The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Microsoft has decided to release their new green box of crap(opps did I say that) before the release of the PS3 that will come out around 2005. I think one of the main reasons is that little Billy wasn't to happy about the fact that the Xbox scratches the disc when you put them inside.
The Xbox2 will have a little more advanced graphics in it but the early bird doesn't necessarly get the worm. Do you think the Xbox2 will have the same downfall as the Dreamcast because Sega released their system too early even though it was far superior than the N64 and the Playstation? We will just have to wait and see I guess.
The Xbox2 will have a little more advanced graphics in it but the early bird doesn't necessarly get the worm. Do you think the Xbox2 will have the same downfall as the Dreamcast because Sega released their system too early even though it was far superior than the N64 and the Playstation? We will just have to wait and see I guess.
Page:
½pint wrote:
> Yet you can only see this when it is an
> opposing console, since you're obviously a Sony fan.
How do you determine that, when he actually says that the Dreamcast was superior to both the N64 and PlayStation?
More of a Sega fan, I'd have thought. Other than that, it just seems an anti-Xbox rant to me, with no preference of console stated.
> Yet you can only see this when it is an
> opposing console, since you're obviously a Sony fan.
How do you determine that, when he actually says that the Dreamcast was superior to both the N64 and PlayStation?
More of a Sega fan, I'd have thought. Other than that, it just seems an anti-Xbox rant to me, with no preference of console stated.
Tóm wrote:
> And I seem to remember the PS2 appearing on Watchdog for the large
> amount with faulty PSU's around launch.
The "large amount" was actually around 5% of machines, which - it turns out - is no different to any other electronics hardware. I believe Watchdog were forced to concede this point in a later programme.
> And I seem to remember the PS2 appearing on Watchdog for the large
> amount with faulty PSU's around launch.
The "large amount" was actually around 5% of machines, which - it turns out - is no different to any other electronics hardware. I believe Watchdog were forced to concede this point in a later programme.
VenomByte wrote:
> In any case, I'm basing the comments about PS2 not being able to do
> certain games on what I've read in interviews with developers.
Criterion have said that Halo most definitely would be possible on PS2.
What do you make of that?
> In any case, I'm basing the comments about PS2 not being able to do
> certain games on what I've read in interviews with developers.
Criterion have said that Halo most definitely would be possible on PS2.
What do you make of that?
I think they are commiting suicide dreamcast style, shame really.
Drunk Cow wrote:
> Why? Because it's good or because it deals with news.
Because it's to a much lower standard than I normally expect from you.
In all honesty, it's a load of rubbish.
> Why? Because it's good or because it deals with news.
Because it's to a much lower standard than I normally expect from you.
In all honesty, it's a load of rubbish.
AliBoy wrote:
> Can you honstly
> say you see a vast difference between the best PS2 and XBox games?
In all honesty, no. But then, I couldn't see a huge difference between PS2 and Dreamcast, either.
> Seriously though, The Ps2 would be capable to run these games if coded
> correctly to get the best out of the PS2.
Perhaps some could, but games aren't yet coded to get the best out of the XBox either. We may well see more of a difference in standards in the next year or two.
In any case, I'm basing the comments about PS2 not being able to do certain games on what I've read in interviews with developers. If they say "This game could not be done to the same level of detail on another console", that's normally enough to convince me.
> Can you honstly
> say you see a vast difference between the best PS2 and XBox games?
In all honesty, no. But then, I couldn't see a huge difference between PS2 and Dreamcast, either.
> Seriously though, The Ps2 would be capable to run these games if coded
> correctly to get the best out of the PS2.
Perhaps some could, but games aren't yet coded to get the best out of the XBox either. We may well see more of a difference in standards in the next year or two.
In any case, I'm basing the comments about PS2 not being able to do certain games on what I've read in interviews with developers. If they say "This game could not be done to the same level of detail on another console", that's normally enough to convince me.
VenomByte wrote:
> Alright. Look at the rest of the specs - polygons per second, pixel
> fill rates and maximum resolution. Now tell me they aren't in any way
> related to performance.
They are, but not to the way we are led to believe. Can you honstly say you see a vast difference between the best PS2 and XBox games?
> I notice you also didn't mention anything about the XBox games which
> the PS2 cannot run.
The PS2 can't run them because it dosn't play XBox disks :-)
Seriously though, The Ps2 would be capable to run these games if coded correctly to get the best out of the PS2.
> Alright. Look at the rest of the specs - polygons per second, pixel
> fill rates and maximum resolution. Now tell me they aren't in any way
> related to performance.
They are, but not to the way we are led to believe. Can you honstly say you see a vast difference between the best PS2 and XBox games?
> I notice you also didn't mention anything about the XBox games which
> the PS2 cannot run.
The PS2 can't run them because it dosn't play XBox disks :-)
Seriously though, The Ps2 would be capable to run these games if coded correctly to get the best out of the PS2.
Alright. Look at the rest of the specs - polygons per second, pixel fill rates and maximum resolution. Now tell me they aren't in any way related to performance.
I notice you also didn't mention anything about the XBox games which the PS2 cannot run.
I notice you also didn't mention anything about the XBox games which the PS2 cannot run.
Tóm wrote:
> I really was shocked when I saw you as the author for this, Drunk cow.
Why? Because it's good or because it deals with news.
> I really was shocked when I saw you as the author for this, Drunk cow.
Why? Because it's good or because it deals with news.
VenomByte wrote:
> AliBoy wrote:
> But looking at performance there is not a great deal of different
> between the XBox and PS2
>
> Simply not true. The XBox is capable of far, far more than the PS2
> is.
>
> Here are a few comparisons...
>
>
> CPU
> XBox - 733MHz
> PS2 - 300MHz
>
> Graphics processor
> XBox - 300MHz
> PS2 - 150MHz
>
> Memory
> XBox - 64MB
> PS2 - 38MB
>
> Memory Bandwidth
> XBox - 6.4GB/sec
> PS2 - 3.2GB/sec
>
> I could go on, but I won't.
Can I ask exactly what any of that tells you in terms of performace??
I studied both in detail for a project at uni and I admit that performance wise Xbox is a little better on paper but due to the difference in release dates it should have been capable of more.
> AliBoy wrote:
> But looking at performance there is not a great deal of different
> between the XBox and PS2
>
> Simply not true. The XBox is capable of far, far more than the PS2
> is.
>
> Here are a few comparisons...
>
>
> CPU
> XBox - 733MHz
> PS2 - 300MHz
>
> Graphics processor
> XBox - 300MHz
> PS2 - 150MHz
>
> Memory
> XBox - 64MB
> PS2 - 38MB
>
> Memory Bandwidth
> XBox - 6.4GB/sec
> PS2 - 3.2GB/sec
>
> I could go on, but I won't.
Can I ask exactly what any of that tells you in terms of performace??
I studied both in detail for a project at uni and I admit that performance wise Xbox is a little better on paper but due to the difference in release dates it should have been capable of more.
Page: