The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
If all people are going to do is pray for ports of PS2 games, the XBox is going to have a sorry life playing 2nd fiddle.
MGS2 is out on the PS2, so if you wanna play it, buy a damn PS2 if you haven't already got one. It's only £200 for god's sake. That way you can play MGS2 now, rather than wait for months, or forever for it to come out on XBox. MGS2 looks and sounds good enough already on the PS2 - what more could you want? Shadows done in hardware as opposed to software don't get my juices flowing somehow.
Take SSX Tricky. Out already for months on PS2, and out in what, June for XBox? On XBox the controls are flawed cos' the game is designed for the PS2 pad, and the graphics aren't much better, with a lot of slowdown.
There are a lot of people on here wishing for ports of PS2 games, and all that is doing is boosting SONYs confidence as they realise that they really do have the games that others want. Get a bloody PS2 if you want to play PS2 games.
A lot of games that are destined for both PS2 and XBox are favouring the PS2 in terms of release date. Pro Race Driver comes to mind here, coming to PS2 at least 6 months earlier than XBox. I don't care how good the XBox version looks, if I can get it on PS2 6 months earlier then I will do so. It's not going to look rubbish on PS2 is it? Sod the XBox (cos' mine bust anyway!).
I need to make a decision about whether or not to get another XBox soon, and at this rate, I'll probably just stick to my PS2 and wait for the PS3 to strike. The XBox isn't that big a leap anyway - certainly not the leap it was from PS1 to PS2.
Beg all you like for PS2 games, but at the end of the day, all this will do is kill the XBox.
MGS2 is out on the PS2, so if you wanna play it, buy a damn PS2 if you haven't already got one. It's only £200 for god's sake. That way you can play MGS2 now, rather than wait for months, or forever for it to come out on XBox. MGS2 looks and sounds good enough already on the PS2 - what more could you want? Shadows done in hardware as opposed to software don't get my juices flowing somehow.
Take SSX Tricky. Out already for months on PS2, and out in what, June for XBox? On XBox the controls are flawed cos' the game is designed for the PS2 pad, and the graphics aren't much better, with a lot of slowdown.
There are a lot of people on here wishing for ports of PS2 games, and all that is doing is boosting SONYs confidence as they realise that they really do have the games that others want. Get a bloody PS2 if you want to play PS2 games.
A lot of games that are destined for both PS2 and XBox are favouring the PS2 in terms of release date. Pro Race Driver comes to mind here, coming to PS2 at least 6 months earlier than XBox. I don't care how good the XBox version looks, if I can get it on PS2 6 months earlier then I will do so. It's not going to look rubbish on PS2 is it? Sod the XBox (cos' mine bust anyway!).
I need to make a decision about whether or not to get another XBox soon, and at this rate, I'll probably just stick to my PS2 and wait for the PS3 to strike. The XBox isn't that big a leap anyway - certainly not the leap it was from PS1 to PS2.
Beg all you like for PS2 games, but at the end of the day, all this will do is kill the XBox.
Page:
adrian wrote:
> Then PGR can have all tracks at night, dawn, dusk and in rain, mist
> e.t.c. GT3 has set tracks which have these features.
Does it actually change in PGR? I've noticed the differences, obviously, but it seemed to me to change only on the differing routes around the cities. For example one Tokyo circuit always seems to appear as dusk, while another circuit using part of the same roads, was brighter. I haven't yet noticed different conditions on the same tracks, to be honest.
> The night time scene with rain is pretty stunning. Spray coming off the
> cars, rain drops hitting the ground, the scenary and cars reflecting off
> the ground, it does look good.
Yes, Special Stage Route 5 Wet is amazing. Have to say that the rain effect in PGR (even though it does rain and isn't just wet) does not even begin to compare with GT3 in that respect.
The one thing I do like in PGR is that when you use an external view, all of the mirrors do actually appear to work. Okay, so it's pretty useless, but it's a nice touch!
> Then PGR can have all tracks at night, dawn, dusk and in rain, mist
> e.t.c. GT3 has set tracks which have these features.
Does it actually change in PGR? I've noticed the differences, obviously, but it seemed to me to change only on the differing routes around the cities. For example one Tokyo circuit always seems to appear as dusk, while another circuit using part of the same roads, was brighter. I haven't yet noticed different conditions on the same tracks, to be honest.
