that is superior to the PS2 version and in less time and less money.  Now if the xbox can get marketshare and an installed base then all hell could break loose.

We will see if that can happen.  As of right now things look pretty good and there will be lots of cross over as people that bought PS2 will now buy xbox as well.

lol doc, yer sig cracks me up

thats like saying "buy american, buy ford"

when 95% of the parts are manufactured in japan and indonesia

It is kinda funny... My uncle manages an auto parts store in Sacramento CA and he says that the number one car that replacement parts are requested for is Ford while the most reliable cars are Hondas and Toyota trucks.  Pretty sweet eh?  I actually used to like the Ford F-150\'s until I saw them always being used by construction companies... the reason isn\'t because they are "Ford built tough," it\'s because they\'re "Ford, Built cheap."  They can buy em by the uhh... "Boatload."  Damn, these puns are bad.

Geez where did you guys come from, I thought this was a 2 person debate.  Anyway, I wouldn\'t say that the PS2 launch games weren\'t half as good as xbox-there wasn\'t that big a disparity.  They are significantly better though.

I just noticed this list:

__________________
Xbox........................................................PS2
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halo....................................................Timesplitters
DOA3..................................................DOA2:HC/TTT
Project Gotham...................................Ridge Racer V
NFL Fever/Madden 2002.....................Madden 2001
Amped/THPS2X...................................SSX
__________________

Halo looks tremendously better than timpsplitters, especially in multiplayer with lots of action happening.
DOA3 and DOA2--there really is no comparision.  Same for PG and RRV.  The football titles are close. Amped and SSX are close too, but SSX is a better game (by all accounts).

I can say that because it\'s true--there is no bus between the cpu and graphics board. They address each other through high-speed memory. Similarily, there is no agp bus or northbridge in the way further distancing itself from PCs and speeding the unit up considerably.

You insult my intelligence, then call me names on the account of your mistake. Looks like I\'ll be ending this deiscussion on the account of your limited knowledge of hardware.

Please get a PC dictionary or something and have a look at the term "bus". I never said there was a AGP on board either. Every architecture has some kind of bus, say internal (in the chip within the units) or external. Saying that there is no bus at all, simply shows what lack of knowledge you have in this area. But that\'s besides the point and has nothing to do with the above debate.

Your water bucket analogy, while colourful, is of absolutely no relevance. I understand how the PS2 manages data, but thanks just the same.

All that stuff is theory, and theory and real world are two completely different things. Yes I realize that streaming somewhat makes up for PS2\'s lack of memory, but if Sony were given another chance I\'m pretty sure they would do it differently. And again, implying that more memory would hamper or not help the PS2 is completely ridiculous. The PS2 would benefit greatly with more memory streaming or not. That there shows your ignorance not mine. The PS2 archetecture is not unlike the Saturn\'s--they both were relatively speaking, potentially powerful systems, that required programming trickery and acumen. The more straight forward system (PSX) won that round and had better performance and better games. This isn\'t necessarily how it\'ll turn out this time, but the funny thing about history is that it often repeats itself. But even given the best circumstances, the PS2 doesn\'t have the horsepower that the xbox has. That shouldn\'t even be argued about.

Oh please. Are we going to speculate about what Sony would do if they had another chance, or will you stick to the debate? I tryed more than once to get some facts through to you, why streaming makes up for the little memory and caches. While more is usually better, the bandwidth would also have to be higher, and if the bandwidth is higher, the chip would have to be more powerful. Obviously the chips have a certain amount of processing power and they (Sony, Thoshiba) matched the bandwidth and memory accoardingly. Just putting in more memory would be a waste if the processors can\'t cope with it. Again, you are totally misunderstanding the concept of  streaming data.

Again, you state things like xbox has more horsepower, but don\'t even know enough about the PS2 to make these assumptions. That shows your ignorance, not mine. And what you call theory (streamin) is being done on PS2. Just asked or read any interview from Polyphony, Naughty Dog etc.

Yes, reading comprehension isn\'t a strong suit for you is it? Apart from that, you are wrong anyway. The genesis and snes did not have revolutionary hardware for their respective generations. It was basically the same hardware/techniques that PCs had/used. So, yes infact, it wasn\'t "new" (what a ridiculous point to raise in the first place). Programmers were as good then as they are now (many would argue better actually). Implying that today\'s programmers are inherently better equiped to make games is ludicrus. Programmers of that age have been working with sprites and pixels and were just as well versed as today\'s programmers are working with polys and triangles. It\'s not that programmers and artists learned how to make prettier graphics and it was the programmers personal deficiencies that held the first generation of games back, it was the learning curve of the hardware. You obviously are stretching the truth quite far to make a point.

You totally missed my point. You brought Genesis and PSX into this agruement only to prove that every console has its learning curve. I never stated otherwise. I did say though, that Xbox won\'t improve as much as PS2 will. You seem to think otherwise though, since Genesis and PSX were both consoles that improved greatly from its launches.

First of all, with PSX, 3d graphics were totally new. Of course it was also the hardware, but the hardware was one of the first to be powerful enough to process 3d graphics. Developers had to learn these techniques. Saying that programmers were as good then as they are now is simply not the case. In every programming language, improvements are made, libaries are added. This all add to the fact that programmers didn\'t have that much of an easy job in those days. Today, developers can get already alot out of a system through the knowledge that has been gathered over the past. Libaries are already around. While Xbox does have a learning curve, IMHO I doubt it will allow for greater improvement as we have seen on PSX in those days.

I have no doubt that EA and Square and some Sony 1st party houses will be able to make nice looking games, but the smaller companies will struggle. But, to level the playing field, EA and Square, on xbox hardware would make games that look and preform better than PS2 games if they developed from the xbox hardware up (so that discounts EA\'s rushed Madden 2002, etc).

This wouldn\'t be hard to believe, hence the fact that Xbox is an easier system to develop on. It\'s quite logical, isn\'t it? My point still is though, that maxxed out, PS2 isn\'t far behind Xbox. You can throw in any silly arguement about bottlenecks (and hey, you don\'t even understand how the PS2 works, so how funny is that?), little memory, horsepower or what ever, but that is pure ignorance on your side as long as you can\'t back it up with some reliable know-ledge or article (which you haven\'t as of yet).

THERE IS STILL A LEARNING CURVE.

WHERE DID I STATE OTHERWISE?

Honestly Watchdog, I have provem all your points wrong, but I guess some fanboys are just too full of it to even admit there faults. Eventhough you repeatedly prove that you have no idea how the PS2 works, you try so hard to prove that Xbox is sooo much more powerful. And that\'s pretty pathetic...

*toilet flushes*


Whats that sound Watchdog? Your arguments going down the drain.


Your debate has been shot down, and seeing that you think your on the winning side of this debate, I think you have problems, because everything seven said, is FACT, yours on the other hand, sounds like made up hoop-lah.

Firstly, my points are not being shot down.

No you are COMPLETELY WRONG.  Sure in its loosest definition you could use "bus", but this is not the same as what it is in PC archetecture.

I typed in the words "xbox bus memory" in a search and this is what came up:

"http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,41849,00.html"
____________________
So even though the XGPU is based on nVidia\'s forthcoming NV20 chip that will be used in PCs, its performance is considerably faster than its PC brethren because there are no AGP video bus and north bridge in the way. The XGPU and CPU will both be directly accessing each other via the same high-speed memory with no buses in the middle.
____________________


It\'s been well documented that there is no bus (in PC terms) in the xbox.  It is you that requires a tech dictionary.

Yes I read your little "fact" sheet on the streaming capabilities of the PS2--yes the theory all sounds pretty good, but in practise it doesn\'t work that well.

________________
While more is usually better, the bandwidth would also have to be higher, and if the bandwidth is higher, the chip would have to be more powerful. Obviously the chips have a certain amount of processing power and they (Sony, Thoshiba) matched the bandwidth and memory accoardingly. Just putting in more memory would be a waste if the processors can\'t cope with it
________________

And again you show that you really don\'t know what you are talking about.  Firstly, if you even doubled the amount of RAM in the PS2 it would not be too much for the CPU or the bandwidth to handle.  You say Sony made a conscious  descision while adding ram to their box.  Isn\'t it just as likely that Sony wanted to cut costs down because memory was expensive during that time?  That\'s an interesting theory isn\'t it?

I said, I don\'t understand the PS2\'s hardware--I\'m not sure you do either.  I DO understand how the machine works; how it processes data.  There is a difference.

You may have a point with the PSX and new 3d graphics, but you are completely off  about the programmers of the snes and genesis.  Given today\'s libraries would not have helped or even been relevant back then.  The new libraries relate to new features of new chip sets.  They would not help sega code a better 16 bit sonic the hedgehog.  This point, more than any other, shows that you do not know what you are talking about.

_____________________
This wouldn\'t be hard to believe, hence the fact that Xbox is an easier system to develop on.
_____________________

You forgot more powerful.

