randycat99
Veteran
PC-Engine said:
Clearly, the debunking of your facts is already underway.
Provocative comment by Id member about PS2 (and Gamecube)!
- Thread starter bbot
- Start date
Clearly, the debunking of your facts is already underway.
Let me know when you get over the fact that Xbox absolutely rapes the PS2 in raw polygon performance too 
The debunker apparently failed...try again...
For those with selective memories here are the FACTs again:
1. More polys
2. Per pixel effects like BM
3. Higher quality filtering like trilinear/Anisotropic
4. Higher resolution textures
5. Texture compression
6. Progressive Scan output + 720P support
7. HDD
8. Ethernet
9. 4 controller ports
10. D.I.C.E.
The debunker apparently failed...try again...
For those with selective memories here are the FACTs again:
1. More polys
2. Per pixel effects like BM
3. Higher quality filtering like trilinear/Anisotropic
4. Higher resolution textures
5. Texture compression
6. Progressive Scan output + 720P support
7. HDD
8. Ethernet
9. 4 controller ports
10. D.I.C.E.
Paul said:
it should be obvious why this is worthless marketing specs...what if the polygons are 16 pixels in size, or smaller? consider how many pixels a TV has (at the resolutions these games run), how many 32 pixel polygons can even fit on the screen?
much more important is how many polygons can be effectively T&Led and sent to where they need to go, not how many pixels can be drawn.
randycat99
Veteran
PC-Engine said:
Repeating yourself over and over will not make it a fact. Each of those have been addressed in myraid of topics, over and over. Each time, a clear consensus was not reached as to ultimate relevance in the end experience. Rehashing all of that here again (just because you have a "shiney-shine" list) is pointless. You believe what you believe, others believe what they believe...and THAT will be the final FACT that you need to get over.
randycat99
Veteran
Josiah said:
All polys will not be absolutely parallel to the view screen at the same time in a real 3D game situation, anyway. ...and are 8 pixel polys representative of actual games today?
I agree with you, however, that comparing marketing specs between 2 consoles can be extremely misleading (given that the peripheral conditions will rarely be normalized nor remotely indicative of actual game execution).
MonkeyLicker
Newcomer
So you're actually trying to argue that the PS2 and XBOX are equal, randycat99? :?
randycat99
Veteran
PC-Engine said:LMAO...you're correct...I need to accept the fact that some people are just plain delusional and are beyond all possible psychiatric treatments.
Is that a personal attack? [wonders if moderator lightning will strike...]
randycat99
Veteran
MonkeyLicker said:
They are not exactly equal, nor is one unequivocally superior. They are comparable, as well as "give and take" depending on the situation. The thing that a lot of people should learn here when dealing with such topics is a variation on that theme where because a person refutes an assertion of one extreme, that does not then mean that the person is suggesting the opposite extreme. He is simply saying that the original extreme assertion is unwarranted.
MonkeyLicker
Newcomer
It's all subjective, but it just seems me that the XBOX is able to paint a prettier picture than the PS2.
I know it's up to the developer, but the PS2's short comings seem to be more detrimental to the actual graphics in games than those of the XBOX.
PS2 has the advantage in things like fill rate and particle effects, but none of that really compares to the shaders and multi-texturing capabilities of the XBOX and, to a slightly lesser extent, the GC.
I am playing on an HDTV though, so I'm sure these things would be less noticeable on a regular set.
I know it's up to the developer, but the PS2's short comings seem to be more detrimental to the actual graphics in games than those of the XBOX.
PS2 has the advantage in things like fill rate and particle effects, but none of that really compares to the shaders and multi-texturing capabilities of the XBOX and, to a slightly lesser extent, the GC.
I am playing on an HDTV though, so I'm sure these things would be less noticeable on a regular set.
chaphack said:Paul,
unless you have worked on both PS2 and Xbox, i suggest you stop acting like you did. I am sure there are more things to note than just calculating raw .ppt figures.
Chap,
Tell that to PC-Engine, after all, he's the one trying to prove something.
Phil said:chaphack said:Paul,
unless you have worked on both PS2 and Xbox, i suggest you stop acting like you did. I am sure there are more things to note than just calculating raw .ppt figures.
Chap,
Tell that to PC-Engine, after all, he's the one trying to prove something.
The facts speak for themselves ie the sky is blue..there's no ifs, wells, buts about it.
You can either accept them or join the delusionist movement...it's your personal choice.
MonkeyLicker
Newcomer
Are there really any games out there for the PS2 that the XBOX would be incapable of doing?
I mean games that you're 99.9% certain it wouldn't be able to pull off.
I ask because there are games like Halo for the XBOX that the PS2 certainly wouldn't be able to handle.
I mean games that you're 99.9% certain it wouldn't be able to pull off.
I ask because there are games like Halo for the XBOX that the PS2 certainly wouldn't be able to handle.
Similar threads
