Provocative comment by Id member about PS2 (and Gamecube)!

[Jov]

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.

This might be an old argument, but I don't think we had a conclusive answer to games like MGS2 (effects), J&D (streaming), ZoE2 (effects) and the likes be done without cutbacks on the XBox since these games *supposely* plays to the PS2's strengths.

Granted, there isn't really any games on the PS2 currently can match the XBox on overall IQ+Texture (I am looking at it as one, so don't start another argument), but it does come close given its so called limitations.

Where as in contrast, I've not seen a game on the XBox that really match the particle effects and happenings compared to something like MGS2 and ZoE2 on the PS2. I must admit I've not played as many games on the XBox compared to the PS2 (have all 3), but this to me does indicate each have their strengths and weaknesses.

Jov

 

[PC-Engine]

Let's just say we give the win to PS2 with regards to particle effects...it's still only ONE effect. What about all the other effects that the PS2 can't do that the Xbox can? BTW I don't think the Xbox has any problems with streaming as that is dependent on the developer not the hardware. GCN can do streaming too as said by F5.

Overall Xbox is still the superior hardware.

 

[rabidrabbit]

I just saw some new footage of Jak II for PS2.

It looked absolutely amazing. It was on some flying ship, where Jak had to jump from platfom to platform without fallin a long way down to ground.
The whole wordl of Jak II could be seen below, with buildings, lights trees etc... it was like in Jak & Daxter where you could stand on top of the tall tower and look around and see most of the world.

The IQ and textures looked good, certainly matching anything xbox has to offer. The textures could be lower res than what is usually used on xbox games, but the polygon detail more than compensated. The detail on the ship itself was great, there were all sorts of pipes, wires and ridges that were polygon modelled, whereas some other games might just do those details with textures or bumpmapping.

Jak II is certainly my most wanted game currently (with GT4 delayed)

I wish they'd do a fps game with Jak engine, or a Doom3/Silent Hill/RE type survival horror. It (at least in games that currently use the engine) might not be capable of the same level of shadowing and lighting as Doom3, but the extra detail and fluid framerate would surely be appreciated in an fps.

Still, not to start a flame, but it would be interesting to know if xbox would be capable to run JakII (or the new Ratchet and Clank) without compromises. This question seems to be always dodged, and instead turned into 'PS2 has blurry textures and cr*ppy IQ' .

 

[Phil]

Let's just say we give the win to PS2 with regards to particle effects...it's still only ONE effect. What about all the other effects that the PS2 can't do that the Xbox can? BTW I don't think the Xbox has any problems with streaming as that is dependent on the developer not the hardware. GCN can do streaming too as said by F5.

Overall Xbox is still the superior hardware.

I'd add geometry to that too. Still, how do you quantify which console is superiour given they both have things the other one lacks? They both have their advantages, so I'd say it's certainly very subjective. Not many prefer the clean look and emphasis of high res textures over particle/geometry driven games.

 

[Phil]

rabidrabbit:

Yeah, I played Jak II the other day at a store here in Zurich where they have the game (demo) on showing. It's quite outstanding what Naughty Dog achieved - the image quality is amazingly good and I'd agree by it being on equal grounds with Xbox games. Certainly my most wanted game - though not because of the graphics, but because of the gameplay which I am very much looking forward to.

I wish they'd do a fps game with Jak engine, or a Doom3/Silent Hill/RE type survival horror. It (at least in games that currently use the engine) might not be capable of the same level of shadowing and lighting as Doom3, but the extra detail and fluid framerate would surely be appreciated in an fps.

Heh, I wouldn't actually. To me, that's like saying Miyamoto should make a HALO beater. I would love to see them share their technologie with some other devs suited better for that genre though - looking at KillZone, I think we may have a game with very similar technology behind it.

 

[rabidrabbit]

It's also true, that often games that have more polygons, also have more edges that shimmer.

For example, a character with moderately low polycount, but high-res AA'd (possibly BM'd) textures looks cleaner on a screen than a character with high polycount, and most of the detail modelled. Especially if there are polygons with high contrast differences, there is often some aliasing and shimmering on the character details, esp when viewed from a distance where the low tv resolution comes into play (and if the LOD is not perfect).

But the high-poly character looks more interesting than the high-texture character.
The same applies with the game world, levels etc...

Of Doom3 on xbox. I think in screenshots the game will look quite comparable to PC version (recommended setup). There really is not much xbox couldn't cope with. Maybe the framerate will be lower, about 30 fps with a litle choppier animation.

PS2 though, I don't think it could perform comparably. At leas if the same engine and same design principles were used (i.e low poly models with high res textures and bumpmapping).

But I think quite a similar looking game could be done if coded for the PS2 strenghts from the beginning.

The models would have a lilttle less detail, because much of it would have to be polygonized. The shadows and lighting could perhaps be reproduced quite comparably.
Doom3 on PS2 would look different, not necessarily worse. A little less 'dynamic' and 'clean' than the screenshots maybe.

 

[chaphack]

Particles or whacha call framebuffer stuffs, i would say PS2 is certainly comparable and what not. But geometry...eh looking at RSC2 and comparing with PS2 hottest racer....nope. Not to mention ERP racer is doing 30mpps. Actually oldies like RSC1 and PGR1 are already doing more geometry imxp.

Dont be forgetting that many ports get upgraded(which includes geometry) when they are Xboxed lol!

Maybe those simply textured gourad polygons or whatcha call them that Ps2 can throw more around. But whats the point when they are simply ugly to begin with.

What say the console developers community of B3D?

 

[chaphack]

The funny thing though, why are people still hanging to the comparable whatever parable. :?

 

[rabidrabbit]

Particles or whacha call framebuffer stuffs, i would say PS2 is certainly comparable and what not. But geometry...eh looking at RSC2 and comparing with PS2 hottest racer....nope. Not to mention ERP racer is doing 30mpps. Actually oldies like RSC1 and PGR1 are already doing more geometry imxp.
...

Do not forget that PS2 hottest racer (I assume you mean the Gran Turismo games) does have quite a bit more advanced physics engine than RSC's or PGR's. That does not come free either, you know.
And in my opinion, GT4 is looking better, and more real, than the shiny-shine RSC2 and PGR2.
And I'm not so sure about those xbox racers pushing more geometry, the cars do appear to have smoother, rounder lines on larger surfaces, but at the same time they seem like much of the finer detail (facets, chamfers, roundenings etc.) has been 'rounded off'.
It could be that GT4 is just using clever tricks with coloring and lighting, to make the cars look more detailed than they actually are.

For example, the reflections on car paint surfaces and windows appear less mirror like in GT4, as if the cars really are painted with real paint on an slightly uneven sheet of metal. In RSC(2) the reflection looks like coloured mirror surface.

Edit: <- Chap, this is the 'Mr Edit' function, you can find it too.
I like Mr Edit, it is fun to use, and he's friendly to other's too. I've used Mr Edit already three times in this post. It's fun fun fun!
Try it.
With it you can 'edit' your previous post, and add if there was something you forgot to type. So there is no need to add unnecessary 'noise' by making a new post with little (or nothing) of interest to say.
Editing is not restricted just for correcting typing errors and such.
But there is also a word of warning to chap-boy. In wrong hands Mr Edit can be terribly abused. On should never use it to alter and twist the original meaning of the post. It is best used for corrections, and adding things that you think would not necessarily carry the conversation forward.

I'm no mod, but just thought you should know...

 

[Phil]

before this ends up becoming a game x on system y is better than game u on v argument, let me say that I was talking strictly of theoretical peak situations, since anything beyond that is pretty pointless to compare, since we have no idea how much given developer is pushing the hardware and therefore doing it justice.

In that essence, I find it pretty pointless that someone tries to argue that x console is superiour is most areas when in reality, they're so different by nature. So again, I ask - how does one quantify which console is actually more capable than the other?

If the issue is textures or particles, it shouldn't be hard to declare which console is best suited for the task - though that still doesn't quite give a clear answer by any means.

 

[_phil_]

please , lock that stupid thread..

is every thread condemned to fall in a pathetic fan competion to collect points around the asss of a niche/autist perception of virtual entertainement ?.... blehh...

 

[cthellis42]

<stands up and looks around>

Uh... maybe?

 

[Nick Laslett]

Some people should just accept the FACT that Xbox IS superior to PS2 in MOST ways. GET OVER IT!!!

Y'know it's sad. I'm one of those people that just can't believe it. I've read the spec list, played the games and I just can't see an appreciable difference between the consoles in this generation. Not in a way that is demonstrated by the best games on each system. They all take my breath away in that respect. With the Saturn, PSOne and N64 it was obvious, but it is not the same with this generation.

What is the Xbox title that blows all the competition out of the water? Because I ain't seen it yet. Not Halo (20-25 Fps in PAL land). Not DOA3, Tekken 4 and Soul Calibur 2 are just as accomplished. Not Panzer Dragon, restricted on-the-rails shooter. The Rally Game, don't make me laugh. Splinter Cell's lighting effects! (If only the enemy had some AI, shame they used all the processing budget on the eye candy.) Project Gotham Racer?

Where are the amazing Xbox games that crush the PS2 catelogue and make every one submit to the superior power of Xbox?

 

[London Geezer]

do we really have to do this all the time???

xbox's hardware SHOULD be flipping superior, considering the time passed between the 2 consoles were released.

the amount of RAM and texture compression on Xbox helps it A LOT to achieve a cleaner looking game (higher res textures). the fact that it can do bump mapping fairly easily also helps A LOT.

still, many people simply think that all comes down to "storage capabilities". Xbox can do better textures simply because it has MORE RAM. put that together with bump mapping and there u go, "PS2 games + HIGHER RES TEX + BUMP MAPPING".

a bit like Bleemcast....

the same people also think that, although Xbox can store more textures, the PS2 is "faster". they justify that after seeing ZOE2 in action, or J&D2. PS2 pushes A LOT of polygons and particles considering when it came out. the only reason why it doesnt have hi-res textures is because it doesnt have enough RAM, there is no texture compression (which can be debated really, as FAF would agree), and getting pixel effects out of it is useless.

all those people look at games and they see the xbox with its <30fps first-person shooters, granted, with beautiful hi-res textures and bump mapping... they they see the ps2, with its more-often-than-not "sharp-jaggy" output, low res textures. but they also look at what is happening on the screen. and the mess thrown around by ZOE2, or the beautiful worlds of J&D2, with all those polygons flying around like nothing, and they think the sheer power of the console is greater than the xbox.

the xbox's hardware IS superior, still some games on ps2 REALLY do fool the eye to make someone believe it is "faster" than the competition. muddy textures or not.

 

[chaphack]

:shrugs: whatever. i give up. think what you will. PS2 hardware (almost)= Xbox hardware, comparable as ever, okay?
Hmmm, havent seen Lazy8 posting around lately.

 

[Phil]

:shrugs: whatever. i give up. think what you will. PS2 hardware (almost)= Xbox hardware, comparable as ever, okay?
Hmmm, havent seen Lazy8 posting around lately.

No chap, you still got it wrong:

PS2 hardware != Xbox hardware.

 

[London Geezer]

please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please can we avoid this thread being locked?!?!?!?
pleeeeeeeeease...

come on, havent u guys had enough of "my dick is bigger than yours" threads? jesus christ... after like, 3 years u'd think some poeple get over it....

 

[chaphack]

I really miss Lazy8.

 

[London Geezer]

I really miss Lazy8.

yeah... we really need to turn this thread from a PS2 VS Xbox to a PS2 VS Xbox AND Dreamcast thread...
come on chap, play nice. gosh, even your signature is trolling...

 

[chaphack]

it not trolling, its my way of an apology. i believe what you guys said. i have seen wrong.

oh i dont want to turn this into another PS2 XB DC fragfest, its just that i missed Lazy8 Sega spiritual strength. A great enlightenment to all. REally.