_______________________
My point still is though, that maxxed out, PS2 isn\'t far behind Xbox.
_______________________


Maxxed out, no, the xbox has a mere 30 MP/s more give or take and that really isn\'t that big a gap.  But there are a few problems with this assumption.  Getting every ounce out of the PS2 is a herculean task, and I\'m not convinced it is possible or that devs will even spend the time and resources to bother--especially if the xbox userbase starts to rival the PS2\'s.  Secondly, how the end result will look is an entirely different matter.  Just the pixel and vertex shaders on the xbox chip themselves will make a huge difference in how the game will look.  These are fully programable features too, and once devs start taking full advantage of that the gains will be tremendous.  This will free up resources that can be used to other things.

_________________
Honestly Watchdog, I have provem all your points wrong, but I guess some fanboys are just too full of it to even admit there faults. Eventhough you repeatedly prove that you have no idea how the PS2 works, you try so hard to prove that Xbox is sooo much more powerful. And that\'s pretty pathetic...
________________

You\'ve proven nothing.  Listen I own a PS2, a PSX and will eventually (before christmas) an xbox.  A fanboy I am not, but whenever someone treats a console unfairly I feel the need to point it out to them.  About a year ago someone not unlike you was preaching that the DC is just as powerful as the PS2, probably more so.  We had a similar debate and he swore up and down that I didn\'t know anything, that I was a fanboy and that the PS2 is all "smoke and mirrors."

Just like a year ago, you are wrong, and I am pointing it out.  You speak from this imaginary throne of knowledge when in fact you really don\'t understand what you are talking about.  I\'m sure you have read dozens of articles concerning every piece of PS2 hardware and read PSM religiously, but it is clear to me that either you have no formal training or didn\'t bother to pay attention in class because while what you say sounds impressive enough, when you scratch through the surface it is aparent that there is nothing behind it.  This is a PS board and that is why you have your supporters in this thread, but there are other active threads from other PS2 owners that pretty much say what I am saying: that the PS2, while a good system, doesn\'t have the hardware or ease of programmability to match the xbox or GC.

This isn\'t a flame against the PS2, it is the facts.  But whether it be arrogance, ignorance or blatant fanboyism you cannot bring yourself to that conclusion.

And this argument shouldn\'t even exist; it shouldn\'t matter that the PS2 can\'t match the graphics of the newer consoles because a) it is starting to get some great games b) it is older; computer hardware doubles in power every six months--new technology or not.  So I\'m finished with this thread--I don\'t care, really.  You can think what you want and if it means that much to you I\'ll even say: "The xbox is maxxed out with DOA3.  Programmers have figured it out.  It\'s all uphill for the PS2--graphics are just going to keep getting better and it\'ll be the prettiest of all consoles."

My last contribution to this thread.

Originally posted by Docwiz


Well, MGSX will be on xbox so thats no big deal and honestly Konami could do much better than even MGS2 on PS2, no doubt about that.

I havent seen the screenshots of Timespliters 2 even though again its coming to the xbox.  With 60 frames per second pretty much being on every game except Halo on the xbox thats no biggie either.

Uhm where did you hear that they confirmed MGSX for the XBox? The last interview I read with Kojima he said they\'re not even thinking about making an X-Box version coz they were too
busy with it for PS2 and are concentrating fully on PS2 at the moment.

Firstly, my points are not being shot down.

No you are COMPLETELY WRONG. Sure in its loosest definition you could use "bus", but this is not the same as what it is in PC archetecture.

I typed in the words "xbox bus memory" in a search and this is what came up:

"http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,41849,00.html"
____________________
So even though the XGPU is based on nVidia\'s forthcoming NV20 chip that will be used in PCs, its performance is considerably faster than its PC brethren because there are no AGP video bus and north bridge in the way. The XGPU and CPU will both be directly accessing each other via the same high-speed memory with no buses in the middle.
____________________


It\'s been well documented that there is no bus (in PC terms) in the xbox. It is you that requires a tech dictionary.

LOL man, you\'re hilarious! You could be a comedian! "There is no bus (in PC terms).." so in what terms are you talking? Again, I never said that there is a AGP or bottleneck involved in the term "bus". Come on watchdog, why are we debating about this anyway? The original debate was still that PS2 has newer hardware and makes up for the "bottlenecks" everyone seems to think it has. Now, are you going to stick to the debate or do you want to continue debating about something that is really useless?

Yes I read your little "fact" sheet on the streaming capabilities of the PS2--yes the theory all sounds pretty good, but in practise it doesn\'t work that well.

What\'s your problem? I already proved you wrong on this one. Read the above post from me (the one in green) and you get a quote about developers already using these methods. Only theory? In practise it doesn\'t work that well because the developers aren\'t familior with these methods. It\'s something new that will have to be learned and will be improved evenmore with time. This is why the PS2 can still greatly improve, more so than Xbox.

And again you show that you really don\'t know what you are talking about. Firstly, if you even doubled the amount of RAM in the PS2 it would not be too much for the CPU or the bandwidth to handle. You say Sony made a conscious descision while adding ram to their box. Isn\'t it just as likely that Sony wanted to cut costs down because memory was expensive during that time? That\'s an interesting theory isn\'t it?

Yes, the cost thing is an important aspect, but then you know why streaming is such a gift. Streaming minimizes memory, while maximizes the necessary bandwidth needed. The less memory you have, the more bandwidth is needed. More memory equals less bandwidth. Obviously, more memory and more bandwidth needs a more powerful processor to process since more data can be transfered. Logical isn\'t it?

Now before you state again that I don\'t know what I\'m talking, either

-->Prove me wrong<--

or just let it be. But going on about how costs can be saved on Sony\'s side is totally nonsense and prove nothing in this technical debate. Thank you.

I said, I don\'t understand the PS2\'s hardware--I\'m not sure you do either. I DO understand how the machine works; how it processes data. There is a difference.

I really like the way you contradict yourself.. but let me get this straight, you don\'t understand the PS2 hardware, but know how it works? How can you? As I and everyone else can read from your above posts, you don\'t know damn about how it works. Not even how the PS2 makes up for memory and caches while using streaming methods. So if you don\'t understand the PS2\'s hardware, who are you to debate about which console is more powerful and insult me by saying I don\'t know what I am talking about?

_____________________
This wouldn\'t be hard to believe, hence the fact that Xbox is an easier system to develop on.
_____________________

You forgot more powerful.

As I see we haven\'t learned anything. Still prejudging the PS2 upon your lack of technical knowledge on the PS2\'s hardware?

You\'ve proven nothing. Listen I own a PS2, a PSX and will eventually (before christmas) an xbox. A fanboy I am not, but whenever someone treats a console unfairly I feel the need to point it out to them. About a year ago someone not unlike you was preaching that the DC is just as powerful as the PS2, probably more so. We had a similar debate and he swore up and down that I didn\'t know anything, that I was a fanboy and that the PS2 is all "smoke and mirrors."

Are you know insulting me by calling me a fanboy? I might be biased, but I am not blind to the truth and I don\'t prejudge other consoles without knowing how they work. I also never stated that you are a fanboy.. what are you on about now?

Just like a year ago, you are wrong, and I am pointing it out.

Okay.. lets believe someone who doesn\'t understand the PS2\'s hardware, but is still smart enough to say things like "this console is more powerful bla bla bla". :rolleyes:
How do you do it?

This isn\'t a flame against the PS2, it is the facts. But whether it be arrogance, ignorance or blatant fanboyism you cannot bring yourself to that conclusion.

"Facts" from someone who doesn\'t understand the PS2\'s hardware? LOL. And btw; which "facts"?  I can\'t see them.. care to point them out?

And this argument shouldn\'t even exist; it shouldn\'t matter that the PS2 can\'t match the graphics of the newer consoles because a) it is starting to get some great games b) it is older; computer hardware doubles in power every six months--new technology or not. So I\'m finished with this thread--I don\'t care, really. You can think what you want and if it means that much to you I\'ll even say: "The xbox is maxxed out with DOA3. Programmers have figured it out. It\'s all uphill for the PS2--graphics are just going to keep getting better and it\'ll be the prettiest of all consoles."

Yes, you are absolutely right, this arguement shouldn\'t even exist. I do find it very funny though, since you were the one that dragged us into this long debate. The debate originally started by me saying that PS2 has "newer" technology (oposed to what you said), but you had to drag this into a "my console is more powerful than yours" arguement. If I also may point out, you were the one that also stated "PS2 cannot match graphics with GC or xbox, this year, next year, etc. It\'s a hardware bottleneck, it\'s older hardware", eventhough you then later admit that you don\'t know how the PS2\'s hardware works.

Is this stupidity or blind fanboyism at its best?

My last contribution to this thread.

I won\'t take your word for it.. but it\'s sure a wise decision on your side.

I got in line last night for an X-box.  After about an hour I changed my mind and left at 8:30.  The reason I left is b/c the only game I want for X-box right now is DOA3.  And I\'m not ready to pay $350+ for an improved DOA2, cause I already own DOA2.

Gunvalkyrie looks cool and RAW is WAR will be the bomb but neither one of those are out yet.  So I\'ll put my money toward my creditcard bill for now and maybe pick up an X at the turn of the year.