I doubt I would even take the time to rip music to my console games, and many developers wouldn't support it, because they like setting the mood with their own game music.

Anyway, the PS2 HD has to offer something more than this stuff to get me to buy it.

As for online updates, do you mean patches? I certainly hope console hard drives won't be an excuse for developers to put out unfinished products.

There's very little to see of Brute Force. Don't count those chickens just yet.

As for the argument that an X-Box launch title is competing with second gen PS2 titles, that's ridiculous. These are two titles that are being launched at the same time. They should be technologically similar. There's certainly nothing in the X-Box hardware that developers have to learn about. It's got the guts of a Pentium 3 PC; this hardware has been on the market for more than two years. And Halo spent more than three years in development.

The reason "launch" titles are often weak is that developers are unfamiliar with the new hardware, and don't have very long to produce the games. This doesn't apply to Halo. And the strength of Halo doesn't necessarily reflect the strength of the X-Box. There's really not much in the system's future that looks anywhere near as exciting.

Anyway, wasn't the X-Box just supposed to leave the PS2 in the dust? It's pretty weak to say "well, the PS2 Christmas lineup is better than the X-Box's, but these are second generation PS2 games."

So what?

Once again, this stretches things pretty thin. Every system has a different wrestling title, and we won't know which is best until they're out, and personally, I don't care about wrestling.

There's no information about some of those titles other than announcements.

Well then don't buy the PS2 HD. I wouldn't either if I had spent $300 or the PS2 already.

As for the online updates, I mane ONLINE UPDATES not patches. A HD incombination with ethernet allows for games to be released as finished and get etras down the line. This opened up a whole new world for consoles.

Actually IGN already said they will be getting info on Brute Force right after launch. I have already seen a 60 meg movie that has sold me.

Now I can see where the xBox games will look better than PS2 games due to the hardware and that is the case with several launch games; Halo, DOA3, PGR. The Xbox games will continue to look better graphically as time goes on. Heck Brute Force, Rallisport, and B.C. already look better than Halo.

And just because you haven't done any research on the XBox games in the future doesn't mean you can claim the next round of titles isn't exciting.

Oh and whoever said that the XBox was supposed to leave the PS2 in the dust? Oh that's right. You just made that up. I never said the XBox would blow away the PS2 lineup in its first year. The XBox launch will certianly blow away the PS2 launch in terms of quality of the launch games and availablity of the console. The Xbox also has a better shot at stealing away 3rd party developers due to an easier to progam console and Microsoft's deep pockets. But the PS2 and the XBox both have a long road ahead of them, so just wait and see what happens.

Wrestling titles? There was only 2 titles out of the 20 that I just named. What about the rest?

And again you say no info on those titles, but all you have to do is a little research and you can find tons of info; previews, screenshots, and movies, on about 16 or 17 out of those 20.

Anyway I can name some more if you want Star Wars: Obi Wan, NBA Inside Drive 2002, Fellowship of the Ring, The Matrix, Wreckless, Maximum Chase, House of the Dead 3, Dino Crisis 3, Sega GT 2002, Outlaw Golf, SWAT: Global Strike Team, Malice, Sam and Max, Rocky, Xavier Fox: The Lost City, Rallisport Challenge, B.C., Moto GP, and Battlefield: 1942.

I also cannot wait for a few PC/XBox releases like Medal of Honor: AA, Ghost Recon, Doom 3, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and Commanche 4.

But that's just me.

Is it just me, or do alot of Microsofts' X-box games seem to be only ports that can be got on a PC? This could be good though--Microsoft will probably port alot or all of its' games to PC, either after it launches or near its' death (whether that be in 1 yr. or in 5(console life)).

DOA3 doesn't look any better than the upcoming PS2 fighters like Virtua Fighter 4. A lot of people are saying that PGR looks worse than Gran Turismo 3. Halo looks incredible, but so does MGS2.

Comparing the X-Box launch titles to the PS2 launch titles is just a cop out, because most of the X-Box launch titles don't compete well with the PS2 titles that are out now. PS2 didn't have to launch with huge titles. It launched with no direct competition. X-Box has to convince people to buy their system instead of the cheaper Gamecube, or more popular PS2.

