Next Gen Console Race

[AUTO_]

Is basically already over.

It's been discovered that the PS3 will be far more powerful then the Xbox2, so that situation will be more or less the same then the one we have now--only imagine the PS2 being more powerful then the Xbox.

Unless Nintendo has a really crazy wild card up its sleeve (for Nintendo, making an online console would be the wildest thing I've ever seen--which won't happen), then it looks like Sony will be king in the next go-round once again.

[anwserman]

On 2005-03-05 19:29, AUTO_ wrote:
Is basically already over.

It's been discovered that the PS3 will be far more powerful then the Xbox2, so that situation will be more or less the same then the one we have now--only imagine the PS2 being more powerful then the Xbox.

Unless Nintendo has a really crazy wild card up its sleeve (for Nintendo, making an online console would be the wildest thing I've ever seen--which won't happen), then it looks like Sony will be king in the next go-round once again.



I wouldn't say that.
If what I remember is correct, the PS3 will have to be networked and rely on other consoles in order to play its games... if that is what I heard to be true... which I think is an utter crock.

The race has just begun. I wouldn't even dare say its over, because god knows you can have a more-capable console but that doesn't mean shit if there aren't any good games for it.

[AUTO_]

Right...but this is Sony we're talking about.

The point is, you have the same situation you have right now in the console race--only now Sony has the best hardware (well...not much is known about the 'Revolution').

[HUnewearl_Meira]

The trouble that the PS3 is going to have, is that it will be last out of the gate. It's currently expected to release sometime in 2007, whereas the Xbox2 is due out this summer. It's got two years lead time, and somehow I expect that the PlayStation 3 will be just another hype-box, just as the PlayStation 2; not really deserving of the praise it gets.

Beyond that, the PlayStation 2 has succeeded out of hype and sheer quantity of games-- and the quantity of games is a result of the hype. Developers release on the PS2 because it's popular, not because it's a pleasure to program. If Sony doesn't do a good job of making the PS3 programmer-friendly, they could be screwed.

Consider that it's completely unexpected to have 2 successful consoles consequtively, let alone 3. By this time the Xbox has done a good job of taking a bite out of the PS2's popularity. Chances are good for the Xbox 2 to take this round.

[PJ]

On 2005-03-05 21:32, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
Chances are good for the Xbox 2 to take this round.



You know it's kinda creepy when we state each generation as a round, like it's a war or something.

I know everyone makes it out to be, but it'd be much better if we weren't competing for the better hardware (Although always a good thing, better hardware that is), and just focusing on the games?

That's what I like about Nintendo... I mean, it's not like they're going out and being all, "ZOMC OUR SYSTEM WILL COME OUT IN LEIK 2 WEEKS AND PWN THE OTHERS 1'S!1!1!"

Although Mario is getting a bit out of hand http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_nono.gif

[shinobu_seta]

I'm sick of console wars. I really don't understand how people have continued to debate about this for years and years. I play the games I like, and I could really care less how much polygons your system can push.

The system that has the better games is what will get my money. I don't care what a system COULD do, I care about what it's doing.

Besides, it's pointless anyway. You know Sony's already got any sort of Console Race you may think of in the bag. They're marketing plan is all hype, and it always works. And now they've got a strangle hold on the market.

It doesn't matter what Ninteno or Microsoft do. In today's world, Sony could take a dump in a shoe box and call it a system and it'd still sell millions. Such is the idiocy of the mainstream gamer -_-



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: shinobu_seta on 2005-03-06 00:09 ]</font>

[WrathofGOD]

Nintendo is no contender in "Console Wars" and that's the way they like it. Nintendo doesn't see themselves as competing... and they've stated numerous times that they aren't even trying to compete, they're just doing they're own thing.

And yes, it was revealed long ago that the PS3 and it's Cell processor is technologically superior to XBOX2's specs. But XBOX2 will have at least a year on PS3. Plus Microsoft has really made strides to ensure they don't repeat their failings in Japan.

But we'll just have to wait and see.

I'll be at E3 this year to check them all out first hand... anyone else?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: WrathofGOD on 2005-03-06 02:38 ]</font>

[EJ]

On 2005-03-06 00:07, shinobu_seta wrote:
I'm sick of console wars. I really don't understand how people have continued to debate about this for years and years. I play the games I like, and I could really care less how much polygons your system can push.

The system that has the better games is what will get my money. I don't care what a system COULD do, I care about what it's doing.

Besides, it's pointless anyway. You know Sony's already got any sort of Console Race you may think of in the bag. They're marketing plan is all hype, and it always works. And now they've got a strangle hold on the market.

