[PSman]

This is a follow up from my previous question.. I've always impressed with how the SC games look (especailly Chaos Theory) If the Splinter Cell games were built completely from ground up for the PS2 and take advantage of the PS2 power, would it looks just as good as the Xbox version? Or would it looks completely different, but is still impressive looking?

Any tech expert here can enlighted me on this? Thank you

[pc999]

PS2 Is completely out classed by XB, true it does have some advantages(edram , raw filtrate...) but they are rendered "useless" against XB architeture/raw power (and price/launch date).

If a Ps2 only game it would look much better but just as no PS2 exclusive looked as good XB exclusives, it wouldnt look as good as XB SC3.

[Mobius1aic]

No, PS2 can't compete with the Xbox's amount of RAM and XGPU.

[gongo]

I believe Xbox was far more powerful than PS2 than what N64 was to PS1, PS2 was to DC and PS3 is to 360. Will we see such a powerful hardware ever release again at sub prime rates? I sadly think not.

[Mobius1aic]

Yeah the XGPU was a beast at the time, it was the cornerstone of the Xbox's abilities with support for multiple types of shaders. With alot more RAM needed to store information, the Xbox well outclassed the PS2. What's funny is that the Emotion Engine if I remember right did have a higher raw polygon fillrate than even the XGPU but the PS2 lacked native multi-texturing on the GS making shaders computationally expensive, and the Vector Units used for polygon fill was used for other things like physics and important game related tasks in actual games. PS2 was such a strange setup.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by gongo

I believe Xbox was far more powerful than PS2 than what N64 was to PS1, PS2 was to DC and PS3 is to 360. Will we see such a powerful hardware ever release again at sub prime rates?

No, because it lost MS $5 billion! What company is going to be willing to throw away that kind of money? There are cheaper ways to pursue the markets that XB was beach-heading for MS.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

No, because it lost MS $5 billion! What company is going to be willing to throw away that kind of money? There are cheaper ways to pursue the markets that XB was beach-heading for MS.

Wasn't that more because of the terrible cost structure on the Xbox though (not owning the IP, etc)?

I mean it did come out a year after PS2. So a level of technological superiority is to be expected.

The hard drive didn't help either. It truly was a "glorified memory card". Especially back in those days! I mean now there's actually tons of stuff to fill them up with..back then not so much.

Heck, even PS3 probably could have slapped around 360 more severely if it wasnt dealing with that huge Blu Ray cost (although knowing how PS3 development went, not necessarily, it might have just been $300 cheaper).

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Rangers

Wasn't that more because of the terrible cost structure on the Xbox though (not owning the IP, etc)?

Well that is true. But they were willing to lose a lot at startup. What other company would be willing to take such large losses at launch? Sony only stomached it this gen to establish BRD. The gaming part of the hardware was price comparable. Who would want to put premium hardware into a box and then sell it at a very lossy price? You just won't make the returns, unless it's a Trojan Horse to another lucrative market.

[Silent_Buddha]

Nod, MS went into the Xbox expecting to lose massively in order to get a foothold. They also expected that they would probably be losing money for 2 generations with a chance to start making a profit in the 3rd generation. I think they are doing much better with X360 than they expected when they first launched the Xbox.

Regards,
SB