DirectX sh*t > PS2 ???

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

Opengl is easier to develop for then direct3d.  Yet, Directx is the standard.   As long as the operating system is M$ dominated, the development Sdks will follow suit.  
IE is shipped with windows, and is more of a standard. That doesn\'t make it better then all other web browsers.

Originally posted by QuDDus
I don\'t think some of you even understand what blacksam is saying or what your saying.

He not saying do away with technolgy. He is saying develop some standard that makes programming games easier.

You guys are jumping off into something totally different.

By making it easier for developers it will cut down on cost and production time.

Directx has not hender xbox. The games still look amazing .

Agreed.

But setting only one standard?One way direction?

Also take into consideration that this works best with the PC market and is less convenient for the future  of console gaming that evolve technology every five years.Direct X develops on Technology enhancements.On consoles the developers must sqweeze that extra capabilities out.

Game engines and tools will contiue to be developed. It\'s the game engine that drvies the game anyways.

Yeah but by how many developers do we see game engines that stand out among the countless of other developers on PC?Only a few do try.And also on PCs the style of games is different than of that of consoles.
You can see that by comparing what games sell mostly for PCs and what games sell mostly for consoles.Check the majority of games.The gaming enviroment PC offers is different than that of consoles.Direct X is not ment for consoles.If after a couple of years the console hardware is outdated how can the developer squeeze out with direct X that extra power left untapped?Why should he anyways?Make the same game on PC with the same tools and forget about the console one or make it for both.It will cost less, look better and be ready sooner and the PC version will be the best.Who\'s going to buy the console one?Why should anyone care?Console only games will be minimum since its best for the developers to release it for both if they want to raise income.We already see that PC ports on consoles have huge differences.Only japanese may try to make most from the console\'s untapped power and make a console only game since console gaming is prefered than PCs and every houselhold owns one in japan.Most impressive games on XBOX mentioned are from japanese developers.


Now on the PC market solely, Direct X may be the best thing for a developer since PCs improve on hardware every few months and direct X improves as hardware improves.The developer has no reason to utilise that extra power out from a hardware that seems outdated.They can get the better results  easier on newer hardware.
The question though regarding PC gaming though: is it right to use only Direct X while there are also other tools available?Soulgring I assume already answered to that.
MS is trying to bring the Direct X monopoly to the console market as well.If MS succeeds with the XBOX brand to become the no1 dominant for the next generations then forget console gaming the way you knew it.

Originally posted by Unicron!

oK...I am starting to feel like a human trying to comunicate with a dog by barking to it.I AM NOT COMPARING HARDWARE!!

Damn...look whos\' talking...make up your mind!! Whether you want to compare burgers or computer or hardware!!

I ADMIT THAT YOU CAN GET MORE OFTEN GOOD RESULTS WITH A GF3 USING A DIRECT X THAN WITH PS2!!ITS EASIER TO PROGRAM ON, EASIER TO BALANCE IT AND ITS MORE POWERFULL THAN A PS2 IN MANY ASPECTS!!AND THE TOOLS HAVE BEEN USED IN THE INDUSTRY FOR MORE THAN A DECADE!THEY HAVE BEEN SPECIALIASING ON DIRECT X FOR YEARS!!

I think that already officially ends all debate of Direct X > PS2. :rolleyes:

hahaha LOL it was you I called sunshine.I was being sarcastic.I wasnt refering to the graphics with that adjective (NO I AM NOT GAY ).What I pointed out is that tools that were build with PS2 in mind resulted to a title that is even impressive for XBOX which is supposed to be more powerful and on which developers use directX.Challenging for the xbox?Not at all.You can use tools other than direct X on XBOX as well.DIRECT X IS DOESNT BRING ONLY ADVANDAGES FOR XBOX!!!THIS ISNT HELPING XBOX EITHER!Burnout 3 is a damn fine example of an impressive title build on an older hardware in mind that works differently than PCs based on different tools than Direct X.It might look better on XBOX.Is that the point?NO!The point is developers managed great graphics which means good things for XBOX as well.PS2 ports help the appearance of titles that go beyond the usual standards we see on XBOX.And for god\'s sakes yeah I admit it might look better on XBOX.But I am discussing about different tools used here.

