| Home | Forums | What's new | Resources | |
| Finally got it |
| Ratamahatta - Jun 22, 2002 |
| < Prev | 1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Next> |
 |
Falstaf | Jul 1, 2002 | ||
|
Lets settle the stats arguement. http://www.xbox-emulation.co.uk/Comparison.shtml... Xbox does kick ass according to stats. Let's wait and see how developers will take advantage of its hardware as its only been out less then a year. | ||||
 |
cww80 | Jul 1, 2002 | |||
:biglaugh | |||||
 |
antime | Jul 1, 2002 | |||
I wouldn't rely on something that compares three different processor architectures based on clock frequency alone. Face it, the numbers game is totally meaningless except for marketing people. | |||||
 |
Ratamahatta | Jul 1, 2002 | ||
| Sega's marketing back in the Genesis days were hilarious, the infamous coffee tea sega! commercials, and the runs in the magazines, "sega does what nintendon't" classic classic ads, and a brilliant stroke of marketing. All xbox neds is some hilarious commercials and make slandering ads and shit towards the other companies and they are set. Genesis did amazing until they brought out the sega cd and 32x. | ||||
|
cww80 | Jul 1, 2002 | |||
Sega had great games to advertise, M$ doesnt... :smileyshot2 | |||||
|
Ratamahatta | Jul 1, 2002 | ||
| CWW, you are just anti MS and Pro PS. If you have even bothered to play the games on the xbox you'd see that there are a ton of great games for the system already. | ||||
|
cww80 | Jul 1, 2002 | |||
oh geez... ??? i could say the same about you...and i have played most of the games you people speak of...  | |||||
|
Ratamahatta | Jul 1, 2002 | ||
| I owned a ps2 and i've played most of the games, not to mention sony has screwed me around quite a bit. so thats why i'm anti ps / sony. their laser lenses for discmans or anything are shite. | ||||
|
cww80 | Jul 1, 2002 | ||
ive never had a problem with either...  | ||||
|
Ratamahatta | Jul 1, 2002 | ||
| I had a problem with my ps2 as soon as I bought it. dvd quality was shit. I could barely see transformers the movie when I played it thru the ps2. Plus I had a few read errors. ps2 = pos | ||||
|
cww80 | Jul 1, 2002 | |||
i have to give you props man you did create one of the most popular threads on Sx yet.The problem is now your just name calling.The fact remains, the PS2 has the best games...which makes it the best system(imagine that).If you have a problem with a defective system take it back(and get another)Theres really no sense in dwelling on it :beerchug | |||||
 |
Hollywood Hasney | Jul 1, 2002 | |||
Nah, thats false. I talk to Sin-Tex loads and keep pointing it out to him. For instance, the GCs polygon number is actually higher than PS2 and quite level with XBox.. The GCs is the number of shaded polygons while the PS2 and XBoxes are unshaded numbers. | |||||
 |
ExCyber | Jul 1, 2002 | |||||||||
The polygons per second comparison is crap - Nintendo's claim is based on what they actually expect developers to routinely achieve, while MS's and Sony's are based on theoretical limits that no actual game will probably even come close to hitting. The memory bandwidth figures are equally lopsided. 3.2GB/s is the peak bandwidth to main memory. That chart doesn't even mention Flipper's embedded 1T-SRAM, which peaks at between 7.8GB/s and 12.8GB/s depending on whose numbers you believe.
It's not just shaded/textured versus flat, it's that Nintendo's number is a realistic (and conservative; Rogue Leader is supposedly pushing over 13 million already) estimate of what can actually be done in a real game, while the others are theoretical maximums.
The same could be said of Gamecube... | |||||||||||
|
Falstaf | Jul 1, 2002 | ||
| So, is there a link that has, what you feel are the commonly accepted correct figures? | ||||
|
ExeterIsLame | Jul 1, 2002 | ||
|
Out of the current gen of consoles I only own one. My reason for not owning the other two is that the games really arent there to entice me into buying one. GameCube has a ton of promise, but the only game out at the moment that I really want to play is Rogue Squadron and it in itself isnt enough to buy a console for... even if it is now only $149. As for the XBox there are a few things I dont like about it right off the bat. Firstly it is a Microsoft game product, which until Dungeon Siege I had yet to find one I liked. AoE always played to me like the ugly lovechild of Civilization II and Warcraft II. It wasnt involved enough to be Civilization, but on the other hand wasn't freeform and arcade enough to be Warcraft so it fell somewhere in the middle. objMSRage.Off... Anyways to move on, the XBox suffers from cludgy controls in everygame I have played on it thusfar besides Halo. That seems to be the saving grace of the system at this point (apart from the Bouncy Bouncy Girls in DOA3). And I have to agree Halo rocks, and is the best FPS available on a console. Problem is I dont really like FPS genre and everytime I consider buying an XBox just for Halo I remember... I OWN A PC I can play Halo, or Quake, or Unreal Tournement 40075 1/2 or whatever the hell the new hot FPS game is in blistering broadband with other PC users. Why would that be a selling point of a console to me. For that matter the other game industry experts are touting as a reason to buy the XBox is Morrowind. Guess what I own that for my PC too and it plays better than on the XBox so no bonus there.This all being said I am not against the 'Box' I just think it needs to mature quite a bit before I will give a damn about it. So far every title that is coming out on it that I could care about is also available in either PC or PS2 flavored goodness. When the new Zelda, Mario and Metroid arrive for the Cube most likely that will be the next console I pick up. As for sales figures. Anyone else notice that the pawn shops are crammed with used Xboxes? At least they are here in Oklahoma. If I find one for around 100 bucks I will pick it up, but it is highly unlikely that I would before that. At 300 bucks it wasnt worth it, and at 200 bucks it still isnt really worth it. At a 150 they would be more likely to get my support. Anyways... what a way to come back to the boards with a long post that is sure to piss off alot of people If that isnt Ex style I am not sure what is hehe | ||||
|
cww80 | Jul 1, 2002 | ||
| yeah thanks for that...welcome back :beerchug | ||||
|
cww80 | Jul 2, 2002 | ||
|
man...i cant wait for, Tekken 4(inferior to VF4 but still good)Shinobi, Devil May Cry 2, and finally Xenosaga(have to wait till march 2003 for that one) :beerchug | ||||
|
cww80 | Jul 3, 2002 | ||
| zzz | ||||
|
ExCyber | Jul 3, 2002 | |||
I couldn't find any links mentioning how many polys current Xbox games are pushing. As for theoretical maximums (I think I saw a claim of 50 million with full effects for GC somewhere, but it doesn't seem to be common knowledge), I generally consider them to be fairly useless because they consider components in isolation rather than as a part of the system - without the system architecture to support it, every graphics chip will output an identical number of polygons per second. A second blow to the significance of theoretical maximums is that the method for calculating them isn't usually revealed, so they could be using math that is incorrect or inconsistent with any kind of real application, and nobody can really call them on it because they don't know what the assumed conditions are, especially when the numbers keep changing (The original Xbox claim was 300 million polygons per second - NVidia doesn't claim anywhere near this many vertices per second for even an NV25 with fast dedicated memory; later it was revised to 250 million; then "more than 200 million"; then 150 million; then 125 million). I'd rather listen to what developers say about the system's potential. In any case, I'm not saying that GC is going to walk all over Xbox, just that Xbox isn't going to walk all over GC. Xbox certainly has a lot of potential, which is one of the main reasons I'm interested in homebrew stuff for it regardless of whether or not it gets good commercial support. | |||||
| < Prev | 1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Next> |