It doesn't matter what Ninteno or Microsoft do. In today's world, Sony could take a dump in a shoe box and call it a system and it'd still sell millions. Such is the idiocy of the mainstream gamer -_-



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: shinobu_seta on 2005-03-06 00:09 ]</font>

I have to unfortuantely agree on that point and games like Halo was so over hyped more than they derserve to be. Sure Halo is fun but don't go calling it the gresteast game ever made because it isn't. Plus the casual gamer won't know a crap game from a good game that why Microsoft and Sony will lead I think cause everyone puts Nintendo as a child system before even giving it a chance. *sigh* The hype from both Sony and Microsoft are all they got except Sony has much more better games than Micrososft that's the only difference I see from both of them.

[derBauer]

I believe that each generations systems could win the battle, it is just a matter of utilizing the machine to potential.
I would say the Xbox has the best specs of this current gen, but PS2 wins overall because of how many superb games it has.
Declaring a winner based solely on system specs is retarded. Especially when you don't even know what the system specs are.

[BrokenHope]

On 2005-03-05 19:29, AUTO_ wrote:
Is basically already over.

It's been discovered that the PS3 will be far more powerful then the Xbox2, so that situation will be more or less the same then the one we have now--only imagine the PS2 being more powerful then the Xbox.

Unless Nintendo has a really crazy wild card up its sleeve (for Nintendo, making an online console would be the wildest thing I've ever seen--which won't happen), then it looks like Sony will be king in the next go-round once again.



We only know that the PS3 is going to be using a CELL processor and a video card by Nvidia, outside of that we don't know much.

Xbox 2 is supposed to be using a triple core power pc processor, and we aren't sure about revolution, other than the fact it will be using a video card from ATI that is 2 generations more powerfull than the X800 series.

[Deathscythealpha]

With the PS3 im waiting to see the console before passing judgement as I feel the tech spec is like all the other tech specs they've released; utter bullshit.

They did it with the PS2 and I remember hearing grumblings somewhere about the PSP, so untill i can see the system...

Xbox2 is supposedly running into problems at the minute though due to the use of the ATI Radeon graphics card. Seems to be quite a problem getting it to work with the Xbox2 and after the way Microsoft left NVidia, it doesnt look like they will be friends with them for awhile.

Nintendo Revolution...mweh, cant comment on that at all yet. Tis going to be a revolution as I keep getting told, but im actually thinking that Nintendo could be in some sick suicide pack with SEGA, as they keep slidng down and down.

[Neith]

The PS3's meant to have photo-realistic graphics...yeah, I'll believe that when I see it thanks. Think I'm prolly gonna buy Nintendo's machine- Project:Revolution I think it's codename is. Not too impressed with Sony, their equipment's poorly made. The PSP's square button sensor is misaligned under the button, so it doesnt always work, the slimline PS2 overheats because ive heard they removed the fan to cut the size down http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif Nintendo for me.

[KodiaX987]

I played The Lost Vikings yesterday.

Proof that you don't need a killer chip and photo-realistic breasts to do great games.

[PJ]

On 2005-03-06 05:35, KodiaX987 wrote:
Proof that you don't need a killer chip and photo-realistic breasts to do great games.



I think that was proven in the Genesis/SNES days, Sonic 2, Shinobi, Super Star Wars... <3

[Scrub]

Next Generation bullshit. This is just a big bullshit to make me have to sell my already existing systems to try and afford the ridiculously expensive new ones because they won't make games for the old ones. God damn you Xbox.

[Neith]

Revenge of Shinobi..pwnage. Forget the newer consoles, I wanna buy a Genesis again http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

[tank1]

Anyone who says that sony has it in the bag and it is already won is an IDIOT! .Lets look back in time a bit normally gmaes consoles go in cycles of succes do we all remember the time when Nintendo ruled the roost with its Nes and Snes. Then sony came along they had a heated fight and then sony took 1st place.
Also before the Nes the Atari system were the hot thinig to have, i remember thinking when the ps1 came out "what the hell does Sony know about games" they were the underdog which is what the GC & X box are at this point.
So if trends continue like they have for years then it is inevitable that Playstaions time in the sun will end as to wehter it will end with the PS3 we will have to wait and find out.

[Omega_Nova]

On 2005-03-05 19:29, AUTO_ wrote:
Is basically already over.

It's been discovered that the PS3 will be far more powerful then the Xbox2, so that situation will be more or less the same then the one we have now--only imagine the PS2 being more powerful then the Xbox.

Unless Nintendo has a really crazy wild card up its sleeve (for Nintendo, making an online console would be the wildest thing I've ever seen--which won't happen), then it looks like Sony will be king in the next go-round once again.



Remeber the dreamcast? Didn't it have the same graphics power as the PS2?

[TheOneHero]

On 2005-03-06 06:55, GreyPhantasm wrote:
Next Generation bullshit. This is just a big bullshit to make me have to sell my already existing systems to try and afford the ridiculously expensive new ones because they won't make games for the old ones. God damn you Xbox.



One of the most intelligent things said in this whole thread. http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[tank1]

Hopefully now that graphics have basically hit a peak the companies wont realease new consooles as often as David Gosen of nintendo said (i think) "This race is no longer about horsepower but is now about new innovations for our existing consoles".
I hope he was telling the truth cuz im running outta room in to put my consoles.

[Rain_1]

Actually, i find it funny that the first poster of this message said the PS3 will win because it's the most powerful console...

History has proven that the most powerful console doesn't always win. Look at the Dreamcast vs Playstation 2 wars...

My personal thoughs?

PS3 will suck horribly since it's based on new technology - sony is taking too many risks. Blu-Ray (not the natural standard to be followed), cell chip (which is new), and other random things.

XBox 2 (or whatever it's name) will prevail, specially since xbox has stret credit and it's based on technology we know it works (if you're a dev you know wht i'm talking about)

Nintendo Revolution will be just like Gamecube. A Nice console with a promising future that will be wasted on stupid decisions and kiddy-centric management.


Don't forget that my vision of sucking horribly is exactly what the Playstation 2 is today - it just plain sucks horribly.. yet, all the sony fanboys still buy it..

The main point is: the most powerful machine doesn't always win... mostly because since when graphics means good games? Guess you people never really had the joy of playing an atari2600...

Edit: if all, better graphics only allow shittier games to be done. Nowdays, game companies go like "yeah, screw the gameplay, make it look good"... And as far as i'm concerned, it's easier to make a game look good than to play good...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rain_1 on 2005-03-09 08:08 ]</font>

[tank1]

I agree with what your saying (except the X-box bit) graphics dont cut it it is about gameplay having nice eyecandy on the games is fine but id rather be enjoying the game instead of just staring at the lush graphics.

[Solstis]

I believe that Nintendo doesn't want to make money as much as I believe in spontaneous combustion.

Sure, it would be kinda cool, but it's rather unlikely.

"Hey! We're losing this "war." Let's back up and say that we don't care about the battle, but about making great games. Yeah, that'll rake in a few thousand or more customers!"

Business = Bullshit, and the manipulation thereof. Japanese businessmen are just as ruthless as American businessmen.

Do you think the guys writing the code for the next Mario game gets a tear in his eye, thinking of the glory that is the noble Nintendo?

Hahah. Haha. Hah.

[tank1]

Nintendo supposedely is doing well in Japan and average in america but in europe your lucky to have a single shelf in game dedicated to the GC why?.
Cuz Nintendo got arrogant after the N64 and assumed it was alright to realise the GC like 2 years late all my mates were ninty fans but faced with the prospect of getting a ps2 or siticking with there N64 IT WAS A NO BRAINER AND THEY JUMPED SHIP!.
When we finally got the GC in europe there was no mario game nothing the launch titles ucked balls and nearly everytime a killer game is to be released in europe affter america they cancell it at the last moment. Atleast sony dont release everything late and hord all there games in america and japan and leave europe with sweet fuck all!

[Outrider]

There are so many things wrong with this thread it's not even funny. Let's try to set things straight:

Nintendo is doing well in Japan, and decently in America. No idea about Europe. They are in this industry to make money, though, and there's no way around that fact.

The strongest console does not win every generation as shown by the Playstation beating out the N64 and the PS2 beating out the X-Box. But whoever said the Dreamcast was on equal footing with the PS2 is wrong. The PS2 has superior hardware.

Also, by saying that the PS2 sucks completely and utterly proves that your opinion is mostly invalid and fanboyish. The PS2 has many, many good games on it. I'm a Nintendo fanboy for life, but I will admit that there are some amazing titles that are on the PS2 that I needed the system for. Anybody who can say PS2-exclusive titles such as ICO or the MGS series are not good games is either lying to themselves or ignorant.

I'll chime in again later, as I'm sure somebody's going to start arguing that the Playstation 3 will eat your babies or something along those lines, but I have to run right now.

[Rain_1]

Just because you like metal gear solid and you think is a omfg kickass game, i don't have to like it (and i don't)... out of the three current consoles, playstation 2 has the less appealing games for me.... Sure, it has Katamari Damacy and... erm... Sega Ages... but that's pretty much it as far as big titles go. I couldn't care less about metal gear or whatever the hell the other games are.. Most good ps2 games are cross-plataform.

The only two consoles that have the most appealing exclusive games are the Xbox and Gamecube. Xbox has by far much more nice games than the gamecube, but the gamecube has much more exclusive games (well, all nintendo games) than the xbox - still, the only console i have (from this generation) is the gamecube and i'm not satisfied with it - not enough games. The ones that exist kick major ass, but there aren't enough.

I am a fanboy, i admit that.. but i'm a fanboy for SEGA, so the fact taht i'm a fanboy doesn't apply for this matter.

XBox for teh win (even tho i don't have one)

Edit: oh yeah, i forgot about this:


But whoever said the Dreamcast was on equal footing with the PS2 is wrong. The PS2 has superior hardware.

I never said the dc and the ps2 were equals, even tho the ps2 makes shittier gfx than the dreamcast.

Please, it's commom knowledge that soul calibur 2 on PS2 doesn't look ANYTHING better than soul calibur 1 on DC.. I was refering specifically to the GFX-part of that comparision.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rain_1 on 2005-03-09 12:34 ]</font>

[Outrider]

On 2005-03-09 12:25, Rain_1 wrote:
Just because you like metal gear solid and you think is a omfg kickass game, i don't have to like it (and i don't)... out of the three current consoles, playstation 2 has the less appealing games for me.... Sure, it has Katamari Damacy and... erm... Sega Ages... but that's pretty much it as far as big titles go. I couldn't care less about metal gear or whatever the hell the other games are.. Most good ps2 games are cross-plataform.

The only two consoles that have the most appealing exclusive games are the Xbox and Gamecube. Xbox has by far much more nice games than the gamecube, but the gamecube has much more exclusive games (well, all nintendo games) than the xbox - still, the only console i have (from this generation) is the gamecube and i'm not satisfied with it - not enough games. The ones that exist kick major ass, but there aren't enough.

I am a fanboy, i admit that.. but i'm a fanboy for SEGA, so the fact taht i'm a fanboy doesn't apply for this matter.

XBox for teh win (even tho i don't have one)


Well, you said that the PS2 was an awful system, and that's why I'm jumping on your back. You can't simply dismiss a system that has had games that revolutionized genres as "sucking horribly." I sure as heck hate tons of games on the PS2, but I can't deny what they are. Sports games don't interest me in the least, but I'm not going to say they don't have impressive graphics in some instances or can offer a fun play for some people.




Edit: oh yeah, i forgot about this:


But whoever said the Dreamcast was on equal footing with the PS2 is wrong. The PS2 has superior hardware.

I never said the dc and the ps2 were equals, even tho the ps2 makes shittier gfx than the dreamcast.

Please, it's commom knowledge that soul calibur 2 on PS2 doesn't look ANYTHING better than soul calibur 1 on DC.. I was refering specifically to the GFX-part of that comparision.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rain_1 on 2005-03-09 12:34 ]</font>


That's... that's not true at all. Soul Calibur on Dreamcast was an amazing-looking game, but the PS2 sequel definitely has better graphics. They might not be vastly different, but they are different. It's definitely commonly accepted that the graphics for SC2 are not significantly better than the first, but to say they are the same in the sequel on PS2 is simply false. You might prefer the look of the Dreamcast game, but that doesn't mean it's technically better.

But that's all a moot point as the discussion wasn't about graphics - it was about pure processing power. And to say the Dreamcast and PS2 are equals is not quite true. They are fairly close, and I'm sure somebody who knows more about consoles on the technical side could explain better than I could, but the fact of the matter is that the PS2 is a more powerful system than the Dreamcast.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Outrider on 2005-03-09 18:16 ]</font>

[HAYABUSA-FMW-]

I hate seeing these things.

You're going to buy what systems you want.
You're going to buy what games you want.
You're going to play them.
Some you will love, others you will hate.

There is no reason to bitch about what a "common average joe gamer" is spending their money on, or how "evil" a company is to be doing this this or that to the consumer, etc. etc.

What do you care what someone else is doing to their product or what they are spending their money on?

"A lot of games on this system suck, so I hate the system!"

One side to this all is, if you can, buy all three and the games you want.

If you're truly that big a fan of gaming then you can afford this. It will be a small price to pay.

Not many people seem to do this, so arguing about how much systems cost and such is justified. Projected early outlooks at $300-400 are damn scary, but guess what?! You don't have to buy them on launch day to play a few crappy launch games and overpay just to be the first.

Wait a few months until the price eventually drops and more games, thus more quality games as well, come out.

We don't need to see people getting hurt again(rushing stores and employees, trampling other people) over PS2 and Ridge Racer/etc. on a launch day.

Don't worry about who is going to win.
You're the consumer with the money.
Whatever you do, make sure you win!

-About DC and PS2 Soul Caliburs.
The PS2 used to be bashed about "jaggies" in their texturing graphics right? the DC had something about luminance output through the cables(don't know the exact terms, have to go check an old EGM or something for the info) that allowed your TV set up to show all the DC games mostly crisp and bright. No "jaggies".

[digigram]

Jaggies in rendering have nothing to do with "luminance". Absolutely nothing.


I never said the dc and the ps2 were equals, even tho the ps2 makes shittier gfx than the dreamcast.

Again, your biased opinion, completely not based on fact. I dare, anyone, to attempt to make a game on DC that even barely rivals the quality and clarity of gran turismo 4.

Dreamcast.
-200mhz standard hitachi CPU.
-16MB system memory
-8MB video memory
-produces at peak rendering, 3 million polygons per second, no seperate transform and lighting processing.
-pre set hardware texture compression (compressed textures = lower detail, longer load time)

Playstation2.
-Proprietary Emotion CPU, running at clock of 294.MHZ (with emotion chip controlling all aspects of graphics and processing power in parallel engines), which means technicaly the Playstation has equal Push to that of 500+ Mhz.
-32 MB system memory RAMBUS ram(3.2-/+ GB bandwidth)
-4MB seperate video memory with Video processing card running at 150Mhz that at peak transfer can not only throw out 20 million polygons per second but the shaders and lighting processing can throw out an additional 36 million PPS........
-----------------------------------------------------

now. of course, specs having nothing to do with fun. I have every system. I love them all. I truly love Dreamcast, it's fun. I love Ps2, it's awesome. Xbox Crashes on me constantly which totally fucks up my fun, but I still love it and it's fun as well. All of the systems are fun.

BUT. saying that DC is more powerful and produces better graphics than Playstation2 is both extremely partial and biased, not to mention "respectfully" ignorant of the details that go into producing the games you play. not saying you must, but if you must state baseless opinions, at least know what you're talking about.

[BrokenHope]

On 2005-03-10 07:54, digigram wrote:
Dreamcast.
-pre set hardware texture compression (compressed textures = lower detail, longer load time)


Compressed textures allow greater detail in the same or smaller space than if a lower detail texture was used, they also allow quicker load times. To put it bluntly, your specs for this piece are incorrect.

Your PS2 specs are also theoretical maximums and not what the system is capable of in a game. Otherwise PS2 would completely own GameCube graphically, since Nintendo only state 12 million polygons per second as its max sustained output.

[KodiaX987]

That, and if I remember well, the PS2's raw specs were for simple, untextured polygons - don't remember exactly.

The story I've seen so far between DC and PS2 was about how the graphics ended up on the same game. Example. DoA2. On the PS2, the graphics were crisper, but allowed for noticeable jagged edges. Roughly the same thing for Rez. On the DC, things were smooted out. If you want an exaggerated version of the situation, run a Sega Genesis or Super Nintendo emulator. Go full screen. Notice the pixels. They're huge. Now compare to what you used to see on your TV.

I think what happened was that the DC had that built-in smoothing thingy (not sure if it actually was anti-alisaing or some other doohickey) while the PS2 hadn't, so programmers had to make themselves one if they wanted to smooth things out in the game.

[Outrider]

On 2005-03-10 16:44, KodiaX987 wrote:
That, and if I remember well, the PS2's raw specs were for simple, untextured polygons - don't remember exactly.



The deal with the PS2 is that if absolutely basic polygons are being rendered, it can push those numbers. However, as soon you start texturing them and such the numbers drop significantly.

[HAYABUSA-FMW-]

On 2005-03-10 16:44, KodiaX987 wrote:

I think what happened was that the DC had that built-in smoothing thingy (not sure if it actually was anti-alisaing or some other doohickey) while the PS2 hadn't, so programmers had to make themselves one if they wanted to smooth things out in the game.

That's probably what I was thinking.

Luminance. http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif
I can safely laugh at myself back there.
Anti-aliasing/etc. through the cables connecting the system to the TV, Or something like that. I don't want to be specific about things I have no supporting facts for so I'll stop now.

No use stating your opinions on games for consoles on the internet anyway. Those "Best game EVER" polls and crap prove this kind of nonsense.

If you suggest a game that you believe is great, someone else is going to bash it for no reason other than to bash it. Then they don't give their own examples of their favorite games to cover their asses. http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Tell me how I wasted $70 on Street Fighter 2/FF3(6) years ago(not much by a longshot, look at old NeoGeo home systems/games and what they cost) and I'll laugh at you. What the hell do you care what other people are spending on games?

The only justification I can see in this is, for example: Sony being criticized for lowered quality of their hardware. "Disc read errors" and other problems are surely the cause of many people having to buy new Sony hardware to replace their old ones.

That can cut into those huge figures you read about sometimes of 30 million PS2's sold worldwide or whatever. How many of those are broken? How many are replacements purchased by previous, and not new, consumers?

They probably dig themselves a hole everytime they rush to manufacture the consoles at accelerated rates to meet demands for launch day or whatever. There's bound to be some lemons in the group. It probably can't be helped but people will undoubtedly point it out in their own horror stories of having to buy a console three times or whatnot.

[digigram]

Your PS2 specs are also theoretical maximums and not what the system is capable of in a game. Otherwise PS2 would completely own GameCube graphically, since Nintendo only state 12 million polygons per second as its max sustained output.

If that is the case on "just" the PS2, then my "theoretical maximums" are there for both systems..

and I have to respectfully disagree with your reply on compressed texture loading speeds. The detail I was wrong about (don't know why i wrote that) I won't even bother arguing the reason why I disagree, everything I say is wrong it seems. What do I know.

As well, I have never heard of any device for any system externally that, in the cable, had anti-aliasing functions.

composite, compressed signal then decompressed at TV (loss of clarity and color seperation)
Svideo, semi compressed video signal seperating Lum and chrom from color signals.
Component (Ybr-etc), colors are all seperated except Green which isn't actually sent, Luminance and chrom are seperate and combined at end to be able to produce green with the Red and Blue.
RGB, pretty much the same thing as component with minor differences but same quality virtually, considering it's going to be turned back into component at TV.

The dreamcast had composite, svideo, and RGB (probably component as well-not sure), but the anti-aliasing you speak of is clear in the composite cable, therefor the Anti-aliasing in the video of the DREAMCAST took place in the GPU and not anywhere else. So yeah, it did/does have AA, but not in the cable. *shrug*

A great example of what you guys are so fanboyishly trying to prove, about PS2, is CAPCOM vs SNK 2. not sure if that game was justd developed like shit or not, but i loaded up CAPCOM vs SNK 1 for DC and 2 for PS2 and the Dreamcast clearly won.

The Detail of the characters and the physics and hand-drawn characters for the Ps2 won, but the over all quality on the Dreamcast for the games prequel, was perfect. again I don't know if it was due to the Ps2 version being rushed through production or not.

now..

Guilty Gear X I and II

are for both systems. the PS2 version is the winner in this, no matter what you say. I have both version for both systems and both systems have Svideo and Ps2 has a component output (my TV isn't Hd though soI can't take advantage of the component outputs full ability), switching between the two, the Dreamcast's version, while it still looks great, lacks the level of definition and detail that the PS2 has on the exact same game, and yeah, it came out for DC before PS2, which can only explain the developers for the Ps2 version took advantage of the PS2's ability to do anti-aliasing as well, not to mention other capabilities of the Ps2.

It's really a matter of timeline for release on multi platform games and the capabilities of the systems themselves and whether or not they made it to match or just said "screw it, lets just get it out".

Of course there ae going to be games for Ps2 that look horrible, thats not the systems fault in almost ALL cases, it's the development for the games, be it cross-platform or not.

And yeah, having worked at Nintendo and having run the diagnostics on what the GC can actually handle before bottlenecking and slowing down, the PS2 is better, not only in my opinion, but on plain rendering power. Sorry if you don't agree.

I am going to reiterate my stance on the "system" debate.. I'm on no sides, I like the ps2 just as much as I like the Dreamcast. As for the next Gen systems, I could care less who will "win", because there's not going to be a winner. A winner would dictate who is going out of business upon release of each system, which won't happen with these 3 companies. I'm buying all three, because I love video games, develop sound for them and want to know the quality and capabilities of the systems in actual play.


So please, if anyone replies, don't bother saying I'm biased in any way towards one system or the next, I own every system short of the home version of the NEO GEO.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: digigram on 2005-03-11 12:14 ]</font>

[Rain_1]

That antialiasing on the cable is such an immense amount of BS that i wont even comment on that.. now onto more important subjects...



On 2005-03-11 11:38, digigram wrote:
Guilty Gear X I and II

are for both systems. the PS2 version is the winner in this, no matter what you say. I have both version for both systems and both systems have Svideo and Ps2 has a component output (my TV isn't Hd though soI can't take advantage of the component outputs full ability), switching between the two, the Dreamcast's version, while it still looks great, lacks the level of definition and detail that the PS2 has on the exact same game, and yeah, it came out for DC before PS2, which can only explain the developers for the Ps2 version took advantage of the PS2's ability to do anti-aliasing as well, not to mention other capabilities of the Ps2.


That would be a perfect comparision and point for your discussion, if there wasn't one little detail that you either "forgot" or didn't know.

Both Guilty Gear X and Guilty Gear XX are arcade ports, correct? Correct.

Both Guilty Gear X and Guilty Gear XX run on the same arcade hardware.. which is.. the Naomi..

Now, what is the dreamcast? Well, it's basically a home version of the Naomi arcade.
Yes, it has less memory (not sure on the numbers). Yes, a dreamcast port of it would probably mean less ligtning effects or any of those uninteresting details, but the point is: Guilty Gear XX was not made on the dreamcast simply because sega, as stupid as they are, pulled the plug on the dreamcast too soon. And i'm pretty sure the dreamcast could've done a job as good (or even better, as i believe it would) than the guilty gear XX on ps2 (mostly for one specific reason: PS2 has less VRAM).

Now want to know somethign even more funnier? Both Guilty Gear XX and Guilty Gear XX Reloaded run on a modded version of the Naomi hardware, that uses GD-Roms as it's storage media.

Edit: oh yeah, and the point of this message, if anybody didn't get it, is: if it was made on a naomi 1 board, the dreamcast can do it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rain_1 on 2005-03-11 12:55 ]</font>

[Outrider]

On 2005-03-11 11:38, digigram wrote:
And yeah, having worked at Nintendo and having run the diagnostics on what the GC can actually handle before bottlenecking and slowing down, the PS2 is better, not only in my opinion, but on plain rendering power. Sorry if you don't agree.



See, every developer interview and article on the subject that I've read has said specifically that the PS2 can only push more polygons if it's not doing any effects.

So basically, you're the only person I've ever herad say that.

I mean, hey, that's fine if that's what you think... it's just I've heard so much of the opposite that I'm gonna have to go with the majority here.

[BrokenHope]

On 2005-03-11 11:38, digigram wrote:

Your PS2 specs are also theoretical maximums and not what the system is capable of in a game. Otherwise PS2 would completely own GameCube graphically, since Nintendo only state 12 million polygons per second as its max sustained output.

If that is the case on "just" the PS2, then my "theoretical maximums" are there for both systems..

and I have to respectfully disagree with your reply on compressed texture loading speeds. The detail I was wrong about (don't know why i wrote that) I won't even bother arguing the reason why I disagree, everything I say is wrong it seems. What do I know.

As well, I have never heard of any device for any system externally that, in the cable, had anti-aliasing functions.

composite, compressed signal then decompressed at TV (loss of clarity and color seperation)
Svideo, semi compressed video signal seperating Lum and chrom from color signals.
Component (Ybr-etc), colors are all seperated except Green which isn't actually sent, Luminance and chrom are seperate and combined at end to be able to produce green with the Red and Blue.
RGB, pretty much the same thing as component with minor differences but same quality virtually, considering it's going to be turned back into component at TV.

The dreamcast had composite, svideo, and RGB (probably component as well-not sure), but the anti-aliasing you speak of is clear in the composite cable, therefor the Anti-aliasing in the video of the DREAMCAST took place in the GPU and not anywhere else. So yeah, it did/does have AA, but not in the cable. *shrug*

A great example of what you guys are so fanboyishly trying to prove, about PS2, is CAPCOM vs SNK 2. not sure if that game was justd developed like shit or not, but i loaded up CAPCOM vs SNK 1 for DC and 2 for PS2 and the Dreamcast clearly won.

The Detail of the characters and the physics and hand-drawn characters for the Ps2 won, but the over all quality on the Dreamcast for the games prequel, was perfect. again I don't know if it was due to the Ps2 version being rushed through production or not.

now..

Guilty Gear X I and II

are for both systems. the PS2 version is the winner in this, no matter what you say. I have both version for both systems and both systems have Svideo and Ps2 has a component output (my TV isn't Hd though soI can't take advantage of the component outputs full ability), switching between the two, the Dreamcast's version, while it still looks great, lacks the level of definition and detail that the PS2 has on the exact same game, and yeah, it came out for DC before PS2, which can only explain the developers for the Ps2 version took advantage of the PS2's ability to do anti-aliasing as well, not to mention other capabilities of the Ps2.

It's really a matter of timeline for release on multi platform games and the capabilities of the systems themselves and whether or not they made it to match or just said "screw it, lets just get it out".

Of course there ae going to be games for Ps2 that look horrible, thats not the systems fault in almost ALL cases, it's the development for the games, be it cross-platform or not.

And yeah, having worked at Nintendo and having run the diagnostics on what the GC can actually handle before bottlenecking and slowing down, the PS2 is better, not only in my opinion, but on plain rendering power. Sorry if you don't agree.

I am going to reiterate my stance on the "system" debate.. I'm on no sides, I like the ps2 just as much as I like the Dreamcast. As for the next Gen systems, I could care less who will "win", because there's not going to be a winner. A winner would dictate who is going out of business upon release of each system, which won't happen with these 3 companies. I'm buying all three, because I love video games, develop sound for them and want to know the quality and capabilities of the systems in actual play.


So please, if anyone replies, don't bother saying I'm biased in any way towards one system or the next, I own every system short of the home version of the NEO GEO.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: digigram on 2005-03-11 12:14 ]</font>


Compressed data always loads faster because it takes up less room on the source media, though it takes more processing power to decompress and actually use that data.

