[Completly OT] Xbox or PS2?

Zappo said:
BTW, there are IR controllers for the PS2 too. I would have bought one, but I didn't like the design (too big, though not as big as Xbox's controllers). Right now, I'm preserving the console by placing it on the floor. :D

edit: a note about FSAA.
FSAA uses a lot of computing power. Additionally, a TV screen is naturally less definite than a monitor, so FSAA on a console makes less of an impact than it does on a PC (of course, we're not talking about a HDTV here). For this reasons, I think that developers choose to add more polygons to their models instead of using FSAA, unless the game has many high-contrast scenes where FSAA makes a large impact.

Breakaway controllers aren't the same as IR... I hate IR controllers, myself (I hate anything that involves batteries in any way, shape, or form... hell, my watch is clockwork, not digital... not to mention they tend to be bulky...)... Breakaway controllers are a normal corded controller (Albiet, with a long cord) that is segmented... About a foot from the consol, there is a junction that is designed to come apart if too much pressure is put on the cord... long before any stress is put on the actual connection to the console. Very nice... has saved my X-Box a short trip a couple of times already.

And I think that you underestimate the importance of HDTV support... HDTV's havn't acheived much market pentration yet, true, but they are out there. And their market share is growing, slowly. I think that the ability to support HDTV (And, by extension, the ability to do FSAA and such) is going to rise.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

PS2 or X-box ?

Personaly I supprot the PS2 whole heartedly. The reason for this is pretty much the game choice. In my opinion the Ps2 games are a lot better (i.e. final fantasy, tekken, tribes, kingdom hearts, bloody roar.....). Me and my friends spend several hours a day playing the Ps2 and we never tire of it. The Ps2 has better fighting games, better rpgs, and can play old ps favorites. Also another point to make is that the X-box was aptly named do to the size and shape of its conttroller.(try playing any fighting game with it!)
 


Re: PS2 or X-box ?

Vigilant Fiend said:
Also another point to make is that the X-box was aptly named do to the size and shape of its conttroller.(try playing any fighting game with it!)

Actualy, a fighting game designed to use the X-Box controller (As opposed to, say, trying to cram a PS2 control setup onto the 'box controller) works just fine. DOA3 is probably one of the best (if not the best) fighting games I have ever played, in terms of control and fluidity, as well as balance and overall fun-factor.

Not to mention the amazing graphics in that game....

*edit*

Two other points:

1) Some of us with larger-than-petite hands actualy rather LIKE having a controller that is designed for the hands of an adult male.

2) For those that have smaller hands, just go buy the smaller controller. It's been availible via e-bay or similar since day 1, and you can buy it in stores right along side the normal one now.
 
Last edited:

Tsyr said:
Breakaway controllers aren't the same as IR
Whoops.
And I think that you underestimate the importance of HDTV support... HDTV's havn't acheived much market pentration yet, true, but they are out there. And their market share is growing, slowly. I think that the ability to support HDTV (And, by extension, the ability to do FSAA and such) is going to rise.
OTOH, it doesn't matter whether HDTV is common or not, it only matters whether *Lord Vangarel* has HDTV or not. :D
More on the larger picture, I am confidant that by the time HDTV has a large enough market penetration, both Xbox and PS2 will have been replaced by their next generation counterparts. We don't have any information on their specs (Microsoft hasn't said anything, and Sony's specs are literally insane - no way they are true), but I think we can safely assume that they both will support FSAA. In any case, FSAA is computationally costly so I wouldn't be surprised if most games on the Xbox didn't use it, even in the future.
 
Last edited:

boxstop7 said:
the Xbox has a core processor over 400 MHz faster, a clock speed double that of the PS2, a GeForce2-based graphics processor and an internal hard drive. all things the PS2 will ultimately make you pay for in the form of add-ons.

The Xchip is a GeForce 3-based GPU, not a GeForce 2-based GPU.

boxstop7 said:
- internal hard drive: no more friggin' memory cards. the internal 8 GB hard drive takes care of that problem. yes, the PS2 will eventually have a hard drive, but it'll most likely be external and you'll have to go buy it (prolly in the $40-$80 range)

AFAIK, Sony hasn't announced any plans to sell the PS2 hard drive outside of Japan. Incidentally, this means that FF XI will probably only be available as a PC game here.

Of course, my advice is to get both. :)
 

drothgery said:
Of course, my advice is to get both. :)

Seconded!

Avoid the cube... it's a waste of money :)

I think Sony has said that they will release the HD over here in limited quantities... purely because of FF online.

Not that I care... I want to play my MMORPGs on the PC, darnit, not a console :)
 

Zappo said:
Whoops.OTOH, it doesn't matter whether HDTV is common or not, it only matters whether *Lord Vangarel* has HDTV or not. :D
More on the larger picture, I am confidant that by the time HDTV has a large enough market penetration, both Xbox and PS2 will have been replaced by their next generation counterparts. We don't have any information on their specs (Microsoft hasn't said anything, and Sony's specs are literally insane - no way they are true), but I think we can safely assume that they both will support FSAA. In any case, FSAA is computationally costly so I wouldn't be surprised if most games on the Xbox didn't use it, even in the future.

Microsoft's a lot easier to project, though; the Xbox 2 will be pretty close to a cutting-edge PC the year it's released. Sony seems intent on using an architecture that's even more esoteric than the PS2.
 

drothgery said:
Microsoft's a lot easier to project, though; the Xbox 2 will be pretty close to a cutting-edge PC the year it's released. Sony seems intent on using an architecture that's even more esoteric than the PS2.
"Esoteric" is the right word. I just plainly don't believe what they are saying. The technology they talk about is just too weird and experimental to be used in a gaming console; they can't possibly have it ready and cost-effective for 2005 or whatever the year is.
 

The best advice you will ever get:
(and yes I'm being biased).

Rent them first. Even the GameCube. Blockbuster can rent any of them to you and will have a nice selection of the latest games (and you can ask the clerk's which ones rent the most to get an idea of what the 'best' games for each console are).

This is what I did a year ago. My rankings (at that time) were:

1. Xbox
2. PS2
3. GC

GameCube was too 'kiddy' for me at the time, despite being a good machine (also has better hardware than PS2, but not as good as Xbox). PS2 was a great system, with a great library, but it didn't have the visual power that an Xbox did. Xbox was number one for potential. It had enough games for my tatstes, stood to get even better as it's library expanded, and had the longest shelf-life at that point due to the power of the system.

One year later I have bumped the GameCube up to #2 and the PS2 falls to #3.

Why? Well, XBox is starting to get titles in good volume that show it's power over a PS2. GameCube has come out with some great titles that are starting to lure me in, (plus it costs the least of the 3). Metroid Prime and Animal Crossing make me want a Game Cube. The PS2 has very few exclusive titles that won't be on XBox or GC, and none of the exclusives it does have this year make me care. So every game that I would be interested in on a PS2 can be found on the XBox...

Whatever you do decide on, don't buy until after Christmas. Word on the street has been building up rumor about another price drop for all three...
 

Remove ads

Top