...http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/...8_screen004.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/...8_screen002.jpg

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The second one seems a lot worse, to me.

Oddly enough I believe the second one is the XBox verison.

I remember this thread from way way back. So, what the hell?

Someone cast Topic Ressurection apparently.

That's the problem when munchkins are let loose in the virtual world; no realistic magic restrictions and poor targeting.

Someone cast Topic Ressurection apparently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was so confused because I didn't look at the date of this thread. Oh man. Thought I had been imagining things

Hrm, announced as a multiplatform title, released on multiple platforms at the exact same time, and sells the most copies on the PS2.  Surely that is an XBox title.

 

Discussing this topic with you is like banging your head against a wall. You're too ignorant on the subject to see the fact that the Xbox/PC versions of Splinter Cell are vastly superior to the PS2/GC versions, because they are based off of different platforms. The lighting is not the same, the bumb mapping is not the same, the GRAPHICS are not the same.

 

bye

And the FMV are not the same ... oops, I forgot that Xbox version is Splinter Cell did not even had FMV.

I have to say that I find a significant difference in most titles between x-box and playstation 2. Even something as simple as Tiger Woods PGA Tour 200x is crisper and cleaner than the PS2. If you dislike the x-box, I suppose it's in your interest to trivialize those areas in which the x-box clearly surpasses the PS2. Are you then going to inflate the areas in which the PS3 might surpass the x-box 360?

 

I have no vested interest in these consoles as a gaming platform. I have no loyalty to x-box. I'm just as likely going to buy a PS3 rather than an x-box 360 because the hardware is more powerful. I'll mostly use it as my stereo at any rate, but putting all of my albums on it, so I'm probably not the best judge. At any rate, Jade Empire looks infinitely more beautiful on the x-box than the PS2.

I have no vested interest in these consoles as a gaming platform.  I have no loyalty to x-box.  I'm just as likely going to buy a PS3 rather than an x-box 360 because the hardware is more powerful.  I'll mostly use it as my stereo at any rate, but putting all of my albums on it, so I'm probably not the best judge.  At any rate, Jade Empire looks infinitely more beautiful on the x-box than the PS2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The PS3 does not have more powerful hardware.

The PS3, currently, cannot store music like you're wanting.

Jade Empire is not on the PS2.

 

If you're wanting to use one as a media center, I'd recommend just buying an iPOD kind of device, otherwise, the X360 will provide you with most of your multi-media needs for all your music.

The PS3 does not have more powerful hardware.

Liar, Liar, pants on fire.

 

And Sony's official specs list list a 20 gig HDD, so it is entirely possible it can store music.

The PS3 does not have more powerful hardware.

Liar, Liar, pants on fire.

 

Says the guy that's yet to prove otherwise. In gaming performance, Cell is less than Xenon, and the RSX is less than Xenos.

 

And Sony's official specs list list a 20 gig HDD, so it is entirely possible it can store music.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Their specs also listed the PS3 as some kind of network hub, but that was recently scrapped in favor of "lower cost".

As far as hardware goes, PS3 will be slightly more powerful than the 360 but hardware alone shouldn't be the deciding factor in which console you buy.

As far as hardware goes, PS3 will be slightly more powerful than the 360

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Depends on your knowledge of how Cell works within a game environment.

Independent, objective parties have declared the PS3 as being twice as powerful as the 360. Epiphany, you have been outright proven as a liar, and declared as such be several forum posters. Honestly, why do you keep coming around here?

You have to look at titles that take advantage of hardware.  Burnout is a prime example of a title built for the PS2, then ported to the Xbox.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, but you are wrong again. I actually went to the press showing of Burnout 3: Takedown and talked to one of the developers of the game, and he insisted that it wasn't coded specifically for any one machine. They used this third party developer kit called Renderware (that EA bought a few years ago), that's supposed to make it possible to create one game for several platforms using just one code. Burnout 3 was not a PS2 title that was ported to the other systems, of that I am certain.

Independent, objective parties have declared the PS3 as being twice as powerful as the 360.  Epiphany, you have been outright proven as a liar, and declared as such be several forum posters.  Honestly, why do you keep coming around here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No reputable, independant, objective party has declared the PS3 as being twice as powerful as the 360. As, no "independant object party" has had a chance to do anything but inspect the PR statements. But please Ender, spare me your nonsense and hypocritical attitude, and just continue to "ignore" me, as you once claimed you were going to do. I keep coming back, because I am right, and it's better to be a voice of reason, than to just sit back and watch people make false claims.

 

You've YET to prove anything relating to the PS3 being a better gaming machine. I'm not about go dive into the entire logic vs FPU performance aspect, because it simply flies over your head, and you spew the same two lines of "Blu Ray!" and "Higher resolution!"-(which is inaccurate).

 

I look forward to when the PS3 launches, and you get a serious dose of reality, and I've bookmarked both of our "confrontations" on the subject, and will be the first to link them directly back to you, so that you can see where you failed in the debate.

 

Have a good evening.

 

I'm sorry, but you are wrong again. I actually went to the press showing of Burnout 3: Takedown and talked to one of the developers of the game, and he insisted that it wasn't coded specifically for any one machine. They used this third party developer kit called Renderware (that EA bought a few years ago), that's supposed to make it possible to create one game for several platforms using just one code. Burnout 3 was not a PS2 title that was ported to the other systems, of that I am certain.

 

Renderware is a "lowest common denominator" Middleware kit for this generation. This is a pretty much something everyone knows, including game reviewers that continually bring up the fact that EA games on Xbox/GC are PS2 ports. If I remember correctly, EA is already touting about how they've got the next installment of Renderware working on next gen systems, which means more of same "belt mill" mentality for EA products. Crank'em out 3-4 a year, and use next gen as an excuse for the inflated price tag.

 

edit: Renderware is a LCD Middleware kit in the hands of EA - because of their strange policies about not taking advantage of more advanced hardware.

Renderware is a "lowest common denominator" Middleware kit for this generation.  This is a pretty much something everyone knows, including game reviewers that continually bring up the fact that EA games on Xbox/GC are PS2 ports.

Ok, if you say so. But could you back up that statement with a source, since it's not at all what I have heard (and I have talked to a lot of different EA people about Renderware)?

I don't get this idea. As I've said, I've played Tiger Woods PGA tour 2005 (an EA title, I might add) on both the xbox and the ps2, the xbox looks much better. The anti-aliasing alone is noticable at a glance. In fact, I thought the PS2 was an xbox until I saw the screen. ...And the display TV at Best Buy was certainly newer than my TV at home.

 

I don't have a vested interest. I'm not rooting for xbox to be good and PS2 to be bad. I can honestly see a difference and it causes me to question someone when he says that the graphics on the xbox aren't any better.

 

I've heard that the PS3 has better stats than the xbox 360. I suppose the issue will be more or less resolved when both systems can be compared. Virtually everyone seems to have a stake in the discussion at this point, which makes it very difficult to know the truth.

Ok, if you say so. But could you back up that statement with a source, since it's not at all what I have heard (and I have talked to a lot of different EA people about Renderware)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

See my edit that I didn't get in before you started responding.

 

Just look at EA and all their cross platform efforts. They're always nearly identical, because they design for the lowest spec hardware, and simply port everything over. Hell, they don't even take advantage of custom soundtracks on the Xbox, and they BUTCHERED 480p output on the Xbox version of NCAA 2005 last year, because the PS2 version doesn't support it. Yet, when you look at a football game like ESPN 2k5, which was built with the Xbox in mind first, they were able to achieve 480p on the Xbox with ease, has better visuals than Madden did, and had, in general, a graphically superior product.

 

I've heard that the PS3 has better stats than the xbox 360.  I suppose the issue will be more or less resolved when both systems can be compared.  Virtually everyone seems to have a stake in the discussion at this point, which makes it very difficult to know the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You've basically been hearing people tout the theoretical FLOP performance of the PS3 over the X360. Just keep in mind that the PS2 has a better theoretical FLOP performance than the Xbox does, and you can see where the graphically superior games ended up this generation.

I can honestly see a difference and it causes me to question someone when he says that the graphics on the xbox aren't any better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Xbox HAS stronger hardware than the PS2. The Xbox SHOULD produce better graphics than the PS2. The big question is why it doesn't manage to do that consistently.

 

The PS3 will probably be somewhat stronger than the Xbox 360, but as we've seen in this generation of console wars, that doesn't seem to mean much for the end user. Unless you're someone who thinks the difference in graphics between the PS2 and the Xbox version of a golf simulator is vital for your gameplay.

The Xbox HAS stronger hardware than the PS2. The Xbox SHOULD produce better graphics than the PS2. The big question is why it doesn't manage to do that consistently.

 

When games are specifically coded for the PS2, and then ported over to the Xbox, it makes it hard to tap the power of the console.

You've basically been hearing people tout the theoretical FLOP performance of the PS3 over the X360.  Just keep in mind that the PS2 has a better theoretical FLOP performance than the Xbox does, and you can see where the graphically superior games ended up this generation.

You might also want to keep in mind that the Xbox has twice the CPU the PS2 has and twice the RAM.. Yet the PS2 isn't exactly blown out of the water, as the sales of the consoles clearly shows. Maybe FLOPS aren't that useless after all?

 

Also, the Xbox debuted about a year after the PS2. The PS3 will debut about a year after the Xbox 360. Imagine that for a second..

You might also want to keep in mind that the Xbox has twice the CPU the PS2 has and twice the RAM.. Yet the PS2 isn't exactly blown out of the water, as the sales of the consoles clearly shows. Maybe FLOPS aren't that useless after all?

 

Graphically, the Xbox has trounced the PS2. The CPU in the Xbox versus the Emotion Engine in the PS2 is pretty much the same style of match up as Xenon and Cell will have. One will have higher theoretical FLOP performance, and the other will actually run games more efficiently.

 

Sales is a different issue that has no direct relation to the power of a console, rather the abundance of software offered. EA online exclusivity for a time (PS2 was the only place to play Madden online for 1 or 2 years). GTA exclusivity for the first 3 years of the consoles life. Square-Enix exclusivity for the first few years, until the Gamecube got a joke of a Final Fantasy game.

 

Also, the Xbox debuted about a year after the PS2. The PS3 will debut about a year after the Xbox 360. Imagine that for a second..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The PS3 is due out 5-6 months after the X360. The consoles are almost on the same development path, as developers just got BETA kits for the X360, and developers are supposedly getting PS3 BETA kits very soon.

The CPU in the Xbox versus the Emotion Engine in the PS2 is pretty much the same style of match up as Xenon and Cell will have.  One will have higher theoretical FLOP performance, and the other will actually run games more efficiently.

Uh.. So you're saying a 294 MHz CPU, 32 Mb RAM system compared to a 733 MHz CPU, 64 Mb RAM system is the same as comparing a 3 core 3.2 GHz CPU, 512 MB shared RAM system to an 8 core 3.2 GHz CPU, 256 MB dedicated RAM system?

 

Are you out of your mind? This time around the processors will be equal in MHz and the amount of RAM will be much closer than the last time (depending on the game, since you never know how much RAM will be used by the GPU in the Xbox 360).

 

It is NOT the same match up.