Also you compare a system on s video to a system on component, then say the one running component has more detail? No shit Sherlock, considering component has many more lines of resolution and further splits the signal, of course it will have more detail.

Oh and if the PS2 is so much better than GC, why is the RE4 port having to be downgraded? The PS2 has better geometry output, no denying that, but it's lack of RAM means it has shit for texture maps and most games have ugly aliasing.

[Rain_1]

On 2005-03-12 02:27, BrokenHope wrote:
Oh and if the PS2 is so much better than GC, why is the RE4 port having to be downgraded? The PS2 has better geometry output, no denying that, but it's lack of RAM means it has shit for texture maps and most games have ugly aliasing.

Oh yeah, don't forget that on GC, all Resident Evil 4 textures are 24x24, while on PS2 some of them had to be downsampled to 4x4 (yeah, you read it right, 4x4)...

Now that's some powerful system eh? </sarcasm>

[Skett]

What the heck is with all this technologically powerful stuff? In terms of technical power it goes like this: Dreamcast < PS2 < Cube < Xbox. This has been proven plenty of time through developer interviews, games built exclusively using the system's hardware, and stats.

Anyways, on the next gen hardware. For PS3, I can see Sony resting on their overwhelming fanbase. But they are in a good position. Developers from this gen will no doubt continue onto PS3. PS3 is powerful, although incredibly hard to program for, which may keep smaller and/or newer developers away. They will probably be boasting their technical side a lot though.

Xenon is still a question mark compared to PS3. It is less powerful but Microsoft seems more intent on having their online service run the show, like they are doing now, instead of boasting about the technical stats like it did during the beginning. Backwords compatibility is still pretty unknown but we do know that Xenon will be sold in two ways: with or without a harddrive.

If Xenon is a question mark than Nintendo's Revolution is just the dot of the question mark. All we know is that Revolution will be more powerful than all current systems but we don't know compared to Xenon. Chances it won't be as powerful as PS3 though. Nintendo is going with "innovation first" rule that they have been pushing with DS. We don't know what they have planned in terms of features aside from it being backwords compatible with GameCube and using WiFi for free online gaming.

Both Nintendo and Microsoft have said that they have Sony square in their sights so I can see they will try to take most of the developer support away from Sony, which is their weakspot. PS3 will probably thrive on third party support like they have with PS2 but if a lot of their support is gone... GTA has hit Xbox numorous times and if Square Enix supports Revolution as heavily as they have for DS/GBA, Sony will have lost two previously exclusive properties.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Skett on 2005-03-12 11:54 ]</font>

[Neith]

Er.. PS2 has better tech specs than GC, Ive just done about their specs in my university lectures. In terms of specs, Xbox>PS2>GC, as much as I hate to say it. The GC is the weakest in tech specs, and has a lot fewer games, but good quality ones (generally). Unfortunately, Sony seem to love EA http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif Hasnt been a decent PS2 game Ive liked in ages.

Not sure if anyone's heard this, to back this up, but I heard another Sony horror story. Apparently, the PS3 doesnt have anti-aliasing?

[BrokenHope]

On 2005-03-12 11:59, UrikoBB3 wrote:
Er.. PS2 has better tech specs than GC, Ive just done about their specs in my university lectures. In terms of specs, Xbox>PS2>GC, as much as I hate to say it. The GC is the weakest in tech specs, and has a lot fewer games, but good quality ones (generally). Unfortunately, Sony seem to love EA http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif Hasnt been a decent PS2 game Ive liked in ages.

Not sure if anyone's heard this, to back this up, but I heard another Sony horror story. Apparently, the PS3 doesnt have anti-aliasing?



The PS2 does NOT have better specs, if it did then why do GC games just plain look better? The problem is, Nintendo listed specs of what the GC could actually render in a game environment, where's sony listed the complete maximums that aren't even attainable in a game.

[Outrider]

On 2005-03-12 11:50, Skett wrote:
Xenon is still a question mark compared to PS3. It is less powerful but Microsoft seems more intent on having their online service run the show, like they are doing now, instead of boasting about the technical stats like it did during the beginning. Backwords compatibility is still pretty unknown but we do know that Xenon will be sold in two ways: with or without a harddrive.


Just to quote IGN:

"Hard Drive: Xenon's hard drive is optional. It's not built in like the current Xbox. A total of 2 GB of the drive will be used as game cache. The final drive size is still being determined. The Hard Drive will be a 2.5" form factor and sold separately. Microsoft's current plan is to require you to buy the hard drive to enable backward compatibility with current Xbox games. This way, Microsoft recovers the cost of its hard drive, plus it is most likely to give hard drive buyers Xbox Live subscriptions"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Outrider on 2005-03-12 12:15 ]</font>