More Enclave screens!

So let me get this straight.  You HATE xbox games because they should/could be at 60, yet you don\'t mind 30 on PS2 because it\'s a weaker machine.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

If 60 is the benchmark of a good game it should be the cut off regardless of system.  You expect more is bullshit, it\'s an excuse to allow you to bash any game that has a dip in framerate.  Every PS2 game could be at 60 if the devs cut back on graphics.  If 60 is the high water mark, you should be lambasting PS2 games because they don\'t hit that either.

You say graphics don\'t matter.  FPS does.  Like I said, PS2 COULD be at 60, locked, with every game.  You should be dissatisfied with 99% of PS2 games as well.  But you\'re not--shocking.

The xbox is just a console with limitations like every other console.  You use it as an excuse to bash xbox because it\'s conveinent.  You\'re pretty translucent mm.

u kill me man

So let me get this straight. You HATE xbox games because they should/could be at 60, yet you don\'t mind 30 on PS2 because it\'s a weaker machine.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

ummmm, hello?  that makes perfect sense
the PS2 is two years older than the xbox, should i NOT expect better results from the xbox?

the xbox is THE MOST POWERFULL CONSOLE TO DATE, no?

keep making excuses bro, thats all the xbox zealots have

Enough rhetoric, we all know that the 30fps thing is a problem with the game devs, not the hardware.

First gen games are always rushed and with the XB\'s similarity to the PC, the devs probably programed their games to run just as it would in a PC (all T&L runs on the CPU, no use of pixel shaders, etc.).  That gives some major bottlenecks as the devs are suppose to use the GPU for those function. Plus, the first devkits were little more than PCs emulating an Xbox, so most devs never even dared to push those as hard as a real Xbox. Wait until [well-made:D] second games and you will see 60fps games.

We all do still remember the quality of graphics on first-gen PS2 games do we?

Most PS2 games are 60fps...
At least the bigger better looking titles are

Originally posted by fastson
Most PS2 games are 60fps...
At least the bigger better looking titles are

Like I said in the previous post: Do you remember the quality of first-gen PS2 games?

Speaking of which, have you seen the first gen JAPANESE PS2 games?

Originally posted by nonamer


Like I said in the previous post: Do you remember the quality of first-gen PS2 games?

Speaking of which, have you seen the first gen JAPANESE PS2 games?

I can remember TTT which looked damn good for a launch title. Count SSX and Timesplitters (although the latter had quite weak textures) to that too. I can\'t believe though that you\'re bringing in the PS2\'s launch games into this, when it is a well known fact that it has a crazy steap learning curve compared to the PC-ish Xbox hardware. There goes another excuse...

Plus, the first devkits were little more than PCs emulating an Xbox, so most devs never even dared to push those as hard as a real Xbox. Wait until [well-made] second games and you will see 60fps games.

Perhaps, but IMO that\'s not an excuse for so many games running in 30 fps. Halo is excused in my eyes, but what\'s with all the following games? Hell, Enclave and ProjectEgo not even to mention SplinterCell are all going to have a (hopefully) locked 30 fps - not more. The two latters btw; are those the [well-made] second gen games you\'re dreaming (?) about?

I wouldn\'t dare to blame it on the hardware, but somethings definately not right: Either the devs are too lazy and used to have everything programmed for them through the libraries, thus programming very unefficiant code - or they\'re overestimating the machine (perhaps with the claims from Microsoft in mind)...

Originally posted by nonamer


Like I said in the previous post: Do you remember the quality of first-gen PS2 games?

Speaking of which, have you seen the first gen JAPANESE PS2 games?

What does this have to do with my post?

I said most good looking PS2 games run at 60fps. And they are NOT 1st gen games. (GT3, MGS2, J&D, R&C (Ive played it and its rock solid), BGDA, ect ect)

And yes Ive seen 1st gen PS2 games.. Some look like crap, some look great. Just like today.

GoDai - BGDA


SEVEN: Free Radicals quote comes to mind

Don\'t even compare xbox to ps2.  Just look at any game that is on both systems and you\'ll find a better looking game with a better framerate.  Plus, I could name dozens of games that run well below 60 on pS2, big gamesincluded (ff?).  GT3 runs at 60, so does almost every racing game on xbox.  Platformers too?  Big deal, xbox\'s platformers are 60 as well.

Nice dodge of everything I brought up in my post mm.  Yes it\'s the most powerful, but why does the machine\'s power decide what the framerate should be and then that become the deciding factor of a game\'s worth?  Furthermore, why can you enjoy games emmensely on PS2 that run at 30, yet scorn anything that isn\'t 60 on xbox.  

The power of the machine should mean nothing.  Yet it does because it\'s the only straw desperate people have left to cling to.

I say again, it makes no logical sense.

The Xbox is touted as being far more powerful than PS2 or GCN. Bad move on MS\'s part, since it isn\'t far more powerful. More like barely better (than GCN) with more hardware features such as HDD and network capabilities.

Originally posted by Watchdog
Don\'t even compare xbox to ps2.  Just look at any game that is on both systems and you\'ll find a better looking game with a better framerate.  Plus, I could name dozens of games that run well below 60 on pS2, big gamesincluded (ff?).  GT3 runs at 60, so does almost every racing game on xbox.  Platformers too?  Big deal, xbox\'s platformers are 60 as well.

Agreed.  



Watchdog, What Xbox titles you have now?

Platformers too? Big deal, xbox\'s platformers are 60 as well.

With the same big loading-free surroundings as J&D?
Or with the huge levels of R&C?

R&C isn\'t out yet.  Who knows how it\'ll fair.

There isn\'t a platformer to compare with J&D, but to suggest that the xbox would struggle where PS2 succeeds is groundless.  Like I said games always look and perform better on xbox.  This is a debate that I have no interest in and will not pursue further.  The issue is dead.

I have Halo, DOA3, Munch, NHL2002, Gunvalkyrie, PGR, Amped.

Like I said games always look and perform better on xbox.

Always is such a strong word
If your into debating you should know you NEVER use always
and never use never too
Regarding your list: Such low standards

Originally posted by Watchdog
R&C isn\'t out yet.  Who knows how it\'ll fair.

There isn\'t a platformer to compare with J&D, but to suggest that the xbox would struggle where PS2 succeeds is groundless.  Like I said games always look and perform better on xbox.  This is a debate that I have no interest in and will not pursue further.  The issue is dead.

I have Halo, DOA3, Munch, NHL2002, Gunvalkyrie, PGR, Amped.

Ive played R&C (ok, only 40% complete..) it ran at a rock solid 60fps. I didn’t notice one single slowdown. (it was that city level with “cars” flying around, explosions from the robots ect.. lots of things)

Who knows of J&D could be done on Xbox? We wont know until someone actually tries..
Insomanic have said a few things though. But I don’t know how creditable you think they are since they only develop for PS2, but they are still 3rd party devs.

Originally posted by Watchdog
Like I said games always look and perform better on xbox.  This is a debate that I have no interest in and will not pursue further.

Sure, out-perform, but to what extent does that count.  That\'s a pitiful point to be bringing out at this moment.  That\'s great and all too, but when it comes to gameplay and innovation I turn to Sony, not M$.  I mean, just how innovative was Windows ME?

Bwahahahaha, that was perfect...