X-Box vs PS2
John Miller
"Gareth Davies" <hotma...@dgareth.removeandreverse> wrote in message
news:b09r3c$p56$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Don't worry - I don't intend to recite the usual shite.
Except you do :)
> I am however very impressed with the X-Box and anyone who doesn't already
> own one will be as well: Microsoft is giving away 2 of the best 3 games
for
> free - JSRF being one of the best.
>
> Anyway, the X-Box clearly has more pixel pushing power than the PS2 with
> current programming practices. But this only serves to underline the basic
> point: it's the games that count. I didn't really appreciate this until I
> owned an X-Box.
But not enough to make it obvious and then only a tiny fraction of a £350
PC.
> The 2 systems - X-Box and PS2 - actually compliment each other perfectly:
>
> The PS2 probably has better DVD playback - but only if you're anal fixated
> (like me). I can see less artefacts when using PS2 DVD playback than when
> using the X-Box. I was quite surprised by this because artefacts are
> actually very obvious on X-Box DVD playback.
The DVD playback on the xbox is SHITE, no hardware support for
pre-processing is the reason.
> The PS2 arguably seems to have a better general library of continuously
> above average games despite the X-Box genius titles - Halo and JSRF. But
if
> you love games then the X-Box is a must have because Halo is complete and
> total genius. Still, Halo is crafted genius unlike anything seen since
Mario
> 64. It's worth owning an X-Box for this title alone - it really is that
> good.
Halo is shite, extremely repetitive and horrible to control, stick to a PC
if you want the best FPS.
> Then again the Gamecube has some pretty impressive software as well. Maybe
> it's best, after all, to stick with just one system.
Where ???
John Miller
"Zomoniac" <zomo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b0c9t6$nillu$1...@ID-146033.news.dfncis.de...
> But then comes the absolutely essential, and completely unanswerable
> question: qhat makes a good game? I think that The Getaway has flaws, but
is
> a pure masterpiece, sheer genius, and far better than the tedium that is
> Vice City. I also believe Halo, for all it's good ideas, is mindnumbingly
> slow, very repetitive, and most importantly, no fun to play. Hating the
two
> 'best games' of last year doesn't make me wrong. I am fortunate enough to
> have all three systems, and, certainly for the single player, The Getaway
is
> the best game I've played on any of them, even more so than GT3, PGR, Resi
> and Jak And Daxter. I think it really depends on your priorities. If you
can
> do, then I'd advise anyone who can stretch their budget to own all three.
if
> you want the biggest choice of games, with great titles in all genres, go
> PS2. If you want the best looking games, plus fantastic online play, go
> XBox. If you are budget minded, but still want astonishing graphics, a
> diverse selection of games, and the most fun imaginable in SMB, then go
> Cube. So there.
The Getaway could have been the NEXT GREAT THING, ultimately it has too many
flaws at the end of the day. When people criticise it, I've said it was
crap before, it's only in that context of what it could of been, obviously
it's still hundreds of time better than any xbox shite. If you want the
best online play, NOTHING gets better than a personal computer and
counterstrike, Battlefield and RTCW and hundreds more that no console can
match atm. Things may change when Sony officially release the ethernet
adapter and for the first time in history a mainstream console can go online
stannyboi
ahead) I have all 3 consoles as well and no particular favourite, they all
have good games etc..You do not buy a games machine for it's dvd playback
you buy it primarily for the games so stop wittling on about digital
artefacts and go and get some gaming done,on whatever console you choose.
cheers
stan.
Michael Cargill
many
> flaws at the end of the day.
Yes! THE NEXT GREAT THING!
Er... if you dont count the likes of GTA and Crazy Taxi, of course.
> When people criticise it, I've said it was
> crap before, it's only in that context of what it could of been, obviously
> it's still hundreds of time better than any xbox shite.
w00t! Weeee, a knob-head troll, who would have thought?
People say that The Getaway is a bit pants, because it is poorly done.
> If you want the
> best online play, NOTHING gets better than a personal computer and
> counterstrike, Battlefield and RTCW and hundreds more that no console can
> match atm.
Incorrect. What if people dont want to play those games online?
Can you sit in your living room in front of a large TV to play the PC
online? Nope.
I think some PC online gaming is great, but to say that it is unbeatable is
stupid.
> Things may change when Sony officially release the ethernet
> adapter and for the first time in history a mainstream console can go
online
Erm, right. So online play will allways better on a PC, but only until the
PS2 goes online?
Doesnt make alot of sense really...
--
Lovingly Created by Michael Cargill
--------------------------------------
'Don't Be a Poof - Eat White Bread!'
'You're Gonna Need a Bigger Boat' - Sheriff Brody, Jaws
My arse is capable of anything from mass amusement, to a whole office
floor of workers being wiped out in a matter of minutes.
Michael Cargill
> PC.
Erm, the Xbox can do plenty more than the PS2, and it is immediately
obvious - so long as you arent blind.
> The DVD playback on the xbox is SHITE, no hardware support for
> pre-processing is the reason.
Well, I have heard different reports from different people regarding this.
But both systems are games consoles, so DVD playback isnt much of an issue.
> Halo is shite, extremely repetitive and horrible to control, stick to a PC
> if you want the best FPS.
I suggest you try playing it for more than five minutes.
> Where ???
Super Monkey Ball, Eternal Darkness, Rogue Squadron, Waverace, Zelda, PSO to
name a few.
Covert Badger
<starl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> you want the biggest choice of games, with great titles in all genres, go
>> PS2. If you want the best looking games, plus fantastic online play, go
>> XBox. If you are budget minded, but still want astonishing graphics, a
>> diverse selection of games, and the most fun imaginable in SMB, then go
>> Cube. So there.
>
>The Getaway could have been the NEXT GREAT THING, ultimately it has too many
>flaws at the end of the day. When people criticise it, I've said it was
>crap before, it's only in that context of what it could of been,
No, from what I've played of The Getaway it's just plain bad, it has
nothing to do with what 'could have been'. Beyond the terrible camera
and laughable lock-on system for weapons, it has the dullest central
character in recent videogame history and dialogue that makes Resident
Evil sound like Shakespeare.
> obviously it's still hundreds of time better than any xbox shite.
Maybe, but it's nowhere near as good as any of the Xbox's mediocre
software, and is utterly trounced by any of the Xbox's *good*
software. But then that isn't what you were trying to suggest, is it?
> If you want the
>best online play, NOTHING gets better than a personal computer and
>counterstrike, Battlefield and RTCW and hundreds more that no console can
>match atm.
In *your* opinion, you mean. Blanket statements just make you look
like an idiot. Personally, I can't stand the stupid elitist attitude
of most online PC communities, and the overwhelming flood of FPS and
strategy games. 16-player online MotoGP, in *my* opinion, is a better
online experience than Battlefield 1942 and RTCW combined (I confess
to liking Counterstrike though, on the rare occasions I can find a
group of people civil enough to join).
--
covertbadger@blueOOPS_LOOK_OUT_ITS_A_TRAPyonder.co.uk
Gamer Tag: Covert Badger
Her brother calls me 'blowjob', when I call her on the phone
He says "Hey fuckwad, are you whacking it?" "No, but is your sister home?"
Shoot
threads what is better bla bla bla and spamming up the newsgroups. In the
end everyone could agree on one fact. If it were not for some good
competition we would all be still paying a kings ransom for a upgrade and
the technology would have stunk like the monopoly of beurocratic Microsoft
greedy crud dominating pc os world wide. ( yea Linux is there but it is
still a joke to M$)
Yep ... PS2 and Xbox as well as odd little cuby thing for children make
console's almost grow to half the quality of a PC for gaming. One proof is
the attempts to create their own little monopoly of particular titles and
not pushing console's as a new technology with it's own strengths.
One of these days we will put on a VR suites and grab a light guns to jump
into an online shooter experience that will make PC gamer's in awe. Till
then quality gaming are a PC dominion by virtue of good competition early
between Intel and amd. The mere fact that console try to create monopoly of
particular games titles are only a symptom of their inadequacies and
insecurity in their products. The good news is that there is a healthy
competition to achieve quality and push technology.
Thus the X-Box vs PS2 threads now that are just like early AMD vs Intel many
moons ago.
The strengths of the console may someday knock our sox off only if PS2, Xbox
and game cuby thingy leap frog over their competition a few hundred times.
Till then the debate is a joke compared to PC gaming experience.
"John Miller" <starl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BOpW9.1242$Bi5.10...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Bacchus
coming as well. I will then love them all.
And yes, I buy for the games, not for the DVD playback.. I have a DVD
player for that.
"stannyboi" <philip.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BWtW9.280$A56....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
MDMA boy
"Shoot" <nos...@myhouse.plz> wrote in message
news:v2lkbla...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> One of these days we will put on a VR suites and grab a light guns to jump
> into an online shooter experience
Unless the liberals get their way in banning light-guns, light-gun games,
and in fact all toy guns. The banning-toy-&-light-gun bill is pending is NY
due to supposedly too many people pulling off robberies with toy guns & NES
Zappers painted black.
Oh, and to the whiners who cry about OT posts: it's about light gun games so
chill out & fuck off.
MDMA Boy
"it ain't Chinese, it ain't Vietnamese-
it's straight-up Nigga Please!"
-Cedric the Entertainer
DiskReadError
> Erm, the Xbox can do plenty more than the PS2, and it is immediately
> obvious
ROFL.. uhh
you are a dumb person
Michael Cargill
>
> you are a dumb person
No, I am someone who isnt blind.
There is no way the PS2 could have done Halo, and even looking at the likes
of Turok the difference in power is obvious.
The best looking PS2 games arent as nice as the best looking Xbox games. I
can spot a PS2 game a mile off.
AJC
news:b0gjav$p07gt$1...@ID-108275.news.dfncis.de...
>
> The best looking PS2 games arent as nice as the best looking Xbox games.
I agree to this post!
Mike Kay
> > ROFL.. uhh
> >
> > you are a dumb person
>
> No, I am someone who isnt blind.
> There is no way the PS2 could have done Halo, and even looking at the likes
> of Turok the difference in power is obvious.
> The best looking PS2 games arent as nice as the best looking Xbox games. I
> can spot a PS2 game a mile off.
I agree almost 100%
However there are 1 or 2 exceptions, Burnout 2, GT3 & The Getaway imo all
would look fine on an xbox shelf.
however like you say generally the ps2 is looking a little old in the
tooth
Michael Cargill
>
> However there are 1 or 2 exceptions, Burnout 2, GT3 & The Getaway imo all
> would look fine on an xbox shelf.
The Getaway?!? Are you sure?!? That looks pretty awful if you ask me, and
I wouldnt consider the graphics any good even for a PS2 game.
GT3, I reckon MotoGP or Rallisport looks better. MotoGP also has 22 racers
with some decent AI. I havent seen Burnout 2 yet.
Mike Kay
> > I agree almost 100%
> >
> > However there are 1 or 2 exceptions, Burnout 2, GT3 & The Getaway imo all
> > would look fine on an xbox shelf.
>
> The Getaway?!? Are you sure?!? That looks pretty awful if you ask me, and
> I wouldnt consider the graphics any good even for a PS2 game.
> GT3, I reckon MotoGP or Rallisport looks better. MotoGP also has 22 racers
> with some decent AI. I havent seen Burnout 2 yet.
------------
i thought Getaway looked amazing, much better than GTA3 graphically (not
played Vice city much as i dont have my ps2 back from repair yet)
Burnout 2 is a real treat if you like out & out racers.
its like the 1st one but better in every respect, & I think it looks
outstanding esp when you consider its on the ps2.
i mailed asking criterion if they were going to improve it for xbox or
just port it & they
said that they were not in a position to answer that yet but to keep
checkig out their web page.
Julie Brandon
>> I agree almost 100%
>>
>> However there are 1 or 2 exceptions, Burnout 2, GT3 & The Getaway imo all
>> would look fine on an xbox shelf.
>
>The Getaway?!? Are you sure?!? That looks pretty awful if you ask me, and
>I wouldnt consider the graphics any good even for a PS2 game.
Eh?
It had the most advanced graphics I've seen on a PS2 so far (bar perhaps
Ico?) Half decent textures (without too much repeating), on-demand loading
of the higher res textures, buildings made up from lots of polys rather than
just textures, etc.
Were you playing a real copy on a known good PS2? With the level of
on-demand higher res texture loading, just wondering if something meant you
only got to see the very very low res textures?
Ta-ra,
--
Julie Brandon (Gamertag: Dewelie) http://www.computergeeks.co.uk/
_____________________________________________________________________________
Lots of videogames I've finished, available to buy or swap: XBox, GameCube,
Playstation 2, Dreamcast and N64. UK PAL originals only. E-mail me for list
Mike Kay
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:47:29 -0000, Michael Cargill (mikeme...@hotmail.com) said:
> >> I agree almost 100%
> >>
> >> However there are 1 or 2 exceptions, Burnout 2, GT3 & The Getaway imo all
> >> would look fine on an xbox shelf.
> >
> >The Getaway?!? Are you sure?!? That looks pretty awful if you ask me, and
> >I wouldnt consider the graphics any good even for a PS2 game.
>
> Eh?
>
> It had the most advanced graphics I've seen on a PS2 so far (bar perhaps
> Ico?) Half decent textures (without too much repeating), on-demand loading
> of the higher res textures, buildings made up from lots of polys rather than
> just textures, etc.
>
> Were you playing a real copy on a known good PS2? With the level of
> on-demand higher res texture loading, just wondering if something meant you
> only got to see the very very low res textures?
>
> Ta-ra,
+ the full game is a lot better than the cover disk demo. i was far more
impressed with the released game.
Michael Cargill
>
> It had the most advanced graphics I've seen on a PS2 so far (bar perhaps
> Ico?) Half decent textures (without too much repeating), on-demand loading
> of the higher res textures, buildings made up from lots of polys rather
than
> just textures, etc.
>
> Were you playing a real copy on a known good PS2? With the level of
> on-demand higher res texture loading, just wondering if something meant
you
> only got to see the very very low res textures?
Its a proper, legit copy on my brothers PS2. I honestly dont think it looks
very nice at all.
BC
<mikeme...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ROFL.. uhh
>>
>> you are a dumb person
>
>No, I am someone who isnt blind.
>There is no way the PS2 could have done Halo, and even looking at the likes
>of Turok the difference in power is obvious.
>The best looking PS2 games arent as nice as the best looking Xbox games. I
>can spot a PS2 game a mile off.
christ not this xbox vs PS2 argument again.
I don't know what the hell you brought your console for, but I got mine to
PLAY GAMES. PS2's graphics are good enough for me, and it probably have
the best games (and the most) out of the three current generation of
consoles, so voila - I have a PS2... and I prefer a PS2 - but that
doesn't mean a PS2's better than a xbox or vice versa.
I don't give a rats ass about Halo (get over it for christ sake - it's
been over a year... and no I'm not interested in Splinter Cell!) The
xbox's been out for a while now and with supposingly hundreds of titles
out, there are only two games out for it that I'm interested in (Project
Gotham and Unreal Championship)... I don't care if the xbox's more
powerful than a PS2, or if some of its games have better graphics - with
its small number of must-play titles it certainly doesn't rate too well as
a gaming console in my book.
<=[BC]=>
(PS. SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT HALO! Enough already.)
Michael Cargill
>
> I don't know what the hell you brought your console for, but I got mine to
> PLAY GAMES. PS2's graphics are good enough for me, and it probably have
> the best games (and the most) out of the three current generation of
> consoles, so voila - I have a PS2... and I prefer a PS2 - but that
> doesn't mean a PS2's better than a xbox or vice versa.
Yes, I am well aware that it is all about the games.
However, comparisons with other aspects of these games are inevitable.
BC
<mikeme...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> christ not this xbox vs PS2 argument again.
>>
>> I don't know what the hell you brought your console for, but I got mine to
>> PLAY GAMES. PS2's graphics are good enough for me, and it probably have
>> the best games (and the most) out of the three current generation of
>> consoles, so voila - I have a PS2... and I prefer a PS2 - but that
>> doesn't mean a PS2's better than a xbox or vice versa.
>
>Yes, I am well aware that it is all about the games.
>However, comparisons with other aspects of these games are inevitable.
It's like comparing an apple with an orange - it's like saying an apple is
better because you don't have to peel it, that it's crunchier and easier
to eat?
Why not say a microwave is better than a TV because it makes better food?
AHHHHHHH, thought I'd be able to avoid all this system A vs system B crap
now that I've moved from computer to consoles - but I guess not...
<=[BC]=>
Michael Cargill
> better because you don't have to peel it, that it's crunchier and easier
> to eat?
No, that is incorrect. Comparing the graphics on one console to another is
comparing apples with apples.
SkiJumpToes
Typedy Typed:
>I don't know what the hell you brought your console for, but I got mine to
>PLAY GAMES. PS2's graphics are good enough for me, and it probably have
>the best games (and the most) out of the three current generation of
>consoles, so voila - I have a PS2... and I prefer a PS2 - but that
>doesn't mean a PS2's better than a xbox or vice versa.
It is about the games, and polygon pushing power makes a huge
difference to the quality of the game.. Its the depth of field that
you get.. Halo for example just amazes you to play as you look up and
the scenery extends to the distance.. or you throw a grenade and
watches as rocks and grass explodes up, along with enemy corpses!
Remember, that there are three interfaces between you and the game:
1. The controller (Your input)
2. The sound
3. The Image
Rates graphics pretty highly when you look at it like that.. would a
good film be as good if it was stuttering and hard to see?
GTA for example.. was no-where as big as GTA3.. its the same game
virtually.. just graphically enhanced..
The same as playing any FPS.. you want it to be smooth to get the full
effect of playing it.. ducking round corners etc.
>I don't give a rats ass about Halo (get over it for christ sake - it's
>been over a year... and no I'm not interested in Splinter Cell!) The
>xbox's been out for a while now and with supposingly hundreds of titles
>out, there are only two games out for it that I'm interested in (Project
>Gotham and Unreal Championship)... I don't care if the xbox's more
>powerful than a PS2, or if some of its games have better graphics - with
>its small number of must-play titles it certainly doesn't rate too well as
>a gaming console in my book.
I would love to hear your opinion after owning an Xbox.
My PS2 has done nothing but gather dust since owning one.. ive been
back a few times for PES2, yet i find myself playing FIFA2003 on the
box over that now..
Must say that Getaway has tempted me.. only cause i trust Mike Kay's
opinions on games though.. :)
****Advertise Here**** ***********************
*/\/\ THE CHURCH /\/\* *=- Doctor Hibranzk -=*
*\/\/ BOOK NOW! \/\/* *======---------======*
* MASSIVE 50% OFF * * "A PET FOR LIFE" *
*Christenings,Weddings* *Motorised Taxidermist*
* And Funerals * * Tel: 01911 481666 *
*********************** ***********************
Mike Kay
----------------
dont trust this one too much.... have only played it a relatively short
period at the mo...... feckin brill tho it is!, there are lots more
people who will give a more balanced/accurate view.
I love the stereotypical scally characters. all it needs now is 2 scousers
with perms! & they really have got every last drop of power out of the PS2
<this is just imo tho, Mike cargill was disapointed with the visuials
which goes to show different strokes for different folks & all that).
cant wait to get my PS2 back so i can have a proper go.
j...@nelefa.org.feck.off.invalid
> Rates graphics pretty highly when you look at it like that.. would a
> good film be as good if it was stuttering and hard to see?
Not a good example. The original Nosferatu? Is that a bad movie? How about
Blair Witch?
Is Problem Child 15 a better movie than something by Laurel and Hardy cos it's
in nice crisp colour?
J
--
John M Dow <jmd at nelefa dot org>
http://www.nelefa.org GamerTag: nelefa
The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland";
but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
SkiJumpToes
j...@nelefa.org.feck.off.invalid Typedy Typed:
>> Rates graphics pretty highly when you look at it like that.. would a
>> good film be as good if it was stuttering and hard to see?
>
>Not a good example. The original Nosferatu? Is that a bad movie? How about
>Blair Witch?
Ahh.. but they were designed to be like that..
What if the Film couldnt cope with the and it slowed down etc.
>Is Problem Child 15 a better movie than something by Laurel and Hardy cos it's
>in nice crisp colour?
Some would say yes im afraid :)
You know what im talking about.. ppl say its all about the games, but
graphics are at least 30% of a good game.. it makes gameplay better
having smooth well designed graphics.
SkiJumpToes
Typed:
>dont trust this one too much.... have only played it a relatively short
>period at the mo...... feckin brill tho it is!, there are lots more
>people who will give a more balanced/accurate view.
I dont care.. i have the exact same views as you on most things i see
you post.. in fact its quite scary.. :o/
>I love the stereotypical scally characters. all it needs now is 2 scousers
>with perms! & they really have got every last drop of power out of the PS2
><this is just imo tho, Mike cargill was disapointed with the visuials
>which goes to show different strokes for different folks & all that).
Cargill doesnt know what his name is half the time :) Its all that
IRC'ing.
>cant wait to get my PS2 back so i can have a proper go.
My sisters got it for her kids.. so i may invite myself round and
remind them that they've still got my jak and daxter ;) Enought guilt
and i may have it for a few weeks myself.
Mind you, i just started morrowind.. eck.. i keep thinking about it
all day.. that water.. with the lil fishies in it.. :)
SkiJumpToes
Typed:
>You know what im talking about.. ppl say its all about the games, but
>graphics are at least 30% of a good game.. it makes gameplay better
>having smooth well designed graphics.
Oh yer..
And the more powerful the console is at pushing graphics.. the more
power is left for things like AI and physics.. :)
knew there was something else.. heh
j...@nelefa.org.feck.off.invalid
> You know what im talking about.. ppl say its all about the games, but
> graphics are at least 30% of a good game.. it makes gameplay better
> having smooth well designed graphics.
Surely it's more about having graphics that are appropriate for the platform.
yes? No?
J
--
John M Dow <jmd at nelefa dot org>
http://www.nelefa.org GamerTag: nelefa
THE GOLDEN RULE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
The one who has the gold makes the rules.
SkiJumpToes
j...@nelefa.org.feck.off.invalid Typedy Typed:
>> You know what im talking about.. ppl say its all about the games, but
>> graphics are at least 30% of a good game.. it makes gameplay better
>> having smooth well designed graphics.
>
>Surely it's more about having graphics that are appropriate for the platform.
>yes? No?
Of course.. But if the machine isnt capable of providing adequate
graphics the gameplay is going to suffer.. Therefore, i beleive that
if you pick the most powerful console, ur gonna get the better games.
Larry Gold
Getaway, Vice City,
massive selling games
--
Larry Gold
Arsenal For Life (Mine's A Double)
larry.gold.@ntlworld.com
"DiskReadError" <whatt...@fu.com> wrote in message
news:b0giet$97b$1...@news.chatlink.com...
Alexander Mendes
I don't. ICO is still the best looking console game I've seen - mostly
because the designers actually paid attention to artwork and animation,
rather than just the technical side of things.
Michael Koenig
> I don't. ICO is still the best looking console game I've seen -
> mostly because the designers actually paid attention to artwork and
> animation, rather than just the technical side of things.
ICO has a very nice and distinctive design, good key-framing (normally
motion-capturing looks a bit wooden anyway), and I especially like that
the lighting is more natural and doesn't include lense flares to suggest
that you are watching a movie as most other games do.
But ICO also has the problems of many PS2 games, ie. flickering of edges
and textures. You certainly don't get that in any of the other consoles.
--
M.I.K.e
(The crownless again shall be King.)
Deutsche BeOS FAQ: http://www.be-faq.de/
Michael Koenig
>> Rates graphics pretty highly when you look at it like that.. would a
>> good film be as good if it was stuttering and hard to see?
> Not a good example. The original Nosferatu? Is that a bad movie? How
> about Blair Witch?
I don't know Blair Witch Project, but with the B/W Nosferatu it's the
same reason why some people still enjoy playing MULE, it's simply pure
genius.
Doug Jacobs
> It is about the games, and polygon pushing power makes a huge
> difference to the quality of the game.. Its the depth of field that
> you get.. Halo for example just amazes you to play as you look up and
> the scenery extends to the distance.. or you throw a grenade and
> watches as rocks and grass explodes up, along with enemy corpses!
While graphics and sound go a long way to making a game a great game, they
by no means are the most important aspects of the game...
It's the gameplay and story (where applicable) that make a game good - not
the pretty pictures, not the boomin' bass.
Heck, one of my favorite games is a SNES RPG, and another one uses only
ASCII characters for its graphics - no sounds, no music.
Doug Jacobs
> Unless the liberals get their way in banning light-guns, light-gun games,
> and in fact all toy guns. The banning-toy-&-light-gun bill is pending is NY
> due to supposedly too many people pulling off robberies with toy guns & NES
> Zappers painted black.
Heh.
I can't wait for them to ban light guns, only to arrest some idiot for
holding up a store after painting his fingers gunmetal black...
Still, in those robberies, was anyone injured? No one could have been shot
since the guns weren't real (unless the clerk had a real gun, but then again,
I doubt anyone's going to feel sorry for a crook who got shot...) I just
don't see what this will accomplish.
Andy Sinclair
>I can't wait for them to ban light guns, only to arrest some idiot for
>holding up a store after painting his fingers gunmetal black...
already happened.
Children have been suspended from school for pointing their fingers at
each other and saying 'POW'.
Andy
BC
>On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 01:44:41 +1300, animus_...@ihug.co.nz (BC)
>Typedy Typed:
>
>Rates graphics pretty highly when you look at it like that.. would a
>good film be as good if it was stuttering and hard to see?
Some of the older games are still way better than the more recent ones in
my opinion, for example my fave RPG of all time is STILL Ultima 7: Part 2
for the PC - and that came out back in... er, 95? Ages ago anyways. The
original MGS was a much better game than MGS2, original Silent Hill's
better than SH2, the GB version of Tetris' still one of the best despite
versions with better graphics, the original DOA was more fun DOA2 or 3, et
cetera. Movies and TV series? The Red Dwarf had crap quality effects and
backgrounds, but I still prefer that over many other more modern comedy
shows. Quantum Leap, ST:TNG... The original Highlander, Rocky, Evil
Dead, et cetera - all old films with crappy special effects and film
quality, but are still being regarded as being some of the best.
Graphics CAN and DO add to a game, I have to admit, but heck graphics are
not everything. I'll take a fun game with crap graphics over a crap game
with good graphics any day.
>GTA for example.. was no-where as big as GTA3.. its the same game
>virtually.. just graphically enhanced..
Have you played any of the original 2D GTAs? They're completely different
from the 3D ones.
>The same as playing any FPS.. you want it to be smooth to get the full
>effect of playing it.. ducking round corners etc.
Actually I still prefer the earlier FPSs out there. The original
Wolfenstein 3D's still my fave.
Like I said before graphics CAN and DO add to a game - but it's not the
only thing that matters in a game.
>>I don't give a rats ass about Halo (get over it for christ sake - it's
>>been over a year... and no I'm not interested in Splinter Cell!) The
>>xbox's been out for a while now and with supposingly hundreds of titles
>>out, there are only two games out for it that I'm interested in (Project
>>Gotham and Unreal Championship)... I don't care if the xbox's more
>>powerful than a PS2, or if some of its games have better graphics - with
>>its small number of must-play titles it certainly doesn't rate too well as
>>a gaming console in my book.
>
>I would love to hear your opinion after owning an Xbox.
>
>My PS2 has done nothing but gather dust since owning one.. ive been
>back a few times for PES2, yet i find myself playing FIFA2003 on the
>box over that now..
>
>Must say that Getaway has tempted me.. only cause i trust Mike Kay's
>opinions on games though.. :)
Like I mentioned in my original post better graphics or better games or
whatever doesn't really make one console better than the other. It's
useless comparing the different systems, since it's just a matter of
personal preference.
The xbox, I repeat doesn't have the games that I want to play. And thus,
I don't own one. The PS2, however, does have the games that I want to
play - and thus, I have one. Simple as that. You prefer the xbox? Fine
- I don't care, I still prefer the PS2.
Oh, I know I've put down Halo and Splinter Cell and DOA3 (did I miss any
"must have" xbox titles?), but incase people are wondering the PS2 has
heaps of games that I'm NOT interested in too, like The Getaway, Rachet
and Clank, GT3:A-Spec, Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, Virtua Fighter 4
and many other "must have" titles.
<=[BC]=>
BC
>On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:49:33 +0000 (UTC),
>j...@nelefa.org.feck.off.invalid Typedy Typed:
>
>>> You know what im talking about.. ppl say its all about the games, but
>>> graphics are at least 30% of a good game.. it makes gameplay better
>>> having smooth well designed graphics.
>>
>>Surely it's more about having graphics that are appropriate for the platform.
>>yes? No?
>
>Of course.. But if the machine isnt capable of providing adequate
>graphics the gameplay is going to suffer.. Therefore, i beleive that
>if you pick the most powerful console, ur gonna get the better games.
I'll say this again. The xbox doesn't have the games that interests me,
the games that I want to play. The PS2 does.
<=[BC]=>
BC
<miko...@web.de> wrote:
>Alexander Mendes wrote:
>> I don't. ICO is still the best looking console game I've seen -
>> mostly because the designers actually paid attention to artwork and
>> animation, rather than just the technical side of things.
>
>ICO has a very nice and distinctive design, good key-framing (normally
>motion-capturing looks a bit wooden anyway), and I especially like that
>the lighting is more natural and doesn't include lense flares to suggest
>that you are watching a movie as most other games do.
>
>But ICO also has the problems of many PS2 games, ie. flickering of edges
>and textures. You certainly don't get that in any of the other consoles.
For crying out loud does that make it a bad game?
PLAY THE GAMES. PLAY GAMES. To play is to ENJOY. MGS2 had better
grpahics than MGS, but I didn't enjoy it the way I did with MGS. Halo for
the xbox's got better grpahics than Unreal Tournament for the PS2, but I
didn't have fun playing Halo - I did with UT. Burnout 2 for PS2's got
smoother framerates than NFS: Hot Pursuit 2 (PS2) - but I enjoyed NFS: Hot
Pursuit 2 more...
<=[BC]=>
Michael Cargill
Why does this keep springing up?
No one is saying that it is a bad game, however what was being discussed was
the GRAPHICS. Not the gameplay, but the GRAPHICS.
> PLAY THE GAMES. PLAY GAMES. To play is to ENJOY. MGS2 had better
> grpahics than MGS, but I didn't enjoy it the way I did with MGS. Halo for
> the xbox's got better grpahics than Unreal Tournament for the PS2, but I
> didn't have fun playing Halo - I did with UT. Burnout 2 for PS2's got
> smoother framerates than NFS: Hot Pursuit 2 (PS2) - but I enjoyed NFS: Hot
> Pursuit 2 more...
Yes, this may be true in your eyes - but why is it not 'allowed' to talk
about the graphics and not the gameplay?
BC
<mikeme...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> For crying out loud does that make it a bad game?
>
>Why does this keep springing up?
>No one is saying that it is a bad game, however what was being discussed was
>the GRAPHICS. Not the gameplay, but the GRAPHICS.
>
>> PLAY THE GAMES. PLAY GAMES. To play is to ENJOY. MGS2 had better
>> grpahics than MGS, but I didn't enjoy it the way I did with MGS. Halo for
>> the xbox's got better grpahics than Unreal Tournament for the PS2, but I
>> didn't have fun playing Halo - I did with UT. Burnout 2 for PS2's got
>> smoother framerates than NFS: Hot Pursuit 2 (PS2) - but I enjoyed NFS: Hot
>> Pursuit 2 more...
>
>Yes, this may be true in your eyes - but why is it not 'allowed' to talk
>about the graphics and not the gameplay?
why are you trying to steer the discussion away from the games and the
gameplay and focusing only on graphics?
What I'm angry about is the fact that some people are saying that one
system is better than the other, and then justifying themselves simply by
saying that it has got better graphics.
<=[BC]=>
BC
<mikeme...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> For crying out loud does that make it a bad game?
>
>Why does this keep springing up?
>No one is saying that it is a bad game, however what was being discussed was
>the GRAPHICS. Not the gameplay, but the GRAPHICS.
>
>> PLAY THE GAMES. PLAY GAMES. To play is to ENJOY. MGS2 had better
>> grpahics than MGS, but I didn't enjoy it the way I did with MGS. Halo for
>> the xbox's got better grpahics than Unreal Tournament for the PS2, but I
>> didn't have fun playing Halo - I did with UT. Burnout 2 for PS2's got
>> smoother framerates than NFS: Hot Pursuit 2 (PS2) - but I enjoyed NFS: Hot
>> Pursuit 2 more...
>
>Yes, this may be true in your eyes - but why is it not 'allowed' to talk
>about the graphics and not the gameplay?
My point is that a game is not just about graphics. If I want good
graphics and crap or no gameplay I'll go watch a movie or the tele.
<=[BC]=>
Michael Cargill
> gameplay and focusing only on graphics?
>
> What I'm angry about is the fact that some people are saying that one
> system is better than the other, and then justifying themselves simply by
> saying that it has got better graphics.
The discussion isnt being 'steered away' at all. We are discussing the
graphics capabilities of the consoles. There is nothing wrong with this at
all, and for someone to then pop up and say 'but its all about the
GAMEPLAY!!!!' when the it is the graphics being discussed is pointless.
Michael Cargill
> graphics and crap or no gameplay I'll go watch a movie or the tele.
WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP SAYING THIS STUPID CLICHE?!?
Is it somehow wrong to want good graphics? Is it somehow wrong to discuss
about the graphics and not the gameplay?
Who said anything about 'good graphics and crap or no gameplay'? You take
your crap graphics and good gameplay, and I will take the good graphics and
good gameplay. There are plenty of games that have both, so I certainly
wont be bored.
SkiJumpToes
Typedy Typed:
>>Of course.. But if the machine isnt capable of providing adequate
>>graphics the gameplay is going to suffer.. Therefore, i beleive that
>>if you pick the most powerful console, ur gonna get the better games.
>
>I'll say this again. The xbox doesn't have the games that interests me,
>the games that I want to play. The PS2 does.
Compare the age of each console, of course there's gonna be a wider
selection for the PS2.. its a mass market.. but with mass market comes
mass shite with a few AAA's mixed inbetween :)
There is f'all different between genres on the xbox and ps2.. .. The
only Genre that the xbox is lacking in is GTA style gameplay. Which
will be rectified in the near future no doubt.
SkiJumpToes
Typedy Typed:
>Some of the older games are still way better than the more recent ones in
>my opinion, for example my fave RPG of all time is STILL Ultima 7: Part 2
>for the PC - and that came out back in... er, 95? Ages ago anyways.
And at its time it was technically great im sure..
>The
>original MGS was a much better game than MGS2,
MGS had amazing graphics for its time though?! loads of cool effects..
What would you put on your console to impress your mates though.. MGS
or MGS2? :)
Also, if MGS2 was the exact same game as MGS, but with the graphics of
MGS2, which would you pick? :)
>original Silent Hill's
>better than SH2, the GB version of Tetris' still one of the best despite
>versions with better graphics, the original DOA was more fun DOA2 or 3, et
>cetera. Movies and TV series? The Red Dwarf had crap quality effects and
>backgrounds, but I still prefer that over many other more modern comedy
>shows. Quantum Leap, ST:TNG... The original Highlander, Rocky, Evil
>Dead, et cetera - all old films with crappy special effects and film
>quality, but are still being regarded as being some of the best.
Of course they are, but they also had great visuals for their time..
do you think DOA would be so big if the graphics and tits werent
there?! If it had the exact same gameplay but you was fighting with 2d
characters about 1 inch tall? admit it.. Graphics can make a shitty
game concept better.
>Graphics CAN and DO add to a game, I have to admit, but heck graphics are
>not everything. I'll take a fun game with crap graphics over a crap game
>with good graphics any day.
It depends what you are thinking when the term graphics is used..
Im thinking the animation, the textures, the depth of view, the
fludity of movements and character design.. I liken it to Dos programs
that have GUI's designed for them..
>>GTA for example.. was no-where as big as GTA3.. its the same game
>>virtually.. just graphically enhanced..
>
>Have you played any of the original 2D GTAs? They're completely different
>from the 3D ones.
Of course they arent! its the same concept its just 3D with a few cut
scenes in between.. play it with the top down view and you will see
for yourself..
You have backed up my points exactly with that remark.. The change in
graphics makes you beleive its a different game entirely!!
Picture GTA3 with the same graphics as GTA if you cant notice that
they are basically the same game.
>>The same as playing any FPS.. you want it to be smooth to get the full
>>effect of playing it.. ducking round corners etc.
>
>Actually I still prefer the earlier FPSs out there. The original
>Wolfenstein 3D's still my fave.
Ur nuts then.. it was amazing at its time, but i certainly wouldnt be
playing wolfenstien over Halo!
>Like I said before graphics CAN and DO add to a game - but it's not the
>only thing that matters in a game.
no, but when ppl talk about 'Its about the gameplay' i dont think they
realise how important graphics are to a game.. It is what determines
what gameplay can be used after all..
Splinter Cell uses graphical effects to heighten the stealh experience
and it works an absolute treat.
>The xbox, I repeat doesn't have the games that I want to play. And thus,
>I don't own one. The PS2, however, does have the games that I want to
>play - and thus, I have one. Simple as that. You prefer the xbox? Fine
>- I don't care, I still prefer the PS2.
I have both, and i am telling you the xbox is by far better.. and you
are just fooling yourself :)
I dont know what games you are into, but it sounds like ur an RPG
nut.. take a look at morrowind on the xbox, and then decide whether
you will see anything near the class of that game to grace the PS2 in
its current form... i doubt not..
BC
<mikeme...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> why are you trying to steer the discussion away from the games and the
>> gameplay and focusing only on graphics?
>>
>> What I'm angry about is the fact that some people are saying that one
>> system is better than the other, and then justifying themselves simply by
>> saying that it has got better graphics.
>
>The discussion isnt being 'steered away' at all. We are discussing the
>graphics capabilities of the consoles. There is nothing wrong with this at
>all, and for someone to then pop up and say 'but its all about the
>GAMEPLAY!!!!' when the it is the graphics being discussed is pointless.
I didn't say "it's all about the gameplay", but rather the GAMES.
<=[BC]=>
Covert Badger
>Graphics CAN and DO add to a game, I have to admit, but heck graphics are
>not everything. I'll take a fun game with crap graphics over a crap game
>with good graphics any day.
I don't think anyone's trying to argue that graphics are more
important than gameplay, but the way in which games are evolving means
that graphics are increasingly important. For conceptually simple
games like Monkey Ball the framerate is the only important graphical
issue; for something like Zelda, Splinter Cell, Halo etc (where part
of the enjoyment comes from feeling immersed in the game world) then
poor graphics leave you feeling detached and therefore lessens the
impact of the game. Something like Tetris is all reactions and
concentration, so the visuals are distinctly secondary.
--
covertbadger@blueOOPS_LOOK_OUT_ITS_A_TRAPyonder.co.uk
Gamer Tag: Covert Badger
We've been bored before, we'll be bored again
Shadows to the wall
BC
>>The xbox, I repeat doesn't have the games that I want to play. And thus,
>>I don't own one. The PS2, however, does have the games that I want to
>>play - and thus, I have one. Simple as that. You prefer the xbox? Fine
>>- I don't care, I still prefer the PS2.
>
>I have both, and i am telling you the xbox is by far better.. and you
>are just fooling yourself :)
>
>I dont know what games you are into, but it sounds like ur an RPG
>nut.. take a look at morrowind on the xbox, and then decide whether
>you will see anything near the class of that game to grace the PS2 in
>its current form... i doubt not..
Okay, I'm gonna give up now and say this for the last time. The xbox, I
repeat doesn't have the games that I want to play. There are two titles
that I'm interested in for the xbox (interested - not "must have"), and
they are Project Gotham Racer and Unreal Championship.
I'd probably like some of the other games, but not enough to make me wanna
buy a xbox.
Anyways I DO love RPGs, which is why I'm thinking (and JUST thinking -
can't afford one) of getting a proper top of the range PC - they have a
larger range of games, especially RPG games. But with consoles I'm
sticking with my PS2 for now.
<=[BC]=>
Michael Cargill
First, I didnt say that you did come in and say that.
Secondly, it means the exact same thing. If it doesnt, then please explain
the difference between saying 'its all about the gameplay' and 'its all
about the games' in the context of this discussion.
SkiJumpToes
Typedy Typed:
>Okay, I'm gonna give up now and say this for the last time.
Heheh.. after all that friggin' text i typed too! :)
>The xbox, I
>repeat doesn't have the games that I want to play. There are two titles
>that I'm interested in for the xbox (interested - not "must have"), and
>they are Project Gotham Racer and Unreal Championship.
Have you not seen Morrowind?
Have you played Halo?
Im sure these would be two definites :)
>Anyways I DO love RPGs, which is why I'm thinking (and JUST thinking -
>can't afford one) of getting a proper top of the range PC - they have a
>larger range of games, especially RPG games. But with consoles I'm
>sticking with my PS2 for now.
Fair enough, although the argument was graphics doesnt affect
gameplay, are you willing to accept that in this day and age it does?
;)
SkiJumpToes
Typedy Typed:
>>the scenery extends to the distance.. or you throw a grenade and
>>watches as rocks and grass explodes up, along with enemy corpses!
>
>God save us from wannabe Rambo's.
Addrieeene!!
Oh. wrong film soz. :oP
>The battles and FX in War Of the Monsters for the PS2 are far more inpressive
>than anything in Halo.
I havent played it..
And i dont beleive it.. :)
>There's nothing like picking up a steel beam and knocking the monster you're
>fighting into deep left field and watching as the buildings he plowed through as
>he lands collasp on top of him.
Sounds like Dead or Alive to me?! :o/
Ken Small
> In article <3e2d33b7...@news.CIS.DFN.DE>, S...@SjT.com says...
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:51:59 +1300, animus_...@ihug.co.nz (BC)
>>Typedy Typed:
>>
>>>>Of course.. But if the machine isnt capable of providing adequate
>>>>graphics the gameplay is going to suffer.. Therefore, i beleive that
>>>>if you pick the most powerful console, ur gonna get the better games.
>>>
>>>I'll say this again. The xbox doesn't have the games that interests me,
>>>the games that I want to play. The PS2 does.
>>
>>Compare the age of each console, of course there's gonna be a wider
>>selection for the PS2.. its a mass market.. but with mass market comes
>>mass shite with a few AAA's mixed inbetween :)
>>
>>There is f'all different between genres on the xbox and ps2.. .. The
>>only Genre that the xbox is lacking in is GTA style gameplay. Which
>>will be rectified in the near future no doubt.
>
> Never. Why? Because you don't see these kinds of games created in the PC/XBox
> gaming/development enviroment.
What about Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters Melee?
Hey, I agree, the PS2 has more variety of genre and more choices within
genre, but to say you don't see odd or unusual (or giant-monster-fighting)
games is just wrong.
SkiJumpToes
Typedy Typed:
>Damn right it's wrong. That's why there are so many awful games running around
>on the PC with pretty graphics, due in large part to utter morons like you.
Yes Cargill!! Just cause you wanted Good graphics coupled with Good
games.. you've ruined it for the rest of us now..
You utter bastard! ;P
SkiJumpToes
Typedy Typed:
>>There is f'all different between genres on the xbox and ps2.. .. The
>>only Genre that the xbox is lacking in is GTA style gameplay. Which
>>will be rectified in the near future no doubt.
>
>Bullshit. When will there be a War of the Monsters type game for the Xbox?
>Never. Why? Because you don't see these kinds of games created in the PC/XBox
>gaming/development enviroment.
And when was that released? about 2 Years into the PS2's life..
remember the xbox is still young.
Games like that are just as likely to appear on the xbox, and its only
due to Sony having to 'buy' the rights to games to stop them looking
better on xbox that you havent seen how GTA should 'really' have
looked ;)
Besides that game doesnt look nothing special from the screenshots,
looks like Rampage on Acid to me?! Maybe its the kind of game you need
to see moving to appreciate it..
Reminded me of power rangers.. big fan of theres are you? :)
Btw.. when will the ps2 see games such as Morrowind, Blinx, Champ
Manager and Halo eh? mmm different genres.. all ground breaking for a
console!
Michael Cargill
around
> on the PC with pretty graphics, due in large part to utter morons like
you.
You stupid twat.
There are also awful games running around on ALL SYSTEMS that also have
awful graphics. Likewise, there are also superb games on all systems that
have superb graphics.
So, this pretty much confirms that the developers do not have to choose
between either graphics or gameplay when developing something. And because
THEY dont have to make this choice, WE dont have to either.
And this just goes to show that it is people like YOU who are the morons,
who seem to think that graphics allways come at the expense of gameplay.
Michael Cargill
> games.. you've ruined it for the rest of us now..
>
> You utter bastard! ;P
I am just a selfish pig. I had better pop round to Cbag's house for
punishment.
FatHippy
<ajc@[REMOVE].invalid> writes
>"Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:b0gjav$p07gt$1...@ID-108275.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> The best looking PS2 games arent as nice as the best looking Xbox games.
>
>I agree to this post!
>
>
>
That's just as well, cos he's already posted it. Perhaps you could tell
him in advance next time ?
--
FatHippy
'Poking death in the face with a big stick and then running away'
(To reply by e-mail, please replace {$spamtrap$} with fathippy)
MDMA boy
"SkiJumpToes" <S...@SjT.com> wrote
> .. The
> only Genre that the xbox is lacking in is GTA style gameplay. Which
> will be rectified in the near future no doubt.
Well, i'm not the biggest fan of the Xbox, but seeing how big of a cash cow
GTA3/VC are, it seems kind of inevitable that Microsoft will try to cash in
on that type of game too.
MDMA Boy
MDMA boy
"Andy Sinclair" <an...@NOSPAM.r2g2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7f3q2v4ga6i24attc...@4ax.com...
Well, proponents of gun control aren't known for being smart! Media-savvy
and well-funded, yes, but smart- hell no.
MDMA Boy
Michael Koenig
>>But ICO also has the problems of many PS2 games, ie. flickering of
>>edges and textures. You certainly don't get that in any of the other
>>consoles.
> For crying out loud does that make it a bad game?
Show me where I said that ICO is a bad game! You'll have a hard time
searching, because I simply didn't say it!
But Alexander Mendes made a statement about it's graphics:
"ICO is still the best looking console game I've seen"
I especially commentend on that statement and agreed that it is nicely
done, but still suffers from the PS2 hardware display-wise.
So what the hell is *your* problem?!?
--
M.I.K.e
(The crownless again shall be King.)
Deutsche BeOS FAQ: http://www.be-faq.de/
DiskReadError
You still have no proof that either console is more powerful.. All you have
is a system with years and years of development software behind it going
against a console with less than 3 years of developement software behind it.
Turok is a dogshit game and looks, plays, and smells like dogshit on any
console.
Ratchet and Clank has more polygons in it that Splinter Cell..
All they did with splinter cell was turn down the framerate and up the
textures.
Silent Hill 3's realtime graphics kill anything on the Xbox period.
Now go jack off to the olsen twins you hermaphrodite
DiskReadError
I"ve heard that before. Good to know your a PS2 developer and get the inside
scoop.
DiskReadError
> Oh yer..
> And the more powerful the console is at pushing graphics.. the more
> power is left for things like AI and physics.. :)
That isn't exactly true for the PS2..
Mike Kay
> but it does not have the range of games of the PS2
> Getaway, Vice City,
> massive selling games
>
indeed, & thats largly thanks to Sony for buying off the competition.
The Xbox IS the best console & could match any game the ps2 has, however
sony pay companies lots of money to can certain titles which is why an
almost complete GTA3 was canned for the xbox & rumourdly a complete
Halflife & almost complete CM2 on the DC.
the PS2 is definatley worth owning for its exclusives, but the xbox has
some exclusives of its own, & almost all the time the multiformat titles
are better on the xbox than on the ps2 - Max Payne, The Thing, Fifa
WC2002, & 2003, Turok, timesplitters 2, CM3 etc. (& xbox has superior DVD
playback unless you use specialist software as a boot disk - which imo is
a pain in the arse)
I personally wouild never advise to not buy a ps2 but if it was a 1 or the
other, its Xbox all the way imo.
Mike Kay
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:13:13 -0500, Chris Lee <cl...@envirolink.org>
> Typedy Typed:
>
> >Damn right it's wrong. That's why there are so many awful games running around
> >on the PC with pretty graphics, due in large part to utter morons like you.
>
> Yes Cargill!! Just cause you wanted Good graphics coupled with Good
> games.. you've ruined it for the rest of us now..
>
> You utter bastard! ;P
the whole graphics dont matter is crap anyway otherwise why upgrade from a
psx to any new console?
the psx was ground breaking, it braught us real 3D, however since then its
just been evolving the same thing so that better graphics can be had.
if someone really doesnt care about what a game looks like then save a wad
of cash & get a 2nd hand psx.
GT3 has nothing GT2 hasnt got apart from graphics, MGS & silent Hill are
arguably better games than their sequals.
I personally think its cut & dry as to what is the best console, but thats
just me, but put it this way, if it was the Sony Xbox & the M$ PS2, it
would be the black & green brick which would be king by now, the only
reason imo
that the xbox has a fighting chance is becasue its the better hardware.
Sony could release any old crap (relitively) & it will outsell any other
console.
Mike Kay
> Hey dumbass "Michael Cargill"
>
> You still have no proof that either console is more powerful.. All you have
> is a system with years and years of development software behind it going
> against a console with less than 3 years of developement software behind it.
<snip>
bet a 10er this guy is a yank posting from the alt group. Sadly (not) i
cant post to them.........
SkiJumpToes
<Junkyar...@tekken.cc> Typedy Typed:
>Well, i'm not the biggest fan of the Xbox, but seeing how big of a cash cow
>GTA3/VC are, it seems kind of inevitable that Microsoft will try to cash in
>on that type of game too.
To be honest, GTA is the PS2.. its the new Tomb Raider, i can see why
Sony have invested so much money into it.
The trouble any xbox developer is going to have developing a game like
this is to better it significantly.. tough job to do.. But who knows
:)
I just hope development started a few years ago :)
SkiJumpToes
<whatt...@fu.com> Typedy Typed:
>Ratchet and Clank has more polygons in it that Splinter Cell..
>All they did with splinter cell was turn down the framerate and up the
>textures.
Its not about the polygons, its about submerging you into a different
world.. textures and lighting play a BIG part in this.. as does depth
of field, something that most Xbox exclusives feature, when Splinter
Cell is released on the PS2 im interested to hear what you say about
it graphically..
>Silent Hill 3's realtime graphics kill anything on the Xbox period.
Even though it will be released on the xbox looking better?? :o/
4ft1
news:l4TWjaRm7YL+Ew$t...@fathippy.ntlworld.com...
> In message <3e2bd1f0$0$168$edfa...@dread14.news.tele.dk>, AJC
> <ajc@[REMOVE].invalid> writes
> >"Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> >news:b0gjav$p07gt$1...@ID-108275.news.dfncis.de...
> >>
> >> The best looking PS2 games arent as nice as the best looking Xbox
games.
> >
> >I agree to this post!
> >
> >
> >
> That's just as well, cos he's already posted it. Perhaps you could tell
> him in advance next time ?
>
I agree to your post in advance of you posting it, it's just that my clocks
wrong.
Michael Cargill
And to think that I got moaned at for saying the alt.games.video groups are
full of idiots.
> You still have no proof that either console is more powerful.. All you
have
> is a system with years and years of development software behind it going
> against a console with less than 3 years of developement software behind
it.
What we have, is the Xbox first generation games looking better than most
'new' generation PS2 games.
Halo looked better than any other PS2 game when it was released.
> Turok is a dogshit game and looks, plays, and smells like dogshit on any
> console.
Correct, but it looks less of a dogshit on the Xbox than the PS2.
> Ratchet and Clank has more polygons in it that Splinter Cell..
> All they did with splinter cell was turn down the framerate and up the
> textures.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
It isnt just polygons that make a game look good - Halo 2 looks better than
Halo, yet uses LESS polygons.
And Virtua Fighter would still look bad, even if you doubled the polygon
count - down to the fact that the polygons are 'raw'. And we will see what
Splinter Cell looks like on the PS2 when its released.
> Silent Hill 3's realtime graphics kill anything on the Xbox period.
You mean the game that also got released on the Xbox, but looked better than
the PS2 version?
> Now go jack off to the olsen twins you hermaphrodite
If you are going to use insults, then at least use ones that dont sound as
if you stalk school playgrounds, listening for new material.
Julie Brandon
>> but it does not have the range of games of the PS2
>> Getaway, Vice City,
>> massive selling games
>>
>
>
>indeed, & thats largly thanks to Sony for buying off the competition.
One of those two examples was, I believe, an SCEE/internally-developed game
(under the name of Team Soho).
--
Julie Brandon (Gamertag: Dewelie) http://www.computergeeks.co.uk/
_____________________________________________________________________________
Lots of videogames I've finished, available to buy or swap: XBox, GameCube,
Playstation 2, Dreamcast and N64. UK PAL originals only. E-mail me for list
Mike Kay
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:18:48 +0000, Mike Kay (m...@sanger.ac.uk) said:
> >> but it does not have the range of games of the PS2
> >> Getaway, Vice City,
> >> massive selling games
> >>
> >
> >
> >indeed, & thats largly thanks to Sony for buying off the competition.
>
> One of those two examples was, I believe, an SCEE/internally-developed game
> (under the name of Team Soho).
yeah but not GTA3 which is the bigger selling of the 2. i guess i should
have worded my post better, but imo the fact is sony know if GTA3 or VC
came out on the xbox it would, if done properly be a notch up on the ps2
one, so they buy it off. This is a pretty dirty trick imo when the game is
already neigh on finished.
Ijust hope M$ have summat up their sleeve in this genre.
<point of thought any one know what driver 3 is gonna be like as i believe
this is multi format. do you reckon it will be in car only or do you think
it will be much closer to GTA???>
Julie Brandon
>yeah but not GTA3 which is the bigger selling of the 2. i guess i should
>have worded my post better, but imo the fact is sony know if GTA3 or VC
>came out on the xbox it would, if done properly be a notch up on the ps2
>one, so they buy it off.
True.
> This is a pretty dirty trick imo when the game is
>already neigh on finished.
Yep. M$ are normally good at that type of thing though, so it is kind of
surprising that they're being beaten at their own game on this, very
surprising indeed.
>Ijust hope M$ have summat up their sleeve in this genre.
Or something entirely different, but as good or better.
Mike Kay
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:25:09 +0000, Mike Kay (m...@sanger.ac.uk) said:
> >yeah but not GTA3 which is the bigger selling of the 2. i guess i should
> >have worded my post better, but imo the fact is sony know if GTA3 or VC
> >came out on the xbox it would, if done properly be a notch up on the ps2
> >one, so they buy it off.
>
> True.
>
> > This is a pretty dirty trick imo when the game is
> >already neigh on finished.
>
> Yep. M$ are normally good at that type of thing though, so it is kind of
> surprising that they're being beaten at their own game on this, very
> surprising indeed.
>
> >Ijust hope M$ have summat up their sleeve in this genre.
>
> Or something entirely different, but as good or better.
ohhh yeah dont get me wrong, M$ are gits as well, probably bigger gits
than Sony, however as i own their hardware i want to see it pushed to the
max to see what it really can do - kind of like what burnout 2 & the
getaway have done on the ps2 - those games really show the ps2 is capable
if done right.
different is always wellcome too, would love to see summat along
the lines of Kula world (on either the ps2 or xbox - that was a
really original game & has not been done since) however a GTA3 clone is
needed at the moment i think.
BC
<mikeme...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I didn't say "it's all about the gameplay", but rather the GAMES.
>
>First, I didnt say that you did come in and say that.
>Secondly, it means the exact same thing. If it doesnt, then please explain
>the difference between saying 'its all about the gameplay' and 'its all
>about the games' in the context of this discussion.
oh comeon - you guys said so yourself. Didn't someone say "a game is 30%
graphics"? So if a "gameplay" is 100% of a game when where does that
leave the 30% you guys mentioned?
A game is the sum of all of its parts - the graphics, the gameplay, the
story, the characters, the sound, music, the experience, et cetera, and
the enjoyment you get out of it.
<=[BC]=>
BC
>On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:05:13 +1300, animus_...@ihug.co.nz (BC)
>Typedy Typed:
>
>>Okay, I'm gonna give up now and say this for the last time.
>
>Heheh.. after all that friggin' text i typed too! :)
>
>>The xbox, I
>>repeat doesn't have the games that I want to play. There are two titles
>>that I'm interested in for the xbox (interested - not "must have"), and
>>they are Project Gotham Racer and Unreal Championship.
>
>Have you not seen Morrowind?
>
>Have you played Halo?
Haven't seen Morrowind in action, but if I had a xbox I'd probably get
it. Not a must have on my list of games though.
And yeah, I've tried Halo. It's a good game, but I didn't think it was as
great as everyone made it out to be. Got bored with it after a wee while.
>Im sure these would be two definites :)
>
>>Anyways I DO love RPGs, which is why I'm thinking (and JUST thinking -
>>can't afford one) of getting a proper top of the range PC - they have a
>>larger range of games, especially RPG games. But with consoles I'm
>>sticking with my PS2 for now.
>
>Fair enough, although the argument was graphics doesnt affect
>gameplay, are you willing to accept that in this day and age it does?
>;)
Well, graphics DO matter... for most people out there. I say nice
graphics is nice, but it's not everything. Damn I remember when people
started using video in PC games. We had a wave of SSOOOOO many crap games
coming out with good graphics and not much else. Horrible. Still gives
me nightmares.
<=[BC]=>
Michael Cargill
> graphics"? So if a "gameplay" is 100% of a game when where does that
> leave the 30% you guys mentioned?
>
> A game is the sum of all of its parts - the graphics, the gameplay, the
> story, the characters, the sound, music, the experience, et cetera, and
> the enjoyment you get out of it.
I dont really understand the point you are trying to make.
Everyone knows that it is the gameplay that counts, but then again no one
wants a crap looking game.
We were merely discussing the graphics capabilities of the consoles and
comparing how good some games look to others - and there isnt anything wrong
with this at all. For someone to then pop in and say that we shouldnt worry
about the graphics, concentrate on how it plays is pretty pointless.
BC
>On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:16:53 -0500, Chris Lee <cl...@envirolink.org>
>Typedy Typed:
>
>>>There is f'all different between genres on the xbox and ps2.. .. The
>>>only Genre that the xbox is lacking in is GTA style gameplay. Which
>>>will be rectified in the near future no doubt.
>>
>>Bullshit. When will there be a War of the Monsters type game for the Xbox?
>>Never. Why? Because you don't see these kinds of games created in the PC/XBox
>>gaming/development enviroment.
>
>And when was that released? about 2 Years into the PS2's life..
>remember the xbox is still young.
>
>Games like that are just as likely to appear on the xbox, and its only
>due to Sony having to 'buy' the rights to games to stop them looking
>better on xbox that you havent seen how GTA should 'really' have
>looked ;)
>
>Besides that game doesnt look nothing special from the screenshots,
>looks like Rampage on Acid to me?! Maybe its the kind of game you need
>to see moving to appreciate it..
>
>Reminded me of power rangers.. big fan of theres are you? :)
>
>Btw.. when will the ps2 see games such as Morrowind, Blinx, Champ
>Manager and Halo eh? mmm different genres.. all ground breaking for a
>console!
Not interested in War of Monsters.
Not interested in Halo.
I AM however, waiting for Chessmaster to come out on PS2.
What the hell's wrong with me?
<=[BC]=>
BC
<miko...@web.de> wrote:
>BC wrote:
>>>But ICO also has the problems of many PS2 games, ie. flickering of
>>>edges and textures. You certainly don't get that in any of the other
>>>consoles.
>> For crying out loud does that make it a bad game?
>
>Show me where I said that ICO is a bad game! You'll have a hard time
>searching, because I simply didn't say it!
>
>But Alexander Mendes made a statement about it's graphics:
>"ICO is still the best looking console game I've seen"
>
>I especially commentend on that statement and agreed that it is nicely
>done, but still suffers from the PS2 hardware display-wise.
>
>So what the hell is *your* problem?!?
My problem is people keep saying the xbox is "better" than the PS2 simple
becasue it has better graphics in most games.
If you already own a system (or two), and if you're not interested in
getting another then you honestly have no reason to compare the different
systems. the xbox is NOT better than the PS2 and vice versa. Quit
starting your flamewars by sending these "mine's better than yours" posts
and go play your games. Or go out. Get some fresh air. Or dope. Or
whatever.
<=[BC]=>
SkiJumpToes
Typedy Typed:
>My problem is people keep saying the xbox is "better" than the PS2 simple
>becasue it has better graphics in most games.
No it isnt, in my opinion its better due to the fact that the
exclusive titles make use of the hardware such as the hard drive to
build huge worlds to explore, it has surround sound as standard on
most games unlike the PS2, It has no need for a memory card.. on top
of that its got better graphics of course, the option to use it as a
mediaplayer/16-bit console emulator, and there's more! you can stream
ur own music tracks during games, or use it as a music jukebox, it
also loads games quicker between levels, developers prefere to program
for it, and it doesnt suffer from shitty aliasing.
>If you already own a system (or two), and if you're not interested in
>getting another then you honestly have no reason to compare the different
>systems. the xbox is NOT better than the PS2 and vice versa. Quit
>starting your flamewars by sending these "mine's better than yours" posts
>and go play your games. Or go out. Get some fresh air. Or dope. Or
>whatever.
I personally dont want the xbox to go the way of the DC because of all
the sony hype around the playstation brand.. The xbox is a much
stronger machine, and it deserves the credit for being so.
It can do everything the PS2 can do, and more.. so where is the crime
in supporting this machine in arguments such as this?! PS2 is all
hype, and most ppl who own one realise this within a few weeks.. i
certainly did.. emotion my arse!
Sony denying the xbox owners GTA & Vice City is a major piss off, and
its all uv really got to shout about imo.
SkiJumpToes
Typedy Typed:
>oh comeon - you guys said so yourself. Didn't someone say "a game is 30%
>graphics"? So if a "gameplay" is 100% of a game when where does that
>leave the 30% you guys mentioned?
I said that, and i was referring to the interface between the player
and the game.. its a 3-way thing..Ur input, the sound, and the
graphics.. Its 30% in that respect..
I dont think you realise what restrictions graphics can put onto a
game, which is why graphics are VERY important..
Depends how far you take the graphics thing though, for example having
a big expansive landscape, i class that as being part of the graphics,
and that is pretty major point in the gameplay of alot of games.
Can you not see this?!
SkiJumpToes
Typedy Typed:
>Not interested in War of Monsters.
>Not interested in Halo.
Howabout Morrowind then? i think you'll like it :)
>I AM however, waiting for Chessmaster to come out on PS2.
>What the hell's wrong with me?
Too much posting on here.. full of weirdos mate! *Note: No smiley*
SkiJumpToes
Typed:
>different is always wellcome too, would love to see summat along
>the lines of Kula world (on either the ps2 or xbox - that was a
>really original game & has not been done since) however a GTA3 clone is
>needed at the moment i think.
Lets plague Martin @ CurlyMonsters :))
SkiJumpToes
Typedy Typed:
>Haven't seen Morrowind in action, but if I had a xbox I'd probably get
>it. Not a must have on my list of games though.
Oh.. when you play it, it becomes a reality that runs parallel with ur
normal life... quite scary.. :)
>And yeah, I've tried Halo. It's a good game, but I didn't think it was as
>great as everyone made it out to be. Got bored with it after a wee while.
Depends how you play it.. everyone i know is amazed by it.. Probably
cause they watch me play it ducking behind a tree taking out the
enemy.. your mate will say something like 'Wow! look at the bark on
the tree' and you forget how wonderful it is.. or at least i do :)
You put the difficulty up and it is a different game, turning it into
a tactical shooter.
Its so good that i refuse to complete it until the Halo2 comes along..
All us xbox owners cant be nuts can we?!
>>Fair enough, although the argument was graphics doesnt affect
>>gameplay, are you willing to accept that in this day and age it does?
>>;)
>
>Well, graphics DO matter... for most people out there. I say nice
>graphics is nice, but it's not everything. Damn I remember when people
>started using video in PC games. We had a wave of SSOOOOO many crap games
>coming out with good graphics and not much else. Horrible. Still gives
>me nightmares.
But that isnt technically good graphics is it? i did hate those too.
Ive said this several times now.. my idea of good graphics is to
create a world that is beleiveable.. im not talking about the number
of polygons etc. im talking about the quality of textures, the use of
lighting, the game area...
How would GTA3 have been possible if the PS2 was unable to draw an
area of that size?! Whatabout if it couldnt handle the rain effects?
What if all the cars looked the same? It effects gameplay hugely! :)
BC
>On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 01:46:21 +1300, animus_...@ihug.co.nz (BC)
>Typedy Typed:
>
>>oh comeon - you guys said so yourself. Didn't someone say "a game is 30%
>>graphics"? So if a "gameplay" is 100% of a game when where does that
>>leave the 30% you guys mentioned?
>
>I said that, and i was referring to the interface between the player
>and the game.. its a 3-way thing..Ur input, the sound, and the
>graphics.. Its 30% in that respect..
>
>I dont think you realise what restrictions graphics can put onto a
>game, which is why graphics are VERY important..
>
>Depends how far you take the graphics thing though, for example having
>a big expansive landscape, i class that as being part of the graphics,
>and that is pretty major point in the gameplay of alot of games.
>
>Can you not see this?!
I can and I agree. But what I'm trying to say is that graphics alone
doesn't make a game, let alone a console, good.
Okay, enough, my last post on this topic (unless someone irrates me enough...)
<=[BC]=>
Michael Cargill
enough...)
Gay, poo, bum, plop, wee, fanny, winkle and BUM!
Oh, and Sony Piece of Shit 2, Nintendo Gaypube and Micro$haft Xbrick.
SkiJumpToes
Typedy Typed:
>Okay, enough, my last post on this topic (unless someone irrates me enough...)
So... technically i win? :)
Ed Singleton
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 03:58:34 +1300, animus_...@ihug.co.nz (BC)
> Typedy Typed:
>
>>Okay, enough, my last post on this topic (unless someone irrates me
>>enough...)
>
> So... technically i win? :)
No, whoever gets the last word wins.
Ed Singleton
>
> If you are going to use insults, then at least use ones that dont sound as
> if you stalk school playgrounds, listening for new material.
Hey! Be fair. He's probably only 13 years old.
DiskReadError
> I dont think you realise what restrictions graphics can put onto a
> game, which is why graphics are VERY important..
Hmm.. so GTAVC is restrictive?
DiskReadError
> Its not about the polygons, its about submerging you into a different
> world..
Damn I win here too.. Splinter Cell only has 1 world Ratchet and Clank has
atleast 12 or so
>textures and lighting play a BIG part in this.. as does depth
> of field, something that most Xbox exclusives feature, when Splinter
> Cell is released on the PS2 im interested to hear what you say about
> it graphically..
It doesn't take a very bright person to realize it won't look as good on the
PS2 . But there is no proof it has to do with any graphical limitations.
Only limitations by developers. Same reason MGS2 Substance has slowdowns on
the Xbox and NFSHP2 looks twice as good on PS2.
>
> >Silent Hill 3's realtime graphics kill anything on the Xbox period.
>
> Even though it will be released on the xbox looking better?? :o/
If you say so.. Let's just wait and see. SH2 didn't look any better on Xbox.
DiskReadError
> And to think that I got moaned at for saying the alt.games.video groups
are
> full of idiots.
Yep that's why you are here
> What we have, is the Xbox first generation games looking better than most
> 'new' generation PS2 games.
> Halo looked better than any other PS2 game when it was released.
Umm so what is your point? Developers have been making games on the windows
platform for years.
> Correct, but it looks less of a dogshit on the Xbox than the PS2.
And since Need For Speed HP2 looks twice as good on the PS2 that would make
the PS2 more powerful than the Xbox.
According to your analogy
>
> > Ratchet and Clank has more polygons in it that Splinter Cell..
> > All they did with splinter cell was turn down the framerate and up the
> > textures.
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> It isnt just polygons that make a game look good - Halo 2 looks better
than
> Halo, yet uses LESS polygons.
Wow.. textures
> You mean the game that also got released on the Xbox, but looked better
than
> the PS2 version?
Uhh Silent Hill 3 isn't out yet.. And even in Silent Hill 2 it didn't look
any better on the Xbox.
All they did was remove the mask effect
> If you are going to use insults, then at least use ones that dont sound as
> if you stalk school playgrounds, listening for new material.
Atleast get your facts straight
Michael Cargill
> atleast 12 or so
Stupid comments like this only make your fanboy arguments even more
ridiculous.
> It doesn't take a very bright person to realize it won't look as good on
the
> PS2 . But there is no proof it has to do with any graphical limitations.
> Only limitations by developers. Same reason MGS2 Substance has slowdowns
on
> the Xbox and NFSHP2 looks twice as good on PS2.
This is absurd. I cant believe that you are actually trying to argue that
the Xbox isnt more powerful than the PS2. MGS is worse on the Xbox simply
because Konami where lazy, and have more or less said that they arent going
to commit themselves to the Xbox.
> If you say so.. Let's just wait and see. SH2 didn't look any better on
Xbox.
Try opening your eyes before you say things like this.
Michael Cargill
Woah, you got me there!
Erm... except that I dont actually read the alt. groups, so your little
comment doesnt actually make any sense.
> Umm so what is your point? Developers have been making games on the
windows
> platform for years.
Given that Halo was originally a game to be released on the Apple Mac, then
work started to develop it for the PC and then they were forced to rush it
onto the Xbox, you dont really have a point.
Quantum Redshift was made by programmers who had previously worked on the
PSX and N64, and not the PC.
> And since Need For Speed HP2 looks twice as good on the PS2 that would
make
> the PS2 more powerful than the Xbox.
> According to your analogy
No, as it obviously doesnt look twice as good. Not to mention that you are
talking about one solitary game made by a company not exactly known for the
dedication in getting the most out of systems.
> Wow.. textures
And exactly how is this some sort of comeback? It merely proves my point
that good graphics arent just about how many polygons can be thrown around.
It is widely acknowledged that the PS2 can throw around more polygons than
the GC can - but the GC's polygons look better than the ones produced by the
PS2.
Oh and for your information, the reason that Halo 2 is able to look better
than its predecessor is down to bump mapping and not textures.
> Uhh Silent Hill 3 isn't out yet.. And even in Silent Hill 2 it didn't look
> any better on the Xbox.
> All they did was remove the mask effect
SH2 looked better on the Xbox than it did on the PS2. This is a fact.
> Atleast get your facts straight
What, you mean like spurting the nonsense that all Xbox developers have a
strong Windows development background?
Michael Cargill
shooter
> that basically hasn't changed since it was released on the 386 except for
> evermore bloated graphics you've got a pretty good case that graphics
allways
> come at the expense of gameplay.
You mean the 386 that ran Wolfenstein and Doom? The games that where hailed
as having amazing graphics at the time?
You are seriously deluded if you think that its only recently that
developers have tried to make games with good graphics. During the 16-bit
era, people looked back at the 8-bit times and moaned that too much time is
spent on graphics instead of gameplay. Now people are looking back at the
16-bit era and saying the same thing.
To say that FPS games havent changed much since Doom is merely showing your
ignorance - the likes of Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Halo, Half Life, Medal of
Honor and Goldeneye are miles ahead of Doom.
John Miller
"Ed Singleton" <ne...@e-singleton.net> wrote in message
news:104297109...@doris.uk.clara.net...
> Yong Xie wrote:
>
> > My understanding is that because you love Halo and JSRF,
> > you think XBOX has some of the best games. However, there
> > are very good PS2 FPS shooting games like MOHF and so on,
> > and I don't know what kind of game JSRF is! Generally said,
> > of all the genres of games in XBOX, PS2 has the better ones
> > or at least the same quality ones, so PS2 always exceeds
> > XBOX as long as games are concerned.
>
> Not true. Amped is the best snowboarding title on any system and
arguabley
> the best 'extreme sports' title.
Wrong SSX Tricky is far superior to shite like amped and is nearly 2 YEARS
OLD.
John Miller
"Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0gjav$p07gt$1...@ID-108275.news.dfncis.de...
> > ROFL.. uhh
> >
> > you are a dumb person
>
> No, I am someone who isnt blind.
> There is no way the PS2 could have done Halo, and even looking at the
likes
> of Turok the difference in power is obvious.
Halo is shite and far too slow, I would rather have a better/faster game
with poorer graphics, the PS2 has far superior FPS like MOH but any PC with
a Geforce 4/4200 and above with have graphics on a totally different plane
to a console, any console.
John Miller
"Alexander Mendes" <mum...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mumbles-30EA5A...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> In article <3e2bd1f0$0$168$edfa...@dread14.news.tele.dk>,
> "AJC" <ajc[REMOVE]@jubiipost.dk> wrote:
>
> > "Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:b0gjav$p07gt$1...@ID-108275.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > The best looking PS2 games arent as nice as the best looking Xbox
games.
> >
> > I agree to this post!
>
> I don't. ICO is still the best looking console game I've seen - mostly
> because the designers actually paid attention to artwork and animation,
> rather than just the technical side of things.
ICO will never be available for the xbox simply because DirectX can't do it
and therefore the xbox can't do it. No-one is going to write a complete
OpenGL implementation on the xbox when using directx will get a game on the
shelves in half the time.