Proof that the Xbox 360 is not Xbox 1.5

[Shompola]

People compare the Xbox 360 games with the best of PC games and then come to a premature conclusion as is this just it?

The newest PS2/Xbox games look quite horrible compared to what I have seen of Xbox 360 so far.

So I think it is fair to compare first gen Xbox 360 games, rushed or not with the newest most polished PS2/Xbox games.. But please when you are comparing PC games, remember that you are comparing Hardware that are almost just as new even though there are a lot of legacy thinking in the PC realm.

1st gen ps2 game (Knockout Kings 2001)

Current gen ps2 game (Fight Night3 ps2)

To many people, the jump from the 1st gen to the current gen on the ps2 bigger than the jump xbox made from xbox1 to xbox360.

No that was unfair. The games looks very much similiar if you have played them. Never make premature comparisons like this. Just makes you look stupid in the process.

 

[Teasy]

Am I the only one who thinks that comparing launch PS2 games to launch XBox 360 games is totally and utterly pointless to this "360 is XBox 1.5" argument?.. If anyone wants to make comparisons then compare launch XBox games to launch XBox 360 games and nothing else.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Now that the PS3 launch is supposed to get closer, expect the "street teams" to get active on both camps.
On the topic, I see little point in comparing first gen PS1 games to first gen xbox360 games to prove that xbox360 is not "xbox1.5".
How the device is perceived now, against current PS2 and xbox games is what matters in public views.
Though some people do buy these devices knowing the quality of the games will improve a lot during the years, that's not how the mainstream sees it.

 

[Lysander]

Great court drama, acert;
evidence presented, case closed

 

[Urian]

Xbox is PS2 1.5

360 is Xbox 1.5

PS3 is PS2 2.0 and equivalent to Xbox 1.5

 

[Sis]

Though some people do buy these devices knowing the quality of the games will improve a lot during the years, that's not how the mainstream sees it.

If this were true, I don't think the PS2 would have been a success. Many of its games were lackluster launch titles and as a Dreamcast fanbuddy I remember derisively suggesting that PS2 was only a slight improvement over PS1. I held this view because I only wanted to look at "evidence" that proved this point; it was self-selective.

I've said this on many threads and I'll continue to do so: the Xbox 1.5 meme was a brilliant one brought on by Sony and has stuck with gamers. But while you can take the worst looking games on the Xbox 360 and compare them to Xbox and see little to no difference, the same is certainly not true for the best looking games. Condemned, Kameo, Call of Duty 2, FN3, and even Perfect Dark occassionally, all exhibit substantially better graphics.

All Acert has done is made the Xbox 1.5 comment indefensible. It comes as little surprise that the "other side" now attempts to make it a subjective, and therefore non-debatable, argument.

 

[heavenlyglory]

Although I totally agree with Acert in comparing the 1st gen to 1st gen..I still think anyone who isn't impressed with the 360 compared to CURRENT xbox/ps2 games, seriously needs to get their eyes checked..or at least see the games in HD.

 

[Lysander]

To argue against "Xbox 1.5" which is supposed to be a public notion of today

Someone wrote this

"ok so i got to play the PC version of GRAW and the NY Comic Con today which i played on a very high end pc with an awesome graphics card.... the game ran smoothly and looked beautiful although to turn around the player was a little slow... I hope the xbox360 version looks just as beautifully and plays just as good... for the record i got owned 14-4"

The joke of the day: there were no pc version of GRAW in NY Comic Con

 

[Falkster]

There is no question in my mind that the xbox 360 isn't an xbox 1.5 in terms of a leap from the original xbox, and the OP's screenshots prove that without a doubt. Though, we cannot say that the ps3 makes the 360 look like it's half a generation behind until we actually see what the ps3 launch games look like in comparison. To say the the ps3 makes the 360 look like an xbox 1.5 now only means that you are easily manipulated by PR and hype. I hope the hype is true, but I think it's wise to be suspicious.

 

[one]

Many of its games were lackluster launch titles and as a Dreamcast fanbuddy I remember derisively suggesting that PS2 was only a slight improvement over PS1.

Mind you, the history already proved Dreamcast fanperson is not the majority

All Acert has done is made the Xbox 1.5 comment indefensible. It comes as little surprise that the "other side" now attempts to make it a subjective, and therefore non-debatable, argument.

Oh I didn't know Acert had a profound intention to make "the Xbox 1.5 comment indefensible" by showing the futileness of his own counterargument as he seems to be confident with his "proof" as in the thread title. What I actually saw instead was his liberal interpretation of the Xbox 1.5 comment which is probably not relevant to what normal people imagine by the Xbox 1.5 comment as there are few people who remember specifically how the launch titles of PS2/Xbox looked. The fact is, people don't care about software optimization and other mumbo jumbo. At least you should align the definition of the word with the one who originally said the comment. If not, it's just a self-fulfillment and non-debatable, period.

The joke of the day: there were no pc version of GRAW in NY Comic Con

I don't get what you meant by this

 

[Moonblade]

Xbox is PS2 1.5

360 is Xbox 1.5

PS3 is PS2 2.0 and equivalent to Xbox 1.5

That actually makes more sense than acert's whole article.

xbox = 4/3 PS2
x360 = 4/3 Xbox
PS3 = 2 PS2

Therefor PS3 = PS2 + PS2 = 1/2 xbox + xbox = x360

Maths really solves everything

 

[scooby_dooby]

I think it's more interesting to compare the difference between PS2 launch titles and late PS1 titles with the difference between Xbox 360 launch titles and late Xbox 1 titles.

Well personally what's MOST interesting to me, is being reminded of how horrible the GFX really were with the early ps2 and xbox launch titles, and to see how far they came over the generation. Extrapolate that for the launch games on 360, and we should really be seeing some truly amazing stuff by the end of this gen.

Acert, better late than never! Good read.

 

[one]

Well personally what's MOST interesting to me, is being reminded of how horrible the GFX really were with the early ps2 and xbox launch titles, and to see how far they came over the generation. Extrapolate that for the launch games on 360, and we should really be seeing some truly amazing stuff by the end of this gen.

Were Halo and DOA3 that horrible?

 

[weaksauce]

C'mon guys, you can't compare 5 year old games to try make it look next gen.

And I think KK said it was 1.5 because he thought it was competing against PS2 (which it failed at hahahaha)

 

[scooby_dooby]

The fact is, people don't care about software optimization and other mumbo jumbo.

Fact is WE are NOT these people. We're tech-savvy people who can compare things apples to appels without being fooled by stupid marketing hype.

I don't thionk Acert intended this as a worldwide counter strike against the xbox 1.5 comments to convince all gamers worlwide. It was meant for the B3d audience who SHOULD be able to see the relevance in comparing launch title to launch titles instead of getting ridiculously riled up.

I mean I don't even know what you're arguing about. You actually think it's xbox 1.5 or something? Or are you just arguying for the sake of arguing? ALOT of developers have said they don't think the consumer wil be able to notivce ANY difference netween hardware in the upcoming generation, so if 360 is xbox 1.5 what's that make PS3?

Can we just drop the stupid 'i'll take this side and you take that side" arguments? Jees, it's a simple comparison, that acert probably spent a couple hpours putting together, it compares apples to apples, that's it. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Were Halo and DOA3 that horrible?

</p>

Halo was an anomaly, why do you think it sold so well? No game had GFX or AI like Halo at the time. It's main competiton was Red Faction 1, you can look at some screens of that to refresh your memory. And when you do go back and look at Halo, it's really not that great

And DOA looks pretty bad in those shots, but my memory fails me. I do remember thinking it looked way worse on my screen than I'd been led to believe by reviews and screenshots, was very dissapointed with that purchase

 

[nelg]

On the topic, I see little point in comparing first gen PS1 games to first gen xbox360 games to prove that xbox360 is not "xbox1.5".
How the device is perceived now, against current PS2 and xbox games is what matters in public views.
Though some people do buy these devices knowing the quality of the games will improve a lot during the years, that's not how the mainstream sees it.

It has all the relevance in the world. The comparison is made to demonstrate the ability of the hardware not early software. That is the point of the thread and it is well done. Even Deano, in his blog, made mention of the impact time will have on games.


http://rattie.demon.co.uk/?p=43

I’ll make a prediction for how PS3 games will evolve.
1st Gen: PPU used for most things with the SPUs just doing some heavy lifting
2nd Gen: PPU still dominant but SPUs doing a lot more tasks.
3rd Gen: SPU completely dominant with PPU now more of a game coprocessor.

I expect the third generation of PS3 titles will really shine, the first engine that is really SPU centric and just treats the PPU as a coprocessor is going to kick arse. The SPUs are fast like greased lightning but just require a different paradigm thats not going to be fully incorporated for a few generations…

 

[Sis]

Mind you, the history already proved Dreamcast fanperson is not the majority

Tragically, very well aware :smile: But my intent was to suggest that the accuracy of my assessment was indeed incorrect and unfair. It was unfair to judge the PS2 graphics based on the lowest quality titles during the launch period.

Oh I didn't know Acert had a profound intention to make "the Xbox 1.5 comment indefensible" by showing the futileness of his own counterargument as he seems to be confident with his "proof" as in the thread title.

That's fair and I was probably overstating it myself a bit to make a point. The point though, relates more to this comment:

What I actually saw instead was his liberal interpretation of the Xbox 1.5 comment which is probably not relevant to what normal people imagine by the Xbox 1.5 comment as there are few people who remember specifically how the launch titles of PS2/Xbox looked. The fact is, people don't care about software optimization and other mumbo jumbo.

This thread is useful on this discussion board. I rarely visit the other gaming sites because of the rampant irrational arguments. At least with this thread we can discuss the Xbox 1.5 comment by trying to quantify it and remove it from subjective opinions. I don't expect this to carry over to other boards or to the mainstream.

From this standpoint, it seems accurate to judge console output at similar points in their lifecycle in order to achieve some type of comparison, especially with regards to generational comparisons.

 

[Moonblade]

The funny thing about this thread is, no one is arguing whether xbox360 is just an xbox1.5 or not. We all seem to agree on that. Instead, everybody is arguing whether his slideshow argument is valid or not to prove his point (imo he should compare xbox launch games) .

I fail to understand why acert made this thread, it belongs on the gamespot forum.

 

[Tap In]

If we are trying to assess the hardware then I think that is a misleading comparison (not that the results are much different in many cases). Comparing (a) the first consoles out and (b) launch software gives us a much better grasp of what developers are capable of doing with the hardware from day 1. Further limiting it to similar game shots in the same franchises made by the same people tells us a lot about how the hardware has impacted the game.

Agreed

Good post Acert

This is to demonstrate the *potential* for growth. I have read some comments on these boards that suggest that X360 is being evaluated (total potential and HW ability) by the 1st gen software.

Acert's comparison is a good indication IMO of just how little of the surface we are probably scratching. Not so much by only comparing X360 to PS2 launch but when you also take into consideration (as has been pointed out) the improvement in graphics in the PS2's lifetime.

Extrapolating that out to the X360's life cycle and we can anticipate *incredible* visuals. Same will be true for the PS3 IMO.

Anyone who has played Xbox1 and now X360 games on an HDTV already can see the visual fidelity increase. Screenshots do not even do it justice. We are in for quite a treat in future gens of software IMO.