Okay, Watchdog you\'re on alright.
Seven, if you\'d like I could dig up dozens of posts where you trash the xbox, I\'m too lazy, but you, I and everyone here knows they are out there.
Lets just get something cleared right now: I don\'t trash the Xbox. I debate about certain aspects of it and I get pissed when people proclaim Xbox to be better without even being able to back that up. I give credit where it is due (Halo, Rallisport), but I usually don\'t bash Xbox with short comments. But please, think you can back it up? Be my guest - go get me those posts where I apparently
diss or
trash Xbox.
And I\'m sick of this 25% of PS2 power crap. That\'s a number delivered to us by Sony and their "performance analizer 2", the creators of the emotion engine. I\'d take that lightly at best.
Well then that is your own choice. Everyone can believe what they want, but when someone does believe it, don\'t ***** about it. Either debate it or leave it. If you think this number is invalid (btw Sony did not post this number, it was a 2nd party developer), tell us why you think it? Or does it fall under that category "everything from Sony is false"?
MS said that Halo uses less than 50% of xbox\'s power--I can\'t believe that either. It\'s all common sense. But you take all the optimistic numbers for the PS2 then compare them to the pessimistic ones for the xbox and proclaim that the two machines are about equal. That\'s not science or research, it\'s fanboyism, partiality and ignorance. But of course we\'ve had this discussion before haven\'t we, Seven? I remember you bringing in what Sony and Square and other Sony 1st or 2nd party devs said about the PS2 and proclaimed that as factual.
Than I do find it
VERY amusing how the best that they could achieve was 30 fps and then claiming it to be 50% of what Xbox has to offer. And mind you, these numbers (lets say they are true) can\'t be compared to the
messured data of the Performance Analizer 2. I\'d say that the 50% Bungie is claiming is probably just a guess on what they have achieved.
When I quoted what 3rd party devs and 3rd party tech reviews said about the PS2 and xbox (their opinion being that xbox is CLEARLY more powerful and advanced) you went away and never posted in that message again. Curious isn\'t it?
Wasn\'t intentional. Must of been after my laptop was in for repairs.
Now you are having the same argument again, bringing up the same points that have no validity because they are either your personal thoughts about the hardware, and you are obviously biased or quotes by Sony about their own machine--again, clearly not reliable sources (not only in this thread).
You can name a couple ports that faired less well on the xbox, but I can name many more that are much better--and you know a port is almost always much worse because it is a port. Devs dump the PS2 code into the xbox, do some optimization and voula better framerate, draw distance and texture quality. Again, history dictates that this shouldn\'t happen, but it does. Why? Because the xbox is more powerful.
LOL, I\'m sorry but this is hardly because Xbox is more powerful but that it\'s easier to develop for. A port can\'t just be ported over to Xbox - it just ain\'t possible. They need to rewrite the whole graphics engine.
VF4 is a great game, but it does not match the graphics of DOA3. Even if you disregard the jaggies, you have to consider the size of the environments, the superior lighting (especially in the forest level) and the smoother models. VF4 is a better game to play, but to look at, it falls short.
As I already said, VF4 looks IMO just slightly better. But lets have this debate sometime when most members here get their own copy (and I don\'t have to base this of in-game footage on DVD). k?
There is not a PS2 game that can match Halo (environment size, texture quality and VARIETY, AI, enemies on screen, vehicle implementation), DOA3, Ralisport or even Wreckless. These are first gen games, with crappy dev kits. All the games that look good for the PS2 are recent games. See a pattern?
The environment size, texture quality, variety, AI, enemies on screen, vehicle implementation are indeed very impressive - you fail to mention though that it runs at mear 30 fps. At least I can say that in MGS2
EVERYTHING is at 60 fps with no framedrops, stunning water effects, heaps of enemies on screen, almost everything is interactive, great AI and the probably most stunning weather effects I\'ve seen in a game so far. No, I don\'t see the pattern.