This probably seals the debate already...the cheaper and more advanced hardware and now...AT A CHEAPER PRICE and guarantees to looks better (99% of the time)...who cares whether it\'s Direct X or OpenGL or whether it\'s running on steam engine??  Your "PS2 helps the XBOX" non-theory is as imaginary as the tooth fairy you see in your dream.

We arent talking about variety in quality here (how much resolution etc can you squweeze from an old hardware) but in graphical style mostly and new techniques that imporve the graphics.Jak2 may be using an enhanced engine of Jak1.You are comparing sequels on which developers may improve the same engine.I ll mention different examples.Compare Rachet and Clank with Jak and Daxter.Compare GT3 to Burnout2.Compare Killzone to Timesplitter2.Compare Soul Calibur2 to Tekken4.I am bored to mention more.As for jaggies, frame drop etc it has nothing to do with the tools used but mostly with balancing the hardware which is also 4 years old.I am not comparing hardware

Again...you\'ve pretty much confirmed my suspicion that you really have NO F*** IDEA on what\'s the heck u r talking about. Jak looks different from R&C because IT IS A DIFFERENT GAME, DONE BY DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS, THUS THE GRAPHICS STYPE ARE DIFFERENT!!! Get it?? Graphic Style is up to the Art designer and has nothing to do with the tools! Am i talking to a monkey??

You think I am acting like a fanboy(yeah yeah XBOX beats the hell out of PS2 you said.WHo is the fanboy I wonder) trying to bash XBOX.If you like I ll use different statements so you can get the picture.

Yes you are, Mr Fanboy. If you\'re not a fanboy, then you\'re the worst case of "i dunno what the heck i\'m talking about" i\'ve seen in a forum yet...

Direct X is a step back.Developers should be encouraged to extend further than Direct X.Yes that means XBOX as well.
The reason PS2 is mentioned is because developers are forced to use other tools than Direct X.It may be brutal.But uts still an example of what developeres can achieve if they try to extend further.

Oh yeah sure...DX a step backwards...and i still haven\'t see the majority of PS2 developer manage anything remotely close to the top titles on the XBOX...this is not because the PS2 is complicated...i\'m quite sure most major developers knows how to code the PS2 by now....it just that THE LIMIT HAS BEEN REACHED.
Get it Mr fanboy?? What you REALLY DON\'T UNDERSTAND is there is a cost performance impact when you try to do something that is not supported by the hardware. It\'s not the developers dont\' know how to do it, but by doing so, it\'ll sacrifice too much of the parts. Example, implementing 5.1 soundtrack will sacrifice one of the VU unit, that is why only a handful of games(which is not too demanding graphically) which is using it. Otherwise, the VU unit is best left to do other stuff the PS2 is so lacking in.

I am not comparing XBOX with PS2.And I am not trying to tell everyone PS2 is DE BEST THING EVER.

But you wrote pages and pages of thesis on how DX sucks and holds back the XBOX and how the poor XBOX gets all the benefit from PS2 developer!!! You are one confused kid.

Read what I ve read in this post.....no...not just this one.The others as well.I happen to repeat myself since you dont get it.Atleast Black Samurai seems to get it and I enjoy doing a conversation with him more since he goes more to the point the more we discuss despite the fact that we disagree.You are still debating how better XBOX is compared to PS2.This was never the point of discussion.  and you are talking with assumptions

Well, i did try to talk some sense into you but since you just keep repeating yourself without any new materials, heck, why should i talk in a cohesive comprehensible manner with someone who obviously lacked the similar ability to do so....:rolleyes:

No.You are making assumptions.This statement alone prooves that you didnt undrerstand anything from what I am saying becuase you cant stand anyone that seem to refer to something negative about the XBOX yet something positive about the PS2.Ofcourse I didnt do that.You are the one making assumptions

WOW!!! LOOK WHOS THE ONE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION "XBOX
GETS THE BENEFITS FROM PS2", Who\'s the one who declared "Direct X is un-innovative"(when you obviously confused with graphic style and the utilization of tools)...yadda yadda blah blah blah...

How many times will I have to explain over and over and over and over.....??? [/B]

Because in you previous life, you\'re a tape recorder???
LOL.


Cheers.

Originally posted by QuDDus
I don\'t think some of you even understand what blacksam is saying or what your saying.

He not saying do away with technolgy. He is saying develop some standard that makes programming games easier.

You guys are jumping off into something totally different.

By making it easier for developers it will cut down on cost and production time.

Directx has not hender xbox. The games still look amazing .

Game engines and tools will contiue to be developed. It\'s the game engine that drvies the game anyways.

Exactly. DirectX has never hold the XBOX back, instead pushing it to the limit. Yet...there are some strange people here who get confused with game engines/tools with the graphical art design of a game....weird...:nerd:

Originally posted by Paul
Exactly. DirectX has never hold the XBOX back, instead pushing it to the limit. Yet...there are some strange people here who get confused with game engines/tools with the graphical art design of a game....weird...:nerd:

Agreed

Originally posted by Paul
Damn...look whos\' talking...make up your mind!! Whether you want to compare burgers or computer or hardware!!

See that title above this thread?Does it say XBOX vs PS2???

Man keep concluding that I am trying to say that PS2 rules ALL!!I already explained WHY  I refered to XBOX and PS2.This ISNT the case of comparing hardware.You are assuming.Just read myother posts as well and try to get my point.

I think that already officially ends all debate of Direct X > PS2. :rolleyes:

Oh God.Here we go again.I said MORE OFTEN and becuase they are finished tools on which developers have been specialiasing, used on newer hardware.PS2 is old hardware but new in the industry and its recently that the gaming industry seems to adjust to the non-direct X, different hardware approach.I wonder if you read everything I write in this thread btw.PS2 ionly refered becuase its the best example on which standard tools arent being used.I could have generally mentioned consoles other than XBOX instead of PS2.

This probably seals the debate already...the cheaper and more advanced hardware and now...AT A CHEAPER PRICE and guarantees to looks better (99% of the time)...who cares whether it\'s Direct X or OpenGL or whether it\'s running on steam engine??  Your "PS2 helps the XBOX" non-theory is as imaginary as the tooth fairy you see in your dream.

This clearly shows that you STILL believe the whole point of this thread was COMPARING PS2 WITH XBOX!!!

Again...you\'ve pretty much confirmed my suspicion that you really have NO F*** IDEA on what\'s the heck u r talking about. Jak looks different from R&C because IT IS A DIFFERENT GAME, DONE BY DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS, THUS THE GRAPHICS STYPE ARE DIFFERENT!!! Get it?? Graphic Style is up to the Art designer and has nothing to do with the tools! Am i talking to a monkey??

Actually what you just said confirms that your brain is trying to force you to convince me that the XBOX RULES which isnt the point.

They arent using the same tools.And the graphics engine of each game TOTALLY differs.They started working from different directions.On Direct X all games use similar graphical engines.I ve seen the sequel of Duex Ex on XBOX and the graphics didnt differ from what I ve seen in Halo much.They werent much better either.Different developers eh?


I wonder if I am talking to a child.

Yes you are, Mr Fanboy. If you\'re not a fanboy, then you\'re the worst case of "i dunno what the heck i\'m talking about" i\'ve seen in a forum yet...

You are the worst case of "whoever doesnt agree with me must be stupid and wrong and I comprehend whatever I want to comprehend than catch the point" I ve ever seen in my whole life.

Oh yeah sure...DX a step backwards...and i still haven\'t see the majority of PS2 developer manage anything remotely close to the top titles on the XBOX...this is not because the PS2 is complicated...i\'m quite sure most major developers knows how to code the PS2 by now....it just that THE LIMIT HAS BEEN REACHED.
Get it Mr fanboy?? What you REALLY DON\'T UNDERSTAND is there is a cost performance impact when you try to do something that is not supported by the hardware. It\'s not the developers dont\' know how to do it, but by doing so, it\'ll sacrifice too much of the parts. Example, implementing 5.1 soundtrack will sacrifice one of the VU unit, that is why only a handful of games(which is not too demanding graphically) which is using it. Otherwise, the VU unit is best left to do other stuff the PS2 is so lacking in.

LOL you were the one comparing hardware and telling me how much powerful XBOX is compared to PS2 (which was never the case).Ofcourse I didnt say the XBOX kicks PS2\'s ass.Perhaps thats the only way to show that I am not a PS2 fanboy????*SHEESH*
:rolleyes:

This statement proves ones again that you still dont understand shit of what I am talking about.

I already admited probably for the bilionth time that XBOX can do better graphics than PS2.Still trying to prove me how much inferior the PS2 is technologically?
 :rolleyes:

You are the only person here making direct hardware comprisons.Ofcourse I didnt expect much.As the fanboy that you are you thought I was trying to bash XBOX and convince that PS2 is more powerful and can do better graphics.

I seem to be repeating myself...I ll repeat once again a small example I mentioned before "Thank the tools taht were developed for PS2 for Burnout3.And yes it might look better on XBOX.Thats still not the point bucause it is supposed to be on more powerful hardware and we arent comparing hardware

But you wrote pages and pages of thesis on how DX sucks and holds back the XBOX and how the poor XBOX gets all the benefit from PS2 developer!!! You are one confused kid.

No you are the confused dude here.I didnt completely trash Direct X.You thought that by judging Direct X I was trying to bash XBOX.Ofocurse what else would a fanboy think?If I was trying to bash XBOX I would have said that the PS2 is superior from XBOX technologically, and that the PS2 can produce better graphics.But I already stated that games on PS2 may not look as good as XBOX games BUT THATS NOT THE FREAKING POINT.In the case of burnout 3 it can be ported on XBOX just as it is and still be impressive even for XBOX despite the fact that it might be nearing PS2\'s full potential more and less XBOX\'s.
XBOX gets high benefits sometimes from PS2 ports since games arent directly programmed on XBOX(Direct X).But on other tools.Thats what I mentioned.How have I mentioned XBOX being "poor" (you said it not me) when I said so many times that the XBOX surpasses PS2 in many graphical aspects, and that the PS2 ports look better on XBOX???

Hell I was one of th epeople defending Fable when mm\'s was trashing it in one of the threads.Yes I know thats an XBOX game

Well, i did try to talk some sense into you but since you just keep repeating yourself without any new materials, heck, why should i talk in a cohesive comprehensible manner with someone who obviously lacked the similar ability to do so....:rolleyes:

no you are trying to convince me you are right.I keep reapeting myself BECUASE YOU SEEM  TO REPEAT YOURSELF!!

WOW!!! LOOK WHOS THE ONE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION "XBOX
GETS THE BENEFITS FROM PS2", Who\'s the one who declared "Direct X is un-innovative"(when you obviously confused with graphic style and the utilization of tools)...yadda yadda blah blah blah...

Ok.How does this mean I ment XBOX gets only benefits from PS2 am trying to understand HOW!

For God\'s sake you keep assuming I am comparing XBOX with PS2.
You expect me to agree and say "DIRECT X  is the best ever"?Well sorry I dont believe that.It just happens to be used in XBOX.


Graphic style=I ment different engines= different tools used=different graphics
utilization of tools: Direct X==standard tools=Similar engines developed and used=not utilizing  full potential of hardware

Because in you previous life, you\'re a tape recorder???
LOL.


Cheers. [/B]

You should become a comedian if you want free salad  

Just hope you wont get a free plate as well on the head

Black Samurai,

I was moreso talking about outsourcing to other companies that do physics engines; but I see where you are coming from.

You do have to realize, though, that even in the environment of DirectX developers STILL make their own engines. DirectX/XNA doesn\'t mean that people can no longer make their own engines. It means that those without the resources are not as hampered by that fact.

True, in which I can only agree on. I guess I just come from a different angle: I never really was all that interested in DirectX, but more so with freedom of development, as I like to have full control over what I do and not going through some libraries that one has no idea on what really is happening behind it. I guess it\'s a bit like comparing the efforts of a fully coded engine and another team using some middleware (renderware) - sure, not quite a fair comparasment - because as you pointed out, even in DirectX, engines still have to be coded - but just to illustrate the point: one is maximized to take full advantage of the machine it\'s running on, while the other is optimized to get it as easy as possible to run, while being port-friendly at the same time. They\'re just two different approaches that have totally different strengths.

One valid question is, can a developer programming their engines on assembly on the metal ever reach the efficiency of an equivilant engine done using directx libraries (or XNA)? I\'m sure do, and exceed them by a large margin - but, in average, I seriously doubt it, which of course is a very strong point for directx/XNA. In my opinion, it hurts to see that only a small percentage of game-developers truly take the time and effort to code to the hardware as we\'re seing it with Naughty Dog and Konami. The market is changing and more developers are confronted with rising costs and time budgets of their games. We also live in a world where the complexity of games (or any programs) increase and therefore one needs tools to do more with less effort. This is a sad fact und it\'s undeniably supporting Microsoft\'s argument.

In perspective of next generation consoles, it is clear though that PS3, unlike PS2, will feature some API they will have to use to code which will make development easier. If CELL ends up to be what it seems like, we may have a processor cabable of scaling for years to come. The power lies in its cluster-like nature and it being scalable could mean that future chips may just be exchanged with a more powerful CELL processor. Who knows? Could very well be possible.

On the other hand, I just like the idea of having a platform that is open, which you can really code to, pushing it hard and very efficient. And for those developers, I am sure there will always be middleware to support smaller development teams as is being done today with renderware.

BTW; Also note that even this generation on the "bitch to code for" PS2, a team such as Snowblind which consists of merely a few coders has done still one of the most impressive games: Baulder\'s Gate: Dark Alliance. Even Guerilla, developer behind the much anticipated game Killzone isn\'t that large - so it isn\'t that bad and as we know, Sony is hard at work with IBM to ensure that development is easier next time round. Do we really need XNA?

BTW: your avatar is annoying!!! It cripples my 1.8GHz to 100%. :rpissed:

Unicron & Paul:

They arent using the same tools.And the graphics engine of each game TOTALLY differs.They started working from different directions.On Direct X all games use similar graphical engines.I ve seen the sequel of Duex Ex on XBOX and the graphics didnt differ from what I ve seen in Halo much.They werent much better either.Different developers eh?

While Directx does have some influence on the art-direction in some to most cases, the difference in art-direction of a game developed on PS2 to that done on a Xbox (or the similarity of Xbox games to PC games) has also a lot to do with the different architecture or said similarity.

The PS2 is very powerful for polygon and particles thanks to it\'s streamlined architecture, floating point performance and raw, but simple graphics rasterizer that can draw pixels at an insane speed that only the newest GPUs on the PC can max. The word for this style is most definately brute-force: on PS2, polygons are thrown at many problems, so most games will heavily emphasize in this area. Examples: Zone of the Enders 2, Metal Gear Solid 2 (especially tanker scene outside with rain particles), Jak II.

The PC, like Xbox, on the other hand as a very moderate CPU in most cases with not much crunching power, but has a lot of memory. Memory that is in most cases used for textures which is why PC games usually look very realistic, especially in screenshots. Sadly though, not many games emphasize on physics and other fillrate intensive effects, which is why most games are usually quite empty and boring looking in motion. A game like ZOE2 is full of animation, everywhere - just like MGS2. The textures though are very weak. The similarity in Xbox games can be followed back to the roots of its architecture: PC.

Agreed

well xbox developers won\'t have to start all over again learning new hardware when programming for xbox 2.  Unlike when ps3 is launched.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

^ not true. As long as sony releases decent kits.
Which they didn\'t with ps2 at first.  Developers pretty much had to learn for themselfs. They should be ok.  Hopefully sony will still allow the freedom to expand outside those tools too.

We shall see how things will shape up when both consoles are launched.Sony would act foolishly if they arent forseeing to help developers.
PS2 was totally new for developers.So it was unavoidable that developers would have found it hard to get satisfactory results at the beginning.Tools were also incomplete.Various tools appeared and evolved on the process.Middleware was one of them.
MS is taking it seriously.They already work on XNA, and tech demos already show outstanding results.There is stil 1+ year till XBOX2 is released.So we can speculate how things would shape up for MS\'s next console.MS can easily predict how the hadrware on XBOX2 should be like since it uses PC standard hardware and PCs always evolves on the same aspects steadily.So they can already work on the tools according to speculation.
Developers on PS3 should already have some backround on how different architecture works like with PS2.But Sony should offer already some information and kits, and start working on some libraries.Hardware I assume is still unfinished.I dont think they can work on the hardware and tools at the same time if PS3 specs are uncertain.Unless if they have already worked on it and had ready specs.The GScube might have been an early prototype to experiment on.Its no coincidence that Sony took this hardware approach with PS2.Then the GCcube that used Graphics Synthesizers and EEs that worked with parallel processing.And finally the huge R&D expenditure for the Cell Chip.Sony is planning to use that chip in many household devices.Something similar that was planning with PS2.
2 things can happen (if sony uses it for PS3).
-Sony succeeds with the Cell Chip and establishes it as a hardware that replaces  at a great extend existing technology like intel processors that will change the direction computers curently seem to take.So it guarantees support for PS3 especially if they have ready the appropriate assistance for developers.Direct X and current existing PC hardware isnt the only standard no longer if they succeed.
-Sony manages only to establish the cell chip at a small extend, or fails so PC existing hardware follow the same direction, MS manages to set a certain future of Direct X as standard since it is based on current PC existing architecture, XBOX2 gains huge support, and PS3 plays catch up.
If XBOX2 though manages to succeed greatly and surpasses competitors as much as PS2 succeeded in this generation I believe this will change console gaming as we know it in the long run which I mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by Unicron!
See that title above this thread?Does it say XBOX vs PS2???

Man keep concluding that I am trying to say that PS2 rules ALL!!I already explained WHY  I refered to XBOX and PS2.This ISNT the case of comparing hardware.You are assuming.Just read myother posts as well and try to get my point.



Oh God.Here we go again.I said MORE OFTEN and becuase they are finished tools on which developers have been specialiasing, used on newer hardware.PS2 is old hardware but new in the industry and its recently that the gaming industry seems to adjust to the non-direct X, different hardware approach.I wonder if you read everything I write in this thread btw.PS2 ionly refered becuase its the best example on which standard tools arent being used.I could have generally mentioned consoles other than XBOX instead of PS2.



This clearly shows that you STILL believe the whole point of this thread was COMPARING PS2 WITH XBOX!!!



Actually what you just said confirms that your brain is trying to force you to convince me that the XBOX RULES which isnt the point.

They arent using the same tools.And the graphics engine of each game TOTALLY differs.They started working from different directions.On Direct X all games use similar graphical engines.I ve seen the sequel of Duex Ex on XBOX and the graphics didnt differ from what I ve seen in Halo much.They werent much better either.Different developers eh?


I wonder if I am talking to a child.




You are the worst case of "whoever doesnt agree with me must be stupid and wrong and I comprehend whatever I want to comprehend than catch the point" I ve ever seen in my whole life.



LOL you were the one comparing hardware and telling me how much powerful XBOX is compared to PS2 (which was never the case).Ofcourse I didnt say the XBOX kicks PS2\'s ass.Perhaps thats the only way to show that I am not a PS2 fanboy????*SHEESH*
:rolleyes:

This statement proves ones again that you still dont understand shit of what I am talking about.

I already admited probably for the bilionth time that XBOX can do better graphics than PS2.Still trying to prove me how much inferior the PS2 is technologically?
 :rolleyes:

You are the only person here making direct hardware comprisons.Ofcourse I didnt expect much.As the fanboy that you are you thought I was trying to bash XBOX and convince that PS2 is more powerful and can do better graphics.

I seem to be repeating myself...I ll repeat once again a small example I mentioned before "Thank the tools taht were developed for PS2 for Burnout3.And yes it might look better on XBOX.Thats still not the point bucause it is supposed to be on more powerful hardware and we arent comparing hardware



No you are the confused dude here.I didnt completely trash Direct X.You thought that by judging Direct X I was trying to bash XBOX.Ofocurse what else would a fanboy think?If I was trying to bash XBOX I would have said that the PS2 is superior from XBOX technologically, and that the PS2 can produce better graphics.But I already stated that games on PS2 may not look as good as XBOX games BUT THATS NOT THE FREAKING POINT.In the case of burnout 3 it can be ported on XBOX just as it is and still be impressive even for XBOX despite the fact that it might be nearing PS2\'s full potential more and less XBOX\'s.
XBOX gets high benefits sometimes from PS2 ports since games arent directly programmed on XBOX(Direct X).But on other tools.Thats what I mentioned.How have I mentioned XBOX being "poor" (you said it not me) when I said so many times that the XBOX surpasses PS2 in many graphical aspects, and that the PS2 ports look better on XBOX???

Hell I was one of th epeople defending Fable when mm\'s was trashing it in one of the threads.Yes I know thats an XBOX game


no you are trying to convince me you are right.I keep reapeting myself BECUASE YOU SEEM  TO REPEAT YOURSELF!!




Ok.How does this mean I ment XBOX gets only benefits from PS2 am trying to understand HOW!

For God\'s sake you keep assuming I am comparing XBOX with PS2.
You expect me to agree and say "DIRECT X  is the best ever"?Well sorry I dont believe that.It just happens to be used in XBOX.


Graphic style=I ment different engines= different tools used=different graphics
utilization of tools: Direct X==standard tools=Similar engines developed and used=not utilizing  full potential of hardware





 

You should become a comedian if you want free salad  

Just hope you wont get a free plate as well on the head

Obviously, you still have no idea what you\'r talking about...still stuck in your little hole of yours...you don\'t see the BIG PICTURE.

(1) Consumers DON\'T CARE about what freaking tools going inside...all they care is the BEST GRAPHICS..okay, assuming you\'re we\'re not comparing PS2 with XBOX "hardware"(as you little brain keeps trying to separate the 2)...so??
The XBOX still kicks the PS2 arse...whether it\'s DX or OpenGL or some other no name libraries..
From the END RESULT, there is NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER that support your puny theory about some propriatery PS2 engines being better.

END RESULT: understand this properly...look up a dictionary if u have to...

(2) Your comparison of Halo lame. Deux Ex 2 isn\'t exactly a top title and Halo basically doesn\'t have the greatest graphics...still your argument is again VERY INVALID even with the weak example you\'ve given...i don\'t find much similarities in the looks of these titles..other than the fact they\'re based on sci-fi world...but i\'ll agree with you if you said Halo looks lame.(i never like it, and i hate FPS anyway).

Graphic style=I ment different engines= different tools used=different graphics
utilization of tools: Direct X==standard tools=Similar engines developed and used=not utilizing  full potential of hardware

(3) Again, you\'ve pretty much confirmed everyone\'s suspicion that you are EXTREMELY CONFUSED with the term "game engines"/"tools"/"graphic style". Your ignorance is as glaring as the sun on a hot summer day.

For all the so called "different engine", the PS2 still can\'t do half of what the XBOX can do...and in case you didn\'t know, just to referecene ur previous example of R&C and J&D, naughty dog and insomaniac actually shares code between them. In fact, naughty dog has explicitly stated in an interview that "they don\'t have a \'it\'s not made here\' attitude.", meaning they\'ll gladly take any usable codes if it\'s good and working. This also means that Jak2 and R&C shares some common engine...despite looking different ...BECAUSE OF GRAPHICAL DESIGN BY THE ARTIST, YOU IDIOT.

Another example would be Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia, both has very different graphic style, yet they share some common graphics library.

But anyway, i don\'t expect you to understand since your brain have been hardcoded with "DirectX sucks!!!"

All your above post proves your fanboyism(not to mention that you create "facts" and accuse me for things I didnt say)
Its self evident that you get better graphics from newer hardware :rolleyes: (already atmitted XBOX surpases PS2)
Oh and you are not everyone.
Still believe I am comparing XBOX and PS2 I see
blah blah blah then

*Unicron adds an ignorant fanboy to his ignore list*

Paul:

The XBOX still kicks the PS2 arse...whether it\'s DX or OpenGL or some other no name libraries...

In some areas, as does PS2 Xbox in other areas. What\'s your point? Both hardware have different advantages, one being a transistor budget that is in completely different worlds (remember, Xbox came 20+ months after PS2). Yet, there are games that are simply not doable on the \'newer\' hardware. Anything but "kicking the PS2\'s ass"...