The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Splinter Cell'.
Microsoft have decided to change the look of the XBox - to some thing a bit more "normal & smaller". Wow! What a great idea - now we know the speed of thought at Microsoft....When it first launched, MS insisted the hardware had to be that size, and lots of XBox fans defended it and would not accept the idea that XBox could be smaller. Well at the E3 event, the restyled/smaller XBox will prove that wrong once and for all.
Splinter Cell nears it's PS2 and GC release. Turns out Splinter Cell has been in "multi-format" development for some time (while it was pushed as an XBox only game), and as a result the PS2 release will have more features than the original XBox version.
Try www.computerandvideogames.com to find out more....
Splinter Cell nears it's PS2 and GC release. Turns out Splinter Cell has been in "multi-format" development for some time (while it was pushed as an XBox only game), and as a result the PS2 release will have more features than the original XBox version.
Try www.computerandvideogames.com to find out more....
Page:
Insane Bartender wrote:
> I stopped reading that reply after the first sentence. The Ps2 is
> inferior fullstop. A pc's expansion options only make it more the
> superior machine. Of course, it all depends on what you put in there,
> but that's a choice the PS2 doesn't give you.
Careful, what if you own a 60Mhz Pentium MK1 with 4 expansion slots? Is that better at games than a PS2 (or GC or Xbox) because it has 4 slots?
There's not many games (if any) that run on a 60Mhz Pentium MK1 PC.
> I stopped reading that reply after the first sentence. The Ps2 is
> inferior fullstop. A pc's expansion options only make it more the
> superior machine. Of course, it all depends on what you put in there,
> but that's a choice the PS2 doesn't give you.
Careful, what if you own a 60Mhz Pentium MK1 with 4 expansion slots? Is that better at games than a PS2 (or GC or Xbox) because it has 4 slots?
There's not many games (if any) that run on a 60Mhz Pentium MK1 PC.
BUt the PS2 is also far inferor to the X-Box.
I stopped reading that reply after the first sentence. The Ps2 is inferior fullstop. A pc's expansion options only make it more the superior machine. Of course, it all depends on what you put in there, but that's a choice the PS2 doesn't give you.
You say that the PS2 is inferior to PC - because of the lack of expansion options (which I pointed out take up lots of space-hence the size of most pc's). Ok, so why do you need "that many" expansion options on a console? Fact is that PS2 does have an internal bay for the Broadband/hard disk adaptor pack. With this added it is virtually identical to XBox - which brings me on to the 2nd point. How come Xbox is so much better based on the original points made about expansion. You can't say XBox is that much better than PS2 in respect of the expansion issue - XBox has no such expansion options. It doesn't even have standard USB sockets, let alone FireWire!
Lets not forget, XBox may have BB+hard disc inside, but PS2's BB+hard disc adaptor also goes inside the console. The space is already there for it. So you can't say XBox is bigger because it has BB+Hard disc inside - since PS2 has the empty bay in the back for the same equipment already. So if Sony could make there console that size (back then), why didn't MS do the same?
Again my explanation is that MS did not think smarter with the internal XBox layout. This pushed the unit size up. Add to that the warm P3 chip (unlike Sony's cooler chip, and GC's almost ice cold chip). Then round it of with a poor case design. Naturally that had to defend it - can't blame them for that. As it became lodged at the wrong end of the "joke meter", MS set about doing a better job on the internal layout and case design. And here we are, a restyled, smaller Xbox.
Lets not forget, XBox may have BB+hard disc inside, but PS2's BB+hard disc adaptor also goes inside the console. The space is already there for it. So you can't say XBox is bigger because it has BB+Hard disc inside - since PS2 has the empty bay in the back for the same equipment already. So if Sony could make there console that size (back then), why didn't MS do the same?
Again my explanation is that MS did not think smarter with the internal XBox layout. This pushed the unit size up. Add to that the warm P3 chip (unlike Sony's cooler chip, and GC's almost ice cold chip). Then round it of with a poor case design. Naturally that had to defend it - can't blame them for that. As it became lodged at the wrong end of the "joke meter", MS set about doing a better job on the internal layout and case design. And here we are, a restyled, smaller Xbox.
Update2.01 wrote:
> Fact is the PC is only as big as it is due to expansion options (and
> perhaps the rather warm running P4) - not because it's a zillion times
> more powerful than PS2.
Modern PCs are, however, far more powerful than a PS2. If you want to try and stubbornly refuse to allow that fact to sink into the fleshy grey tissue that some might have the gall to call your brain, then please do so on someone else's time.
> Fact is the PC is only as big as it is due to expansion options (and
> perhaps the rather warm running P4) - not because it's a zillion times
> more powerful than PS2.
Modern PCs are, however, far more powerful than a PS2. If you want to try and stubbornly refuse to allow that fact to sink into the fleshy grey tissue that some might have the gall to call your brain, then please do so on someone else's time.
Exactly, it has a lot more stuff, as does the X-Box compared to the PS2. Catch my drift?
Insane Bartender wrote:
> PC's are the size they are because they are *gasp* fully
> customisable.
>
> A PC tower has to be built to accomodate a number of different
> motherboards, which have to be designed to accomodate a number of
> different cards and other devices, not to mention the plethora of
> available peripherals.
Thats the same as what I said. A card is there to add extra features, etc. Many PC's also have spare drive bays for extra hard disc drives, or backup systems such as CD-R/RW, DVD-R/RW/RAM, or (cough) Tape. Fact remains, that all that expansion means a lot of space is needed - just in case you want to add such things. BTW, I have seen a few "compact" PC's which are like Micro towers. These are about the same size as a PS2 but don't have much (if any) expansion slots/bays, etc.
Fact is the PC is only as big as it is due to expansion options (and perhaps the rather warm running P4) - not because it's a zillion times more powerful than PS2.
> PC's are the size they are because they are *gasp* fully
> customisable.
>
> A PC tower has to be built to accomodate a number of different
> motherboards, which have to be designed to accomodate a number of
> different cards and other devices, not to mention the plethora of
> available peripherals.
Thats the same as what I said. A card is there to add extra features, etc. Many PC's also have spare drive bays for extra hard disc drives, or backup systems such as CD-R/RW, DVD-R/RW/RAM, or (cough) Tape. Fact remains, that all that expansion means a lot of space is needed - just in case you want to add such things. BTW, I have seen a few "compact" PC's which are like Micro towers. These are about the same size as a PS2 but don't have much (if any) expansion slots/bays, etc.
Fact is the PC is only as big as it is due to expansion options (and perhaps the rather warm running P4) - not because it's a zillion times more powerful than PS2.
PC's are the size they are because they are *gasp* fully customisable.
A PC tower has to be built to accomodate a number of different motherboards, which have to be designed to accomodate a number of different cards and other devices, not to mention the plethora of available peripherals.
A PC tower has to be built to accomodate a number of different motherboards, which have to be designed to accomodate a number of different cards and other devices, not to mention the plethora of available peripherals.
maddmun wrote:
> Why is a PC bigger than a PS2? Because the technology in a PS2 is far
> inferior. It's the same with the X-Box, and in fact, Sony could spend
> money updating their PS2, but they know people will buy it regardless
> of Specs, mainly because of the name. SO why waste money?
Rubbish.....
Don't forget the 3 or 4 giant sized PCI card slots in a PC - and many PC's have spare drive bays as well. Infact, there is a lot of free space inside most normal sized PC's. This and the size/heat issue's of the P4 chip is the reason for PC's being as big as they are.
> Why is a PC bigger than a PS2? Because the technology in a PS2 is far
> inferior. It's the same with the X-Box, and in fact, Sony could spend
> money updating their PS2, but they know people will buy it regardless
> of Specs, mainly because of the name. SO why waste money?
Rubbish.....
Don't forget the 3 or 4 giant sized PCI card slots in a PC - and many PC's have spare drive bays as well. Infact, there is a lot of free space inside most normal sized PC's. This and the size/heat issue's of the P4 chip is the reason for PC's being as big as they are.
Why is a PC bigger than a PS2? Because the technology in a PS2 is far inferior. It's the same with the X-Box, and in fact, Sony could spend money updating their PS2, but they know people will buy it regardless of Specs, mainly because of the name. SO why waste money?
Page: