New NFS: Underground screens

Originally posted by politiepet
He\'s not even trying to prove that xbox is more powerful on paper!
xbox being more powerful on paper is a fact (if you disagree on that, there really is no point in arguing with you)

what he was trying to prove is that while xbox is more powerful on paper, the games prove that that is irrelevant, because the ports don\'t show of this superior power....

I disagreed with that statement. The XBOX has shown superiority across almost 99% of all cross platform games that appears on both XBOX and PS2. Just because the XBOX have ONE lousy version of NFS:HP2 doesn\'t remove the FACT it(XBOX) has superior versions 99% of the time of other games.

He\'s not even trying to prove that xbox is more powerful on paper!
xbox being more powerful on paper is a fact (if you disagree on that, there really is no point in arguing with you)

what he was trying to prove is that while xbox is more powerful on paper, the games prove that that is irrelevant, because the ports don\'t show of this superior power....

Then I guess you didn\'t get my point, which was in disagreement to the claim of Xbox being superiour. If you want to continue this argument, please do.

I have no doubts that Xbox is superiour in few, distinct areas - however PS2 is superiour in a few, distinct areas as well. So I ask you as well, how do you quantify which console is overall superiour given that they both have lack things the other does better?

This ignorance is getting sad among these forums here. If you claim something, you should be able to back yourself up. Neither you or ##Racer## have up so far shown any evidence of \'xbox\'s superiority\'.

paul,
I\'m not saying I agreed, I\'m just trying to explain what he said.

and seven,
......ehrm.... I\'m not at all pro xbox, actually I\'m much more pro ps2 than pro xbox, but saying that xbox isn\'t at least a bit more powerful is ignorant. Sure ps2 is superior in a few aspects, but overall xbox is a bit more powerful. and that\'s as far as I\'ll go in bringing back this (by now) pointless console debate

politiepet;

this has nothing to do with bias. You can be pro anything you wish, it doesn\'t change the facts - or in this case the performance of one console over the other.

Given that both consoles have strengths and weaknesses, I find it ignorant to proclaim one to be better than the other. Sure, it is better in very distinct cases, but that in itself does not justify such claims of xbox is more powerful on paper (or the opposite for that matter).

The question I\'m seeking is, given that PS2 has a large advantage in raw fillrate and Xbox in texture compression and pixel effects, how do you reach the conclusion that Xbox is better overall? This is, if anything, subjective and your personal opinion. Given that ##Racer## brought up \'paper-specs\' though, it\'s pure ignorance to make such claims as he did, which are not only false, but very misleading as well (see my first post to this thread).

That\'s all I ever argued. If you disagree and have facts or any kind evidence to prove me wrong, please do.

this is pointless, I\'m not gonna argue bout specs 3 years after release....xbox is overall a slight bit more powerful.
the reason I showed my bias (or non-bias for that matter) is to stop you from saying I\'m just a fanboy...

I never have, nor will I accuse you now of being a fanboy.

xbox is overall a slight bit more powerful.

lol. define slight? How can something be "more powerful" when it lacks certain things the other console does better? You have not addressed this yet, neither has Racer. Unless you have an answer to this, please, don\'t bother replying as it would be a waste to both your and my time.

Ok, Seven, explain what ps2 and or GC can do better than the Xbox. Then in an overall view of things, how sidnificant are those advantages over xbox? Then we can compare them easier. Arguing like this is useless. Personally i dont really like xbox and i love ps2. I guess im just playing the devils advocate.

Seven: Just give it up. There\'s no point arguing about this anymore. How is XBOX superior overall??? Like 95% of all cross platform games are superior?? Isn\'t that HARD PROOF enough??

And pls cut that crap about XBOX superior a few things and PS2 superior a few things.

The PS2 is just OLDER and INFERIOR MACHINE(as hardware goes). Live with it and look foward to PS3.

Lord Nicon:

Ok, Seven, explain what ps2 and or GC can do better than the Xbox. Then in an overall view of things, how sidnificant are those advantages over xbox? Then we can compare them easier. Arguing like this is useless. Personally i dont really like xbox and i love ps2. I guess im just playing the devils advocate.

One example where the PS2 significantly outshines the Xbox is fillrate. Nice examples would be fillrate intensive games, such as Metal Gear Solid 2, ZOE2 (heavy on the particles/geometry side).

Paul:

Seven: Just give it up. There\'s no point arguing about this anymore. How is XBOX superior overall??? Like 95% of all cross platform games are superior?? Isn\'t that HARD PROOF enough??

95% of all cross platform games are seriously unoptimized for either platform and don\'t do either PS2 or Xbox justice in that regard and thus can\'t be used as reference. An optimized Xbox games looks like Halo 2 or DoA3 while an optimized game on PS2 would probably look like something like ZOE2 (not high on texturing, very high on framebuffer effects) or Jak II.

The PS2 is just OLDER and INFERIOR MACHINE(as hardware goes). Live with it and look foward to PS3.

This just shows your ignorance. How can you even state something that you can\'t comprehend? Fair enough, games in average look better on Xbox, though I never debated that. We were speaking about paper-specs (Racer brought this up). If you wish to prove PS2\'s inferiority, please do. I do hope you have stronger evidence than just the hardware\'s age.

God how I miss Reno from old PS2web. :rolleyes:

Seven PS2 might have some advantages over XBOX and vise versa but XBOX\'s advantages are more powerfull than PS2\'s.Also how many developers actually use PS2\'s capabilities?How many games need them?
For example high texture quality is a basic element in most games.
Its a case of
1)How much you need specific capabilities.
2)Which strengths are the most needed
3)What games need them
4)How much difference does one capability do compared to another?

XBOXs advantages over PS2\'s are more needed and do  more difference when compared to PS2\'s weaknesses than the opposite.Texture quality in XBOX when compared to PS2 does more difference than PS2\'s particle capabilities when compared to XBOX.
What makes the PS2 though worthy enough to challenge XBOX in graphical capabilities its the flexibility.It enables developers to choose different ways to use the hardware.So we get game sthat are technically a wonder like the examples mentioned earlier(ZOE2, GT4, SH3, Jak2, R&C etc) that can be easily compared with any XBOX game.
XBOX is indeed more powerfull.But the final result is that numbers alone dont define a console\'s strength.But neither is flexibility..Its a matter of both.
So in my opinion you are all right(unless thats what Seven was trying to say all along and some didnt understand what he was trying to say).

Multiplatform titles dont explode a console\'s flexibility thats why PS2 usually gets the bad ports

Unicron!:

While I don\'t directly disagree with your post (which by the sums up at least partly what I started further up, congrats), I do however want to address a few points you brought up:

Seven PS2 might have some advantages over XBOX and vise versa but XBOX\'s advantages are more powerfull than PS2\'s.Also how many developers actually use PS2\'s capabilities?How many games need them?
For example high texture quality is a basic element in most games.

This is very subjective and not necessarely a fact, hence my repeated question, how does one quantify each console\'s strenght, to proclaim one to be more powerful than the other?

You obviously care more for texture quality - I however do not, as I believe it is dependent on art, not the numbers. For example, ZOE2 or even MGS2 look incredible realistic, despite them being quite low on texturing. Does that make it any less impressive than an Xbox title with x times the amount of textures? No. So how do you define which advantage is more important? I\'d say, it\'s largely dependend on what you as a developer want to do.

XBOX is indeed more powerfull.But the final result is that numbers alone dont define a console\'s strength.But neither is flexibility..Its a matter of both.

Talking about spec-sheets, I\'d still disagree with the first sentence, though I\'d agree to the fact that Xbox has various aspects which make for a good advantage. I\'m sure games like MGS2 are not replicatable on Xbox (see port) - ZOE2 being one of them and IMO the only game as of yet that really builds up on the PS2 main advantage - though a game like HALO2 is definately not possible on PS2 hence the bump mapping and texture detail. If it\'s Killzone style graphics or Halo2 - you be the judge as to what you prefer. That however does not make anything fact and this was my point all along.

I see were you\'re going, but it\'s a flawed ststement IMO (!), this way one could as well argue that the NES or commodore 64 (just examples) are equally powerful (and please notice that these are overexaggerated examples :rolleyes:)

actually, that\'s exactly my point and not far from the truth. Though when comparing very old hardware such as the NES or c64 (which can be emulated on almost every hardware now days) with todays console, I\'m not quite sure if you can find me something they do better. Same with N64 or PSX (which btw is emulated on PS2 and on Dreamcast)...

Speaking of which, up until today, the Amiga are superior in some very few areas compared todays PCs. You could also bring up programming languages which all have their strengths and weaknesses.

Since we are comparing Xbox and PS2 though which are within the same generation, I think the point I\'m getting at is all the more relevant: PS2 has a very strong advantage in fillrate (i.e. ZOE2) which should not be ignored. Of course Xbox has many other advantages as well, but in the end, who is to say which is better? It\'s all subjective and I think, that\'s where the argument (should) ends.

btw; here\'s a rather nice analogy to sum my point up:

You have a truck with 733 Hp and a lotus sports car (a Lotus Esthi) with 420 Hp. Which is better?

Messuring top speed, one could easily think that the one with more Hp is at an advantage, though once you consider that it\'s also 10 times heavier than the sportscar, that advantage doesn\'t mean anything. Given that the sportscar is the faster car, we wonder, is this the \'better\' one? Not once you consider what many things you can do with the truck (transportation) etc...

I think the truck (xbox) and sportscar (PS2) fit in quite nicely. They both have their things they do better than the other, yet it\'s all up to the driver to bring it on the road. That however doesn\'t change the facts of both instances in which the question \'which is better\' all becomes an opinion and not fact.

seven, you have too much time on your hands...

take your girlfriend out for ice cream or something...