> The night time scene with rain is pretty stunning. Spray coming off the
> cars, rain drops hitting the ground, the scenary and cars reflecting off
> the ground, it does look good.
Yes, Special Stage Route 5 Wet is amazing. Have to say that the rain effect in PGR (even though it does rain and isn't just wet) does not even begin to compare with GT3 in that respect.
The one thing I do like in PGR is that when you use an external view, all of the mirrors do actually appear to work. Okay, so it's pretty useless, but it's a nice touch!
With GT3 the major pop up that occurs is on Stage 11. Then Seattle has at least 2 bits I remember, then R246 has pop up(very hard to notice and not really pop up), Cote de azua track has pretty major pop up. Most of the tracks do have pop up, it doesnt distract from the game, but GT3 shouldnt have pop up.
PGR has a little pop up, once I played in New York and a building far in the distance popped into view.
Having been playing PGR more over the last day or so I think it actually is better graphically overall than GT3. The car models for some reason dont look as realistic in there design. The Beetle looks almost cartoony compared to that of the Beetle in GT3. But the car models are very detailed with some brilliant reflections, maybe better than GT3, its hard to say.
Then PGR can have all tracks at night, dawn, dusk and in rain, mist e.t.c. GT3 has set tracks which have these features. The night time scene with rain is pretty stunning. Spray coming off the cars, rain drops hitting the ground, the scenary and cars reflecting off the ground, it does look good.
I've only just noticed this on PGR, but the actual trees that surround certain courses actually drop there leaves. I was waiting to start a one on one race and saw something drop, I couldnt believe a leaf had actually dropped on to the circuit. It stayed there until I went past it and blow it away.
Overall GT3 is very impressive, it still is impressive today. But I think PGR is equally as good in terms of graphics. Its still actually very hard to chose between the two of them.
PGR has a little pop up, once I played in New York and a building far in the distance popped into view.
Having been playing PGR more over the last day or so I think it actually is better graphically overall than GT3. The car models for some reason dont look as realistic in there design. The Beetle looks almost cartoony compared to that of the Beetle in GT3. But the car models are very detailed with some brilliant reflections, maybe better than GT3, its hard to say.
Then PGR can have all tracks at night, dawn, dusk and in rain, mist e.t.c. GT3 has set tracks which have these features. The night time scene with rain is pretty stunning. Spray coming off the cars, rain drops hitting the ground, the scenary and cars reflecting off the ground, it does look good.
I've only just noticed this on PGR, but the actual trees that surround certain courses actually drop there leaves. I was waiting to start a one on one race and saw something drop, I couldnt believe a leaf had actually dropped on to the circuit. It stayed there until I went past it and blow it away.
Overall GT3 is very impressive, it still is impressive today. But I think PGR is equally as good in terms of graphics. Its still actually very hard to chose between the two of them.
adrian wrote:
>GT3 while impressive, does have some bad
>points. It has very bad pop up.
Have to say in all honesty, I've only noticed popup on one track as you exit a tunnel - can't recall the name of the track, though. It is definitely noticable in 2-player split-screen mode, but I've seen none when my friend has been playing single-player. And I have been looking, because it's the only time I get to appreciate the surroundings!
> Only a few levels actually have buildings and other things going on.
True, but it is predominantly a circuit-racing game, and circuits don't tend to have many buildings around them. That said, the Tokyo R246 track is absolutely brilliant, and my personal favourite ciruit in any racer. As for other things going on, there's nothing in PGR that I've noticed - other than ambient noises.
>Project Gotham may not have car models as
>good as GT3, but its enviroments are filled with buildings
>e.t.c.
True, but the car models suffering to cope with the environments is surely a sign that the machine isn't as all-powerful as many think. I have also noticed popup on PGR; using the low external view on one of the Tokyo circuits, the top part of a building appeared just as I sped past - similar to the popup I mentioned in GT3.
I don't see popup as a major flaw, though, as long as it's not bad enough to spoil a game. i.e. I don't mind if a building pops into view some way off (rather than out of nowhere as you approach a corner). I don't think popup will be eliminated from games for some time yet. Reduced yes, but not eliminated.
>GT3 while impressive, does have some bad
>points. It has very bad pop up.
Have to say in all honesty, I've only noticed popup on one track as you exit a tunnel - can't recall the name of the track, though. It is definitely noticable in 2-player split-screen mode, but I've seen none when my friend has been playing single-player. And I have been looking, because it's the only time I get to appreciate the surroundings!
> Only a few levels actually have buildings and other things going on.
True, but it is predominantly a circuit-racing game, and circuits don't tend to have many buildings around them. That said, the Tokyo R246 track is absolutely brilliant, and my personal favourite ciruit in any racer. As for other things going on, there's nothing in PGR that I've noticed - other than ambient noises.
>Project Gotham may not have car models as
>good as GT3, but its enviroments are filled with buildings
>e.t.c.
True, but the car models suffering to cope with the environments is surely a sign that the machine isn't as all-powerful as many think. I have also noticed popup on PGR; using the low external view on one of the Tokyo circuits, the top part of a building appeared just as I sped past - similar to the popup I mentioned in GT3.
I don't see popup as a major flaw, though, as long as it's not bad enough to spoil a game. i.e. I don't mind if a building pops into view some way off (rather than out of nowhere as you approach a corner). I don't think popup will be eliminated from games for some time yet. Reduced yes, but not eliminated.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
>Maybe so, but DoA3 isn't significantly better than DoA2. GT3 remains one >of the most visually stunning games available (if not THE most), yet >it "barely touches the sides" of what PS2 can do.
Well I think that graphically DOA3 is much better than DOA2 on the PS2. Even Virtua Fighter 4 and Tekken 4 look shabby compared to DOA3.
GT3 is an impressive game graphically, and PS2 has alot more to offer, but so does Xbox. GT3 while impressive, does have some bad points. It has very bad pop up. Stage 11 is very bad for pop up, aswell as there are bits of pop up on nearly every level. The levels are also open in scenary. Only a few levels actually have buildings and other things going on. Project Gotham may not have car models as good as GT3, but its enviroments are filled with buildings e.t.c.
PS2 is very impressive, as MGS2 and GT3 show off what can be done. PS2 hasnt reached its limit yet, iam sure I read MGS2 uses 60-70% of the PS2s power, so we can expect alot more detail.
What will be good is to compare games that appear on both PS2 and Xbox at the same time. Also it will be good to see how Wreckless gets converted over to the PS2.
>Maybe so, but DoA3 isn't significantly better than DoA2. GT3 remains one >of the most visually stunning games available (if not THE most), yet >it "barely touches the sides" of what PS2 can do.
Well I think that graphically DOA3 is much better than DOA2 on the PS2. Even Virtua Fighter 4 and Tekken 4 look shabby compared to DOA3.
GT3 is an impressive game graphically, and PS2 has alot more to offer, but so does Xbox. GT3 while impressive, does have some bad points. It has very bad pop up. Stage 11 is very bad for pop up, aswell as there are bits of pop up on nearly every level. The levels are also open in scenary. Only a few levels actually have buildings and other things going on. Project Gotham may not have car models as good as GT3, but its enviroments are filled with buildings e.t.c.
PS2 is very impressive, as MGS2 and GT3 show off what can be done. PS2 hasnt reached its limit yet, iam sure I read MGS2 uses 60-70% of the PS2s power, so we can expect alot more detail.
What will be good is to compare games that appear on both PS2 and Xbox at the same time. Also it will be good to see how Wreckless gets converted over to the PS2.
i think graphically dead or alive 3 is a lot better than dead or alive 2...after playing doa 3 i put in a demo of doa2 hardcore and some of the arenas are the same in both games but doa3 the doa3 versions are so much better graphically speaking.
adrian wrote:
> Xbox is optimised, it has a very powerful graphics
> chip that is programble.
Exactly. Optimised, streamlined and simplified for ease of coding. Which is why I don't see much room for improvement.
> PC graphic cards are set in what graphic effects that
> can be used. While the Xbox will be able to generate new found graphic effects,
> just by the games containing the right code.
Any graphics chip can produce new effects through software that are not part of the hardware; it just depends on the ability of the chip to move data quick enough. The Dreamcast didn't support transparencies in hardware, but the effect still appeared in games.
> It is said that Dead Or Alive 3, probably the most
> stunning Xbox game graphically uses only 50% of the true Xbox
> power.
Maybe so, but DoA3 isn't significantly better than DoA2. GT3 remains one of the most visually stunning games available (if not THE most), yet it "barely touches the sides" of what PS2 can do.
There is room for improvement on all machines, but moreso (I believe) on PS2. It is true that there are PS2 games that look little better than PS1 games; but when you look at games like GT3, ICO, Baldur's Gate, AC4 etc., it is clear that PS2 is quite capable of producing equally stunning games and visuals.
> Xbox is optimised, it has a very powerful graphics
> chip that is programble.
Exactly. Optimised, streamlined and simplified for ease of coding. Which is why I don't see much room for improvement.
> PC graphic cards are set in what graphic effects that
> can be used. While the Xbox will be able to generate new found graphic effects,
> just by the games containing the right code.
Any graphics chip can produce new effects through software that are not part of the hardware; it just depends on the ability of the chip to move data quick enough. The Dreamcast didn't support transparencies in hardware, but the effect still appeared in games.
> It is said that Dead Or Alive 3, probably the most
> stunning Xbox game graphically uses only 50% of the true Xbox
> power.
Maybe so, but DoA3 isn't significantly better than DoA2. GT3 remains one of the most visually stunning games available (if not THE most), yet it "barely touches the sides" of what PS2 can do.
There is room for improvement on all machines, but moreso (I believe) on PS2. It is true that there are PS2 games that look little better than PS1 games; but when you look at games like GT3, ICO, Baldur's Gate, AC4 etc., it is clear that PS2 is quite capable of producing equally stunning games and visuals.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
Look at PC games, based on very similar hardware
> to that in the Xbox. Graphics, while good, never generally improve until new
> graphics hardware is released.
I don't think there is as much scope for
> improvement as on the PS2. But if there is, then so much the better!
I think there is alot of potential still to come from the Xbox. Remember a PC isnt optimised, its just a bunch of bits fitted together and with all the different specs and the OS running, so the game has to be coded to run on any PC.
Xbox is optimised, it has a very powerful graphics chip that is programble. PC graphic cards are set in what graphic effects that can be used. While the Xbox will be able to generate new found graphic effects, just by the games containing the right code.
It is said that Dead Or Alive 3, probably the most stunning Xbox game graphically uses only 50% of the true Xbox power.
Xbox games will get better as programmers learn how to effectly use the GPU and the 64mb of FREE RAM.
Look at PC games, based on very similar hardware
> to that in the Xbox. Graphics, while good, never generally improve until new
> graphics hardware is released.
I don't think there is as much scope for
> improvement as on the PS2. But if there is, then so much the better!
I think there is alot of potential still to come from the Xbox. Remember a PC isnt optimised, its just a bunch of bits fitted together and with all the different specs and the OS running, so the game has to be coded to run on any PC.
Xbox is optimised, it has a very powerful graphics chip that is programble. PC graphic cards are set in what graphic effects that can be used. While the Xbox will be able to generate new found graphic effects, just by the games containing the right code.
It is said that Dead Or Alive 3, probably the most stunning Xbox game graphically uses only 50% of the true Xbox power.
Xbox games will get better as programmers learn how to effectly use the GPU and the 64mb of FREE RAM.
Ico is a great game (I played & completed it last week), and one well worth playing. But there's little replay value.
The only PS2 game I'd like to see on the Xbox is the beautiful Ico. But I don't think there is much hope of this happening. Apart from that, the Xbox must move into new territory. The more exclusives there are, the more people will be drawn into buying the console.
Silent85 wrote:
> yet Halo is the 1st generation games god help us when we progress further into
> the x-box's lifetime :)
The question is, will Xbox games get that much better?
Like the 'cube, it's 'easy to code for', so developers can get the best out of it from the start. There will be room for improvement, but how much?
Look at PC games, based on very similar hardware to that in the Xbox. Graphics, while good, never generally improve until new graphics hardware is released.
I don't think there is as much scope for improvement as on the PS2. But if there is, then so much the better!
> yet Halo is the 1st generation games god help us when we progress further into
> the x-box's lifetime :)
The question is, will Xbox games get that much better?
Like the 'cube, it's 'easy to code for', so developers can get the best out of it from the start. There will be room for improvement, but how much?
Look at PC games, based on very similar hardware to that in the Xbox. Graphics, while good, never generally improve until new graphics hardware is released.
I don't think there is as much scope for improvement as on the PS2. But if there is, then so much the better!
Page: