Watchdog
I\'m still waiting for you to back your statement up - the one where I supposedly
trash and
diss Xbox...
For all intents and purposes 2nd party=Sony. It\'s marketing, of course everything they say is false or at least optimistic. Whenever a 3rd party dev or journalist compares the consoles the xbox comes out on top. Of course, these articles you never believe, and your disclaimer is always the same: "I don\'t have a quote" or "I just spoke to a dev..." or "I can\'t back this up but..." translation: BS.
I\'ll agree to a certain extend that marketing is a big isssue, but to just lable every interview and analys of a 2nd party source as a lie is a bit too harsh. The reason why I give more credit to 2nd party developers, rather than 3rd is simply because those are the guys who are really getting somewhere with PS2 at the moment. It\'s a plain fact that there are heaps of developers that are having big trouble with PS2 development. Can we take an analsys of one of these teams serious? No. Of course someone will rate the Xbox hardware more powerful if they can get more power out of it, but as long as they aren\'t pushing PS2, how would they be able to judge which system is better?
And not all my sources are 1/2nd party. Konami has also impressed me heaps with how much they achieved with MGS2. And we do remember what Hideo had to say a long time ago about both systems. That Xbox is
slightly more powerful. That was a long time ago when he said that (and I believe he\'s been working on both platforms) and now he even said that he didn\'t max out PS2 yet. And do you know what, even if MGS2 is the most impressive game out for PS2 as of yet, I would still give more credit to Naughty Dog for their achievement in J&D and how they are using the system. From a technical standpoint, I find it heaps more impressive.
You expect everyone to take your word and views on the hardware because what, you\'ve read some tech articles, joined a forum and have a computer science degree (if that). Well I\'ve done all those things too, but I\'m not arrogant enough to proclaim my views ahead of those whose job it is to rate and assess hardware. You love your PS2 so that you made it your life mission, well it\'s BS, and only those who hold their PS2s as closely and firmly to their chests as you do give you any serious merit.
What are you trying to prove or debate? I find it laughable that everytime you start an arguement, you always try to prove how much I love my PS2. Isn\'t that a little pathetic?
Halo is a graphical and technical marvel--50% of the power is extraordinary (if it\'s true). Everything you say about the xbox has the "I don\'t really know, but I read a review or saw the kiosk" flavour to it.
Extraordinary it is, that the best they could achieve with 50% is a mear 30 fps. I never denied that this game is very impressive, but calling it a "graphical and technical marvel" at best is a letdown just due to the fact that it runs at
ONLY 30 fps.
Yes Halo runs at 30fps, but how many PS2 games have two dozen VARIED (elites, grunts, brutes, banshees, etc) enemies onscreen in the middle a huge ravine in the middle of a snow storm? Zero. MGS has half a dozen or so of the same enemy on screen in a little crowded room. Sure it looks good, but you cannot compare the two. Once again I have played/own and completed both games. Have you?
MGS2 might only have half a dozen with highly detailed soldiers reacting to each other, going in groups, making realistic decisions and in a rainstorm that is absolutely mindblowing. Awesome lightning, shadows and interaction between all objects in a room (shoot papers, pans, windows, pretty much everything). Then comes the water effects with all its bubbles, the room with aprox. 60 to 100 soldiers on screen (might not be doing much, but none-the-less).
So I name MGS2 and the best you can say is "Sure it looks good, but you cannot compare the two". Great huh. As soon as there\'s a worthy competitor, it\'s easy to back down and say you can\'t compare them. You named a "graphical and technical marvel" - I did too. Either way, what\'s your point?
You dismiss the xbox so easily--you don\'t have it, you have no intention of getting it and will never concede this point because all you have to do is put "IMO" and everything is magically untouchable. Like I said even if you take away the jaggies from VF4 (and there are very noticeable--this from the arcade, I\'ve never seen the PS2 version) there still isn\'t a comparison. The model quality, the textures, the variety on screen, and huge environments it\'s all not done in VF4. With the DOA3 engine you can go from a crowded oriental room with exquisite detail, fly thorugh a wall and land in a large open area. With VF4 you get small rooms (relatively speaking) or medium sized out door levels, but never at the same time.
Maybe you should play the PS2 version then, or watch some in-game footage off your TV.
Speaking generally now: with the xbox everything is bigger and clearer and more varied.
The PS2 can make a 10x10 kitchen and have a shoot out with 6 guards and make it nice and smooth. Then you take that and compare it to Halo where the engine has to make accomodate the large and small and varied.
You being the God of all things technical, the most knowledgable of all, must be able to see the technical merits and level of difficulty present in coding an engine that can do all of this.
This is really pathetic. Have you ever played Jak & Daxter? One graphical and technical marvel aswell. From the 10x10 kitchen (or room) up to the highest point on the island where you see everything -> no loading times. You have one world without one single loading time. At 60 fps mind you, not 30 (Halo).
Just between you and me Watchdog - what are you trying to prove this time? How superior Xbox is in all aspects? Seems to me you just can\'t deal with the fact that current games do not surpass PS2 (eventhough they should be using your logic). Get over it, this is just one out of many threads in a
console-debating forum that won\'t make Xbox look better.
