The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Almost all set on buying a PS2 (as price drops to £199)
when my mate tells me that the X-box wil be superior in all departments. I am sceptical of this, due to the fact it is Microsofts first hit on the console market.
Everything I see about the ps2 appeals to me, but I have only saw a small number of screenshots of X-boz and do not know much of the PS2's spec in comparison.
Do you guys think the PS2's price will drop anymore?
when my mate tells me that the X-box wil be superior in all departments. I am sceptical of this, due to the fact it is Microsofts first hit on the console market.
Everything I see about the ps2 appeals to me, but I have only saw a small number of screenshots of X-boz and do not know much of the PS2's spec in comparison.
Do you guys think the PS2's price will drop anymore?
Page:
ISS evo 2 is the football game on PS1.
Pro Evo is the new ISS on PS2.
Simple.
Pro Evo is the new ISS on PS2.
Simple.
I just read a review of FIFA 2002, and it seems the game hasnt changed much at all. they only gave the game 64%
same magazine gave Pro evo soccer 93%
Pro evo is the only football game u need really. And yes it has got club teams, but so did the previous versions on the PSone.
same magazine gave Pro evo soccer 93%
Pro evo is the only football game u need really. And yes it has got club teams, but so did the previous versions on the PSone.
Thanks for the interesting comments. I have a PS1 and a PC but hate using my PC for games.
You guys have almost convinced me to buy the PS2 - but I cannot choose a footy game to go with it.
I hate Fifa with a passion - even though it probably was consistently the best looking of the footy games.
I am an avid follower of all ISS games and feel they are the most authentic when it comes to actually playing the game. Shame it was only National teams. Does PRO EVO tailor itself for this?
I played the THIS IS FOOTBALL 2002 game in VIRGIN and thought the look was excellent and the gameplay a hell of a lot better than THIS IS FOOTBALL 1 and 2.
Are there any others on the horizon - or would you suggest FIFA 2002?
You guys have almost convinced me to buy the PS2 - but I cannot choose a footy game to go with it.
I hate Fifa with a passion - even though it probably was consistently the best looking of the footy games.
I am an avid follower of all ISS games and feel they are the most authentic when it comes to actually playing the game. Shame it was only National teams. Does PRO EVO tailor itself for this?
I played the THIS IS FOOTBALL 2002 game in VIRGIN and thought the look was excellent and the gameplay a hell of a lot better than THIS IS FOOTBALL 1 and 2.
Are there any others on the horizon - or would you suggest FIFA 2002?
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> From that you should then realize that the speed
> in which it does these cycles is rather important as a 32-bit processor running
> twice as fast as a 64-bit processor will be doing identically the same work per
> time period.
Exactly the point - a 32-bit system requires twice as much power to do the same work. For years now, Intel/PC CPU's have been solving the problem of speed simply by throwing higher clock rates at old technology, rather than designing a better, more efficient way of doing it.
Higher speeds lead to cooling problems, hence the huge design of the Xbox. Why bother with a 64-bit 700MHz leviathan egg-frier when you can get similar performance with 300MHz and 128-bits?
Other companies have been making better, more efficient and cheaper chips than Intel for years, just as people have made better and more stable OS's than Windows. Unfortunately, the industry always seems scared of trying anything new, so their impact is limited.
> From that you should then realize that the speed
> in which it does these cycles is rather important as a 32-bit processor running
> twice as fast as a 64-bit processor will be doing identically the same work per
> time period.
Exactly the point - a 32-bit system requires twice as much power to do the same work. For years now, Intel/PC CPU's have been solving the problem of speed simply by throwing higher clock rates at old technology, rather than designing a better, more efficient way of doing it.
Higher speeds lead to cooling problems, hence the huge design of the Xbox. Why bother with a 64-bit 700MHz leviathan egg-frier when you can get similar performance with 300MHz and 128-bits?
Other companies have been making better, more efficient and cheaper chips than Intel for years, just as people have made better and more stable OS's than Windows. Unfortunately, the industry always seems scared of trying anything new, so their impact is limited.
Inventive grammar and spelling there!
Bit rates are ultimately pointless now - means sweet FA in terms of performance. If your looking at just the CPU then clock speed is more important, but still pretty pointless as there are so many other variables (most importantly bus speed) that it means little or nothing.
Bit rate just relates to the number of bit that can be processed per cycle e.g. a 32-bit processor can handle 32 individual bits in each cycle. From that you should then realize that the speed in which it does these cycles is rather important as a 32-bit processor running twice as fast as a 64-bit processor will be doing identically the same work per time period.
That's looking at things in the most basic manner - as soon as you start bring in buses and cache (at multiple levels) then things get incomparibly conplex. Then add seperate graphics and sound processors and RAM running at different speeds and you've got a chalk and cheese situation. Then add the littel touches like texture compression and the speed of the varying disks spindle at and you're consoles are on different planets.
You can't compare the PS2's "power" with either of the other consoles - it's that simple.
Bit rate just relates to the number of bit that can be processed per cycle e.g. a 32-bit processor can handle 32 individual bits in each cycle. From that you should then realize that the speed in which it does these cycles is rather important as a 32-bit processor running twice as fast as a 64-bit processor will be doing identically the same work per time period.
That's looking at things in the most basic manner - as soon as you start bring in buses and cache (at multiple levels) then things get incomparibly conplex. Then add seperate graphics and sound processors and RAM running at different speeds and you've got a chalk and cheese situation. Then add the littel touches like texture compression and the speed of the varying disks spindle at and you're consoles are on different planets.
You can't compare the PS2's "power" with either of the other consoles - it's that simple.
Durus wrote:
> The the ps2 is a 128bit the x-box i am unsure of but I knoiw that it is higher.
It's based on a Pentium 3 CPU which is actually 64-bit.
> The the ps2 is a 128bit the x-box i am unsure of but I knoiw that it is higher.
It's based on a Pentium 3 CPU which is actually 64-bit.
Durus wrote:
> The the ps2 is a 128bit the x-box i am unsure of but I knoiw that it is higher.
The PS2 is 128-bit and the Xbox is 64-bit, it is NOT 128-bit
> The the ps2 is a 128bit the x-box i am unsure of but I knoiw that it is higher.
The PS2 is 128-bit and the Xbox is 64-bit, it is NOT 128-bit
Page: