Zer0 said:wtfexplain pls
Then again the PS2 really held up very well over the course of the years, no question about it.
Zer0 said:wtfexplain pls
hadareud said:a little joke, having read the other thread. But it's not a great comparison, since of course no developer is trying to optimise for a top end PC from 2000 anymore. But well, an xbox is comparable to a mid to top range pc from 2000 and I don't think there's an argument over the xbox technically bettering the ps2.
Then again the PS2 really held up very well over the course of the years, no question about it.
jamesinclair said:Anyone have the pic with the verticle PS2, the PS2 LCD monitor, the PS2 HDD, the PS2 keyboard and mouse and the PS2 network adapter?
:lol :lol :lolAgent Icebeezy said:
Shinobi said:PS2 didn't come close to living up to the ridiculous hype. Where that hype came from is irrelevant...some people in the media clearly had a vested interest to be spewing some of the shit that I was reading (50 times more powerful than Dreamcast? Bitch please). Having said that PS2's overhype wasn't nearly as bad as that of the N64, which is probably the most overhyped console in history.
xexex said:1.) PS2 was claimed to be 10 to 20 times more powerful than Dreamcast by Sony and most of the media. Next-Generation magazine was careful to point out, from the start in 1999, that PS2 would realistically be 5x more powerful than DC.
2.) the 50x Dreamcast comment was about PS2 handling 50x more 'image data' than Dreamcast. that was derived from graphics memory bandwidth: DC: 800 MB sec, PS2: 48 GB/sec. it wasnt about processing power.
"People do seem to forget that Sony never said that was real time."
inthezone said:No emotion nor style, uh?... you should play the game.
As for the "hype" well it depends on your view really but games like Silent Hill 2, Silent Hill 3, RE4 (its on GC too but still), FFX, Shadow of the Colussuss, GOW, DMC series have completely justified the PS2 hype IMO.
That's the quote I was going to bring up, though I didn't remember it was Trip making it. Crazy man!Sathsquatch said:Does anyone remember how Trip Hawkins said that the PS2 was as revolutionary as the printing press and would change society in a fundamental way? No matter how bad the PS3 hype gets, it simply can't reach the level of retardation the PS2 hype got to.
Agent Icebeezy said:
SolidSnakex said:People do seem to forget that Sony never said that was real time.
Reilly said:Regardless of the hype, the PS2 was and is the best console of this generation.
Spastic Colon said:Wouldn't it be technically correct to say "...the PS2 hype, which proved to be just that- hype."
Agent Icebeezy said:
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lolSpeevy said:While the PS2 has some very pretty games, it took the Xbox a whole day to technically outclass its entire library at the time (Halo). And while it's true that not every Xbox game showed the system's power, there are at least a couple dozen that make the difference clear.
Gek54 said:Speevy, on the days you miss the short bus, what do you do?
SkinSider said:The best console this generation is definitely the Xbox.
Reilly said:Based off what?
Read the whole post. It was like one or two lines in total.Reilly said:Based off what?
Sathsquatch said:Read the whole post. It was like one or two lines in total.
He was talking about hardware. He said the quality of the games was open to debate.Reilly said:I read it. He backs up his comments with absolutely nothing. He said The XBOX is the best console this generation. I asked why.
Reilly said:I read it. He backs up his comments with absolutely nothing. He said The XBOX is the best console this generation. I asked why.
Sathsquatch said:He was talking about hardware.
I know, but that's not what he was doing when he wrote that post. He was talking about hardware.Reilly said:By "Best Console" we have to take into account game library. We're not splitting hairs here.
Not quite there bud.2) Halo (at the time it was released) was technically more advanced than any PS2 game to that point. Polygon counts, effects, bump mapping, size and scope, it was just phenomenal.
Speevy said:It's awesome!
![]()
(Seriously, there's no way to prove to him that another console is better, because he obviously likes Xbox games more)
Sathsquatch said:I know, but that's not what he was doing when he wrote that post. He was talking about hardware.
dark10x said:Not quite there bud.
There was but one and only one thing that Halo was doing that the PS2 could not and that was DX8 class perpixel lighting. There weren't even any PC games doing what Halo was doing at the time.
The polygon counts were NOT high at all and the size and scope had been matched already (though not in the same inspired way...but that wasn't hardware related).
You're mistaken, then. I say goodnight, sir.Speevy said:I didn't say "could not". I said "did not".
Bebpo said:Actually I'd say even the hardware is debatable as the PS2 does some things quite a bit nicer than the Xbox. Though the Xbox also a good amount of things better than the PS2.
For instance, from my experience PS2 games have nicer image quality on an HDTV than Xbox games for the most part because of the way they are rendered. PS2 games are sharp and crisp, while Xbox games tend to be muddy looking.
SkinSider said:I respect your opinion, but the Xbox does almost every single hardware-related task better than the PS2.