And Microsoft's easy-to-use development kits and deep pockets won't mean a thing if they can't put X-Boxes into homes, both in North America and Japan. That's why MS is the underdog. Because nobody really thinks they can sell these things, in this environment.

I'm always amazed at how many ppl like the Gamecube when it has nothing going for it. It was the same when the N64 came out, everyone wanted one and within 2 months, all those N64's were collecting dust because every game either cost 80$ or were aimed at either 4 year olds or low intelligence teens.

This is easily understood actually. Nintendo has a loyal fanbase, they are the only hardware company left that can say that after Sega left the hardware business.

Nintendo has more million sellers than anyone else in history I believe and most of them are Nintendo or Rare made. As long as games like Mario and Zelda are made, the loyal fanbase will be there for Nintendo.

Nintendo has it's niche and can only add people to the niche, they usually don't lose people from it.

Oh now that is just sad if you think DOA3 doesn't look as good as the rest of the fighters. All you have to do is look at the screenshots or the movies to tell the vast difference. Here is a quote from Gaming-Age's preview of DOA3:

Yes, the visuals are stunning. Silky smooth 60 fps framerate, fully anti-aliased, some of the best textures seen on a console, detail-rich expansive fighting environments, and more little visual bells and whistles than you can shake a stick at. Dead or Alive 3 is absolutely among the cleanest, jaggy and shimmer free games I have laid eyes on. Dynamic lighting, motion blur, rippling water and realistically animated fire, volumetric fog; You name it, Team Ninja has somehow crammed it in there. Beyond all else, I find the breakable, deformable environments to be among the most eye pleasing. Fighters leave permanent footprints and trails through snow and sand, leaves or clumps of snow fall down from trees when they are struck, walls, barriers and other assorted objects both bordering as well as littered throughout the arenas smash into pieces, and even tiles on the floor break when hit hard enough. The game is a virtual cornucopia of detail.

As for the consensus on PGR, just look at the finished game on the 15th and try to tell me with a straight face that jaggie filled GT3 looks better.


Why is that a cop out? I never said XBox titles won't compete with the current PS2 stuff. They obviously will. I am saying PS2 rushed a product to market before they had AAA titles like GT3, MGS2, or DMC. I am just comparing how well each company will launch. It won't take much from Microsoft or Nintendo to top the PS2 launch fiasco.

As for Microsoft convicing people to buy the XBox, they convinced me so well, I sold my "more popular" PS2 2 months ago to pay for the XBox preorder. I bet some of those 20 million Ps2 owners will do the same.

Nobody thinks they can sell those things huh? That is a broad statement. If the XBox sells out on launch day, I can gaurantee you several hundred thousand people will think so and hopefully a 1 to 1.5 million by the end of the year.

Since when does GT3 have jaggies? Please don't give inaccurate statements when trying to prove your point. PGR will probably be a good game, I'd love to see a full review.

That's all I have to comment on, these arguments get very cyclical in nature.

Perhaps you can comment on these pics if I am certainly so inacurate:

Just look at the bottom of any of the cars in this ingame screen shot. Jaggies. I can point out the rest if you would like.



Let's look at a pic in high resolution. Check out the white line. Jaggies. Chack out the back of the blue Nissan. Jaggies. Look at the top of the hood of the white opel under the windsheild. Jaggies.



Now I am not saying PGR will totally get rid of all jaggies because it won't. But with being fully anti-alised will certainly make it look better than GT3 and reduce the overall amount of jaggies.

And I used to own a copy of GT3. I should know if the game has jaggies or not.

I don't know what kind of screen you play your games on. X-Box has HD support, so if you have one of those, that might be a plus. I don't, and probably won't, for at least a couple of years, so I could care less. My feeling is that the X-Box and PS2 will look pretty similar on most people's screens.

I had NO idea the Xbox ran Windows!

I can't believe this has moved to a jaggie debate.

The xbox has superior graphics and hardware specs. There really isn't any arguement there, but is it really that important? Gameplay is what matters and GT3 is untouchable in that department. I don't care how much better a racer on XBox might look. Unless it can stand up to GT3 in the area of handling, options, and basically the overall gameplay areas its pointless what it looks like. Slightly superior graphics rarely wins the war. The SNES, 3DO, N64, and Dreamcast are big examples of this.

I'm not saying the Xbox can't come out with a racing game as good as GT3, a RPG as strong as the Final Fantasy series, or compete head to head in any other area. Debating games on a graphic basis alone though is pointless.

If DOA3 is a better fighting game than Virtua Fighter 4 then thats one thing, if it only ends up looking better, but not playing better thats another. I realize there is no way to know yet with many games until they are out which is one of the reasons I think this thread is really going on too early. I think 3-6 months from now will be a much better time to start to really compare Xbox titles vs PS2 titles.

In multi platform games I have yet to see a Xbox port of a game that really blew away its PS2 counterpart. Maybe that will change in the future, but the PS2 is looking good at least in the early going of this battle.

I'd be surprised if Halo sells HALF as much as MGS2. Metal Gear is a series that's been out since the 80s and has been played by millions. Most non-game addicts have never even heard of Halo.
Plus, most people with PCs could care less for Halo on the X-Box, since they can get it on their PC anyways.

Really?!?!?

Sure. Just hop in a time machine and pick up a copy when it get released 6 months to a year from now. You can borrow my time machine if you want.

Of course, you may just want to go ahead a few months and find out if Bungie cancelled the PC version per Microsoft's request. That would help too.

It runs a "Windows kernel" as its OS. It uses Direct X. The CPU is the same Pentium 3 that is in PCs, and the graphics hardware is essentially a GeForce 3.

That's not a bad thing, necessarily, but it makes the "first generation" argument pretty moot.

I dont think so, just because some of the parts may be familiar doesnt mean they know enough to max out the system. It may not be the jump weve become accustomed to but the fact remains that these are first generation titles. This is the first attempt at games in this particular programming environment. There may be less tweaking and a base of existing knowledge but shortcuts and more efficient use of resources is pretty much a given. Like I said in my first post to this thread, it may not be the leap we saw with the PS2 but that doesnt make the first generation argument moot.

Isn't this debate getting old yet?

PGR seems more like Need For Speed than Gran Tourismo. I liked NFS better than the GT series.

For those of you hoping the Xbox fails - why?? Is it because you think Microsoft is the devil or something? I don't hope the PS2 or the GCN fail... I just won't be buying them. Competition is a good thing. Would you rather there was only one Console system out there? Like if Nintendo was the only game in town and you had to just take what you get? Sega is leaving town and Microsoft is stepping up to the plate. If you don't want one, then don't get one... stop bitching about hoping the Xbox dies or saying the Gamecube is for kids... stop thread crapping each other too. Just drop it. I mean someone interested in Xbox will start an Xbox thread and then GC people will come in and say Xbox sucks etc... just stop it - geez. Same goes for GC threads... I was guilty of it too awhile back, but it's really old now and none of this is productive. I'd rather just open a thread for Xbox and hear about games or see pictures or whatnot. It's Mac vs. PC... Apples vs. Oranges... Shoes vs. Sandals... Punk vs. Metal... Pop vs. Rock. Dumb.

Well considering that Halo is a must-have game for a console that if it's lucky will have an installed base of 10 million by next summer and MGS2 is a must-have game for a console that already has 20 million and will probably hit 30 by next summer; I'd say your statement errs on the conservative side.

Well, I do think it's classic that a they're arguing about the lack of AA in GT3. Geeks :P

Seriously though, while there may be some people who wish that the Xbox will fail, I don't think any of the regulars here fall into that category. Just because someone isn't a gung-ho advocate for a system doesn't mean they're against it. If they express an opinion that's contrary to yours, they're just trying to make interesting conversation.

Welcome to the gaming community. This is what we do, argue over every little detail. I would suggest you avoid threads with titles like The real console wars if you really want to avoid it.

The hardware is the natural evolution of the Nvidia graphics card, coupled with a processor that has been around for two years. What's more, "Halo" is highly atypical of a first-generation console project because it had three years of development time.

To suggest that Halo, a highly anticipated PC product that Microsoft secured for the X-Box buy buying out the developer, is somehow a David that may slay the Goliath that is Metal Gear is ridiculous.

Halo is an ambitious PC game released from the constraints of having to cater to a diverse range of PC hardware. The plaform is simply a standardized PC, from a hardware perspective, with a low/mid level processor and a midrange version of the Geforce 3 graphics card. There is no complex parallel processor here, as in the PS2. This isn't a bad thing; it makes the X-Box easier to program for. But it also means that the sort of developer learning curve won't be present on the X-Box.

Halo is probably pushing the machine, and that's not a slight on Microsoft, but, rather, a compliment to Bungie. The fact is, on the current generation of hardware, a game can look a lot better, or a lot worse depending on the time a developer is willing to spend on it. Higher poly models, layers of textures, and special effects all take time and effort to produce. That is why games like GT3, MGS2 and Halo are special, and why so many others fall short of the mark.

And as for the argument about jaggies in GT3, well, maybe on an HDTV or a monitor, but on my television, I don't see them. PS2 games tend to look a lot better actually running on the PS2 than they do in screenshots. The shots always look washed out. PC games generally look like the actual game, which I'm guessing, has to do with either the software that takes the screens, or the resolution on the PC screen.

To each his own. I think a certain amount of depth and customizability gives a game value. Gran Turismo certainly includes a lot more gameplay than Need For Speed. One could argue that GT goes too far, however. I find Gran Turismo to be quite satisfying, though I think that Tekken, for example, is overly complex.

Personally, I think that the tuning aspect of Gran Turismo could stand to be de-emphasized. I'd prefer the game to hinge more on skillful racing, and less on skillful tuning.

As for the X-Box, I don't hope it will fail, but I think it will.

You might find this article at Wired interesting. It talks about the parallel direction that Sony is going in and how it may pay off in the future. The writer is a bit confused about what the GScube project really is, but I think he's right in that it signals the direction that Sony is going with the Playstation.

Ken Kuturagi has publicly stated that he wants PS3 (not showing up for several years yet) to be 1000 times more powerful than PS2. Obviously this statement is mostly marketing bluster, but to even get 100x faster, you pretty much have to go to a highly parallel design.

Quote:

And as for the argument about jaggies in GT3, well, maybe on an HDTV or a monitor, but on my television, I don't see them. PS2 games tend to look a lot better actually running on the PS2 than they do in screenshots. The shots always look washed out. PC games generally look like the actual game, which I'm guessing, has to do with either the software that takes the screens, or the resolution on the PC screen.

I'm not sure, but my theory is that Sony didn't implement AA on the PS2 because they felt NTSC was naturally anti-aliasing. Most of the things on screen are moving, which on an interlaced display, are going to be blurry anyway.

Anyway, I think the reason most screen caps of console games look crappy because they're grabbed with a video-in card on a PC. You're digitizing a NTSC interlaced frame.

Quote:

As for the X-Box, I don't hope it will fail, but I think it will.

Well, failure is a relative term. It'll almost undoubtedly blow out the first million units just by virtue of the hype surrounding it. Sales will probably tail off sharply after January, though, since it'll fail to penetrate the mainstream markets.

Normally, this would be a signal to most developers to re-target their efforts accordingly. But, MS will probably throw more money at it and it'll drag out that process through the end of 2001. In fact, the Xbox will probably never die, but it'll occupy a strong by small niche in the market.

Any other company would eventually call it quits and bail, but since MS sees the game console as the gateway into the living room, the nexus of all things digital in the home, they'll continue to flush their money into it. Who knows, maybe by Xbox 3.1 they'll finally get it right.

Sobering fact of the day for Sony and Nintendo: Microsoft has about 31 billion dollars in cash and short-term investments, i.e. they're not Sega.