[sigma8]

In reply to:

---

My point being, that XBox hasn't even begun to to fully receive benefits from franchise effects. PS2 has already received much of its franchise bonuses years ago.

---

Unfortunately, Microsoft's franchises are somewhat bland..
Halo...and.. um.. Dead or Alive? They sometimes manage to get temporary exclusives on things that are destined for PC release, like Splinter Cell and Knights of the Old Republic, but at least towards the later portion of Xbox's lifecycle, this practice seemed to wither up (KotOR 2 had a very proximal PC release).
Xbox got the lock on Ninja Gaiden as well.
However, the only true Xbox exclusives that I felt had anything going for them were Halo and Ninja Gaiden. Everything else you could either get for PS2, GC, or the PC. Thus, while I agree they haven't reaped the advantage of strong franchises, I would also suggest they still barely have any.

[tallscot]

Ha! You mean OS ex, right?
MAC, right?

[sigma8]

In reply to:

---

I don't know about the Xbox, though. It's my opinion that the Xbox, especially with Live, is superior to the PS2.

---

( certain typographical errors corrected in the quote above :-P )
From a horsepower perspective, I would agree. But remember that you can now get a PS2 that is about 1/10th the size of an Xbox. The PS2 also has a much richer library of games, which in many cases, look and play nearly the same. In some rare cases, they even look and play better. There are a handful of cases where the inverse is true as well, but the fact that sometimes the PS2 has the superior versions makes this 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

[sigma8]

Nah, I don't use OS ex- anymore

[tallscot]

From a horsepower perspective, I would agree. But remember that you can now get a PS2 that is about 1/10th the size of an Xbox. The PS2 also has a much richer library of games, which in many cases, look and play nearly the same. In some rare cases, they even look and play better. There are a handful of cases where the inverse is true as well, but the fact that sometimes the PS2 has the superior versions makes this 6 of one, half dozen of the other.
I didn't realize that.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the PS2 (yeah, I got it right!) always looked like it was very jaggy compared to XBox games. The PS1 was the same way, IMHO. The edges are very jaggy and desperately need antialiasing. I don't know the technical details, and maybe I'm wrong. I'd have to have two screenshots of the same game side by side.
Thanks for your info.

[n3al3aton]

You know...I have always thought that most of the games on the PS2 look 'jaggie', too.
But...on the flip side of that is that on the XBox, it looks like the character is lighted differently than the background.
in terms of graphical power, the ranking is like this:
3rd Place - PS2
2nd Place - Gamecube
1st X-Box
But in some cases the games look better on the 'Cube due to differences in graphics chips. That little purple 'luchbox' is a great design...too bad most people (especially gamers) won't pick up anything from Nintendo anymore because they're not 'cool'. Too bad, 'cause there are some really great games for the system.

[tallscot]

Yeah, I think Nintendo should market their console to parents. I have two boys, 5 and 3, and we don't have a video game console yet. I may buy one this Christmas (if the wife lets me) and I think I would get a Nintendo with the belief that there are more games for it that are appropriate for 5 and 3-year olds.
Is that a flawed belief? If I'm correct, Nintendo should market their console as "kid friendly".
Thanks.

[sigma8]

Well, remember I did say the Xbox has more horsepower. This will often be realized with some extra anti-aliasing on the graphics, maybe a couple extra polygons, and a steadier framerate. It also more commonly supports online play in games, as well as wide screen and high def formats.
That said, if you have a 4:3 normal TV, you will usually need to use a lot of scrutiny to find differences (except frame rate differences, those are usually more easy to spot).
I own both PS2 and Xbox versions of SSX 3, and I cannot tell the difference...but the PS2 version is far more enjoyable to play, since the game has always made full use of 4 shoulder buttons. The xbox only has 2 shoulder buttons.
I've also done side by sides with Burnout 2 on all three consoles. The Xbox and PS2 tie, each with strengths and weaknesses. The gamecube was clearly worse (fuzzier graphics overall, practically no reflections on car windows, etc..)
There definitely a chunk of games that get ported from Xbox to PS2 and suffer badly. Like Brothers in Arms and Splinter Cell (although splinter cell was actually redesigned for the PS2...so it was almost a different game, and reviewed very highly...just perhaps a disappointment if you wanted the same exact thing). However, if a game is too complex for the PS2 and it's being ported to it anyway, it's usually also coming out on the PC. So just get that version.
IMO, the most potent gaming combo = a good PC gaming rig, and a PS2. This gives you the widest variety of games, and leaves you in only a few situations where you have to suffer subpar performance..such as the Spiderman the movie game (first one), had frame rate issues on the PS2. As did the Star Wars Bounter Hunter game (although neither of these games were horribly good anyway, so no great loss).
But if I didn't have a computer and could only choose one console, I would get an Xbox.. If for no other reason than so I could play Morrowind :-)

[sigma8]

In reply to:

---

You know...I have always thought that most of the games on the PS2 look 'jaggie', too.
But...on the flip side of that is that on the XBox, it looks like the character is lighted differently than the background.
in terms of graphical power, the ranking is like this:
3rd Place - PS2
2nd Place - Gamecube
1st X-Box

---

PS2 was famous for being jaggy when it launched. The PS2 version of Dead or Alive 2 was frequently held up as an example, as in most situations, it looked significantly worse than the year old Dreamcast version of the same game. Turns out the PS2 had less video memory than the Dreamcast, and no built-in hardware tricks to reduce aliasing.
It became less of an issue over time because it was compensated for with different programming techniques, but it still crops up from time to time. That's not to say the Xbox is immune.
I love my gamecube, but I've found it often gets the shaft in ports, looking the worst of the three. If you are talking exclusives, then yes it completely rocks (Rogue Leader = perfect graphics?) but then it's hard to make direct comparisons with other exclusives on other systems.

[jackaxe]

Without Halo, the XBox would've been in the bargain bin, even with MS's 4 billion that they spent on marketing to buy market share.

In reply to:

---

the only limiting factor will be controller.

---

/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
I find this statement a contradiction of Nintendo's new controller, since it trully has the potential to break many of the limitations that are inherent with current game console controls besides the DS. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Nintendo already stated there will be a "traditional" controller attachment for the the peeps that like that approach, or the games that wouldn't really benifiet from all the bells and whistles of Nintendo's new setup.
<]=)

[jackaxe]

This was relayed from a friend, so I can't verify this first hand.
The only area that the GC is really limited is its 24 megs of RAM. The systems can suck it out way faster then it can fill it. This makes programing for the cube a bit more difficult in some cases. The XBox fairs better mainly because of its 64 megs. But power wise, the Cube can easily match it. The Cube can also actually handle more textures on the screen at one time than a XBox.
It all comes down to the developer and as you noted crap ports really don't do it justice. Rogue Leader is an amazing looking game. Resident Evil 4 also looks awesome and has been touted by many peeps/critics as being one of the best looking games around. The GC and XBox are technically superior to the PS2 in every way, if a port looks better on a PS2 vs a GC, then that developer probably doesn't give a crap about the Cube.
Metroid Prime is one of my personal favorites, this game pulled off real-time envriment distortions when peeps were being amazed by Halo's sub-par graphics. I'm also a big fan of Zelda Wind Waker. In some areas this game looks like it was pulled directly from a Don Bleuth cartoon.
<]=)

[sigma8]

In reply to:

---

I find this statement a contradiction of Nintendo's new controller, since it trully has the potential to break many of the limitations that are inherent with current game console controls besides the DS.

---

I should clarify, the previous Nintendo controller was a limiting factor in multi-platform ports. And I would expect the same problem with the Revolution controller. If the Revolution has enough first party stuff and exclusives going on to beat out the PS3 and XB360 (which will have 1st party and 3rd party support, presumably "out the wazoo"), then more power to Nintendo.
Of course, if they want to stay completely niche, that's their perogative, but they can't keep diminishing every generation, and expect to survive. The DS is doing better than the PSP right now, but the PSP is doing well. Whereas in the past, they didn't have to worry so much about doing badly with their safe haven of handhelds, now they do.

[sigma8]

In reply to:

---

Yeah, I think Nintendo should market their console to parents. I have two boys, 5 and 3, and we don't have a video game console yet. I may buy one this Christmas (if the wife lets me) and I think I would get a Nintendo with the belief that there are more games for it that are appropriate for 5 and 3-year olds.
Is that a flawed belief? If I'm correct, Nintendo should market their console as "kid friendly".

---

I'd say this has some truth as well as some inacurracy. Nintendo only claims to bill itself as producing games that everyone will enjoy, not specifically kid games or adult games. The whole label of it being a "kiddie" game system is mostly fabricated by fanboys of other platforms.
If you were to blindly trust that all Nintendo games are kid friendly, you might be in for some unpleasant surprises (profanity, realistic violence, etc..), although it's true they probably have a wider selection of games that would be good for young kids.
For example.. I find Killer 7 on the gamecube to be more "mature" in content than Grand Theft Auto. In fact, as a game Killer 7 isn't really all that great. It's the disturbing psychological aspect of being an assassin in the game that makes it interesting. And although its violence is less realistically depicted (the whole game is cell-shaded, kind of like a cartoon), it is more emotive and (imo) more gruesome. Kind of like the anime sequence for Oren ishii in Kill Bill vol 1.
Then again, while Killer 7 might stretch and distort your brain...at least it won't teach you racial slurs..

[Tau_Myx]

The $300 version of the X-Box is likely to have a big negative backlash when it comes out, because it is practically unusable without a $40 memory card. This leaves you saving only $60, and you loose backward compatibility with old X Box games, much online game play, anything requiring downloading game patches, and other features. So the X-Box price advantage might not be nearly as big as Merrill Lynch seem to think.
Plus, if Blue Ray catches on as a movie format, people might buy a PS3 instead of a Blue Ray player - sales that the X-Box can't touch. Hence there is no reason for Merrill Lynch to be assuming that X-Box will outsell the PS3, so Sony, not MS may land the cost reduction advantage.
Plus, as others here have said, price is not a good predictor of what format will win.