@MikeB

Quote:

I just provided *1* technical example where the PS2 performs well. WIth your kind of reasoning the Atari ST was more powerful overall than the Amiga 500 was, this due to a faster CPU. Well that wasn't really the case for most games.

Well, actually, there was a type of games where Atari ST *was* clearly and constantly (in reviews too) a better performer, speed-wise, than the A500 level Amigas: the flight-sim (and anything else that was mostly based on math instead of bitmap graphics).

I still don't remember ANY game on the PS2 that could be considered technically superior to what the Xbox had to offer. Not by a long shot. Does anyone think of any?

@jtsiren

Quote:

You really seriously think gigabit ethernet (as opposed to 100 Mb/s) is required for multiplayer gaming?

Please don't put words in my mouth, you can connect two Amiga 500s to play Stunt Car Racer over null modem cable just fine. But IMO faster should be better in this regard, at least depending on the banwidth the game or other uses actually requires. If you want to send high definition Webcam content from one PS3 to another and share high data workloads between PS3s, faster communications seems more than welcome.

Quote:

Are you serious mentioning these

IMO 4 is better than 3 USB ports.

But again, I look at the PS3 as a whole, you want to discuss details.

@MikeB

Quote:

But I didn't own any of the last gen (XBox) or current gen (PS2) consoles, so that would tell you enough.

Just wanted to point out this snide remark there, why not drop these. Xbox and PS2 are certainly both still current gen, even if one is expected to have a longer shelf-life that doesn't make them parts of different gens. Xbox and games are still sold, even if the market is no longer expected to grow.

@MikeB

Quote:

Please don't turn this is a PS2 vs XBox battle, I have no interest in fighting yesteryear's wars, that war was won by the Playstation 2. Both of these consoles are significantly different, game engines optimized for the PS2 like found in 'God of War 2' may well translate very badly if ported to the original XBox.

I have no way of verifying it, but I doubt God of War 2 would be trouble for Xbox. The experience playing with those consoles generated such a distinct impression on what they were capable and what not. At the very least, "may well translate very badly if ported to the original XBox" is quite a bold statement and nothing more than weird kind of FUD on your part. You seem to want to believe PlayStation, any PlayStation, is better than Xbox no matter what people tell you.

That, of course, does not discount the unlikely possibility that God of War 2 on PS2 is better than anything on the Xbox ever could be, but I truly do doubt it. Many years with PS2/Xbox and Sony's hype did give some insight into this.

Quote:

So no, the XBox was not more powerful in all regards.

You YOURSELF said concentrate on the whole, instead of parts (and I tend to agree - performance is a sum of parts and more): Xbox clearly was the more powerful console in totality, measured both in numbers as well as the games that came out for it. I won't dig those CPU numbers to comment, but for the sake of argument I assume you are right - if so, it clearly didn't show in the total tally of it all. PS2 was the less of the three consoles again and again, tech-wise. Yes, it was you who said concentrate on that whole, not its parts.

The PS2 did win the market war, no doubt by miles and miles. But for a player who wanted the best performance there was another clear winner and that was the Xbox. That won't change with any amount of "I have no interest in fighting yesteryear's wars, that war was won by the Playstation 2" rhetoric. It is not a future-looking statement, it is in my opinion solid, history-proven fact.

As for a PS2 vs Xbox battle. I will keep it up as long as you keep making what I personally consider silly arguments about it.

Coming back to the present day: Obviously the difference between PS3 and Xbox 360 is quite different than what was with PS2 and Xbox. Xbox 360 can no longer claim clear supremacy tech-wise, and you may even end up being right on which one is the winner - or maybe you won't, it is a much tighter and longer race in this case. Last time around the race was pretty much over when Halo arrived. Today, as we all seem to agree, Xbox 360 and PS3 are tech-wise (as far as proven, released game code is concerned) are running neck an neck. The race to prove who is better is just beginning. It will be interesting to watch.

@Trezzer

Quote:

I wasn't thinking explicitly about performance for performance's sake. I was looking at which elements that each platform has that in some way affects your gaming experience. That most of those happen to overlap with performance is a coincidence.

I understood that, sorry if I wasn't clear. I just picked those that interested me the most as points of discussion.

@MikeB

Quote:

But IMO faster should be better in this regard, at least depending on the banwidth the game or other uses actually requires.

Weren't you advocating wi-fi earlier, when I mentioned I preferred wired for lower latency?

That said if you seriously think any multiplayer gamers benefit from being able to transfer more than roughly ten megabytes a second: think again.

Quote:

If you want to send high definition Webcam content from one PS3 to another

Just what is known about this anyway? I couldn't find specs with a quick googling - in fact the only mention of a HD EyeToy pointed towards a rumour started from a survey. Either way 100Mb should be enough for that too - if you can think of some reason to stream hi-def webcam content locally.

Quote:

and share high data workloads between PS3s

Yeah, that was another of those grand ideas for PS3s that Sony quietly dropped.

Quote:

IMO 4 is better than 3 USB ports.

And 10 is better than 4. Luckily hubs are standard if you should need more. My USB ports are rarely used though.

@MikeB
Quote:

I would say: 'goes well beyond'.

Being this generation's overall performance is closer then last why do you think 'well beyond' applies. Well besides watching too many Sony ads and wanting to Play Beyond (tm)?

Quote:

Allows sharper lossless 48-bit deep color images together with 7.1 f Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio.

TrueHD only comes in HDMI and I kind of doubt any significant difference then 1080p over VGA. DTS-HD Master is something the 360 down converts to LPCM over 5.1. It can use it as such and not having to revert to Dolby Digital. The sound is very good and better then Dolby Digital but not quite as good as DTS-HD. When the 360 HDMI player is released you can likely scratch these off your list.

Quote:

Bluetooth

Anything you can do in Bluetooth you can do in wireless on the 360. Of course the big negative here is remote control is only Bluetooth or a need to augment using a Sony I/R converter for the PS2 if anyone wants to use a true universal remote.

Quote:

USB 2.0

The PS3 has 4 the 360 3. If a person wants HD content and gets the HD-DVD player it as 2 ports and now matches 4 for 4. 360 can use the most common audio player the iPod can the PS3 yet? The 360 Guitar Hero USB guitar w/ RJ-11 port to add pedals in the future. I'm sure a version like that may come to the PS3 some day. The 360s controller that has replaceable batteries so if you run out of power you don't need to dig out your cable or worse stop playing until recharged. The 360s controller is smaller so girly hand ownership safe it be.

Quote:

Easily fits in my Media Cabinet.

as does my 360. It takes up about 2/3-3/4 of the shelf and the power supply fits nicely behind it.


@Trezzer
Quote:

Once again I point to Roboblitz which is an amazing game considering its tiny size.

Wasn't Oblivion crunched from 4 DVDs into about 6GB and fit on 1 using procedural analysis?

@MikeB

Quote:

Please don't put words in my mouth, you can connect two Amiga 500s to play Stunt Car Racer over null modem cable just fine. But IMO faster should be better in this regard, at least depending on the banwidth the game or other uses actually requires. If you want to send high definition Webcam content from one PS3 to another and share high data workloads between PS3s, faster communications seems more than welcome.

Faster is certainly better (PS3 is better for Ethernet), but you really got to undestand how huge 100 Mbit/s already is for gaming purposes. Perhaps there are media applications (like I already mentioned!) that might require more juice (I doubt even a higher res webcam is one of those), but considering the reality that most people still play online over the Internet with enormously less than that 100 Mbit/s (not to mention 1 Gbit/s) it really puts things into perspective. Heck, most people run local many times Wi-fi faster than what their Internet connection can manage.

You say you look the PS3 as whole, and I get it, really, I get it. I get you are impressed by the total package and all the bells and whistles it comes with. What I am trying to get at, though, is which one is the more impressive package for a gamer like myself who appreciates the most advanced games and best tech to run them. Gigabit ethernet, web browsers, built-in transformator or even Blu-ray discs won't make a difference for me, I don't even care if my Xbox 360 were six feet tall, six separate boxes, each with their own transformators, and brown in colour, if Xbox 360 runs better framerate, lighting, textures or other things that impress on screen (in addition to playing well). I want games, just games. Other features like the Internet and movies I do separately.

I could live without quick charge and replaceable batteries, or even the magnificent Live service (which I rarely use, though), and maybe, just maybe even without rumble, if PS3 really was more advanced for the types of games I play. I think there are many people like myself who are now looking at PS3 with unanswered questions and thinking: do I really need that, or is Xbox 360 equal or even better for the next few years to play on?

I would appreciate if the discussion about performance could be just about that (and about how games use that performance), but that's certainly just my opinion.

Last edited by jtsiren on 18-Feb-2007 at 11:01 PM.
Last edited by jtsiren on 18-Feb-2007 at 10:54 PM.

@jtsiren

Quote:

Well, actually, there was a type of games where Atari ST *was* clearly and constantly (in reviews too) a better performer, speed-wise, than the A500 level Amigas: the flight-sim (and anything else that was mostly based on math instead of bitmap graphics).

To quote Atari fans looking back:

"As far as comparing games on both systems it is a very small minority of games that are better on the ST (mostly older 1st generation games that were hastily ported to the Amiga)."

"When it comes to 3D games, the ST runs at 8 Mhz, the A500/2000 at 7.14. But the ST is not only faster, its bitplane system is easier to handle, no huge offsets like on the AMIGA and so much faster 3D routines are possible on the ST."

In time Amiga games did become better, for instance Trex Warrior and No Second Prize were pretty fast on the Amiga 500.

Israeli and US military have used Amigas for Flight Simulator training. Classic Amigas were used for Virtual Reality, etc.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @jtsiren Quote: Well, actually, there was a type of games where Atari ST *was* clearly and constantly (in reviews too) a better performer, speed-wise, than the A500 level Amigas: the flight-sim (and anything else that was mostly based on math instead of bitmap graphics). To quote Atari fans looking back: "As far as comparing games on both systems it is a very small minority of games that are better on the ST (mostly older 1st generation games that were hastily ported to the Amiga)." "When it comes to 3D games, the ST runs at 8 Mhz, the A500/2000 at 7.14. But the ST is not only faster, its bitplane system is easier to handle, no huge offsets like on the AMIGA and so much faster 3D routines are possible on the ST." In time Amiga games did become better, for instance Trex Warrior and No Second Prize were pretty fast on the Amiga 500. Israeli and US military have used Amigas for Flight Simulator training. Classic Amigas were used for Virtual Reality, etc.

...and your point is? Like I said, while Amiga was superior in performance in many ways, for the A500 level 3D (most of it was flight sims those days) the Atari ST was faster.

I'm still yet to recall seeing a game on PS2, or reading a objective review (as in, from a mainstream, general magazine), that would place a PS2 game or a genre of PS2 games better performers (tech-wise) than Xbox games.

One of the major differentiators that was easy to spot, always, was the hugely superior anti-aliasing on the Xbox. But the Xbox also shone on lighting and framerates even though most multi-platformers were dummied down so that they would run on the PS2 too.

@BrianK

Quote:

Wasn't Oblivion crunched from 4 DVDs into about 6GB and fit on 1 using procedural analysis?

Initially there was talk of the game taking up four discs, yes. I believe the final size of this 100+ hour game was around 4,5 GB - and that was mainly thanks to SpeedTree - not full procedural synthesis texturing.

Last edited by Trezzer on 18-Feb-2007 at 11:02 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Of course that's impressive, but that doesn't mean anything with regard to the complex game and graphics experience Motorstorm provides on the PS3 with lossless 7.1 surround audio. "We do .not. have some kind of magical data compression machine that is able to squeeze hundreds of megabytes of mesh/texture and sound data into 96k. We merely store the individual steps employed by the artists to produce their textures and meshes, in a very compact way. This allows us to get .much. higher data density than is achievable with normal data compression techniques, at some expense in artistic freedom and loading times."

Eh? Stop selectively reading mate, it means a lot. That *is* what Microsoft is talking about when discussing Procedural Synthesis and it's why they have special cache modes in the CPU to help feed the generated data to the GPU. Perhaps you missed the point of what I pasted, the engine used for .kkrieger is implemented as middleware and they provide the artistic tools to generate the source data. It's even available for mobile phones now. The textures generated are quite impressive. The textures of Motorstorm are especially suited to procedural synthesis.

_________________

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @MikeB Quote: I would say: 'goes well beyond'. Being this generation's overall performance is closer then last why do you think 'well beyond' applies. Well besides watching too many Sony ads and wanting to Play Beyond (tm)?

MikeB has only referred to his inside information and the quotes in this thread. I too am puzzled how he can be so sure, because being sure would IMHO require unbiased information from both sides of the competition and quite a bit of technical knowledge - and even then it could be somewhat of a gamble to come to a definite conclusion. I'm not sure anyone can be sure about this for real!

Looks like PS3 games are not selling:

LOL: Amazon say SNES is Outselling PS3

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@jtsiren

Quote:

and your point is?

Just some interesting quotes. Just some views.

IMO the PS3 allows for more headroom for developers, they will be less restricted within boundaries when they make PS3 optimiised exclusive software.

Let's just keep it at that, I don't understand why you guys are getting upset about my opinions. Like I said before let's wait a year and things will be much clearer. Then we can look back to this thread and see who was right or wrong.

All I wanted to say, give the excellent developers some time to show off the PS3's capabilities.

@ itix

Snes was also ranked above the XBox 360, this is especially interesting because they have more than enough XBox 360 stock available.

Last edited by MikeB on 18-Feb-2007 at 11:25 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Let's just keep it at that, I don't understand why you guys are getting upset about my opinions. Like I said before let's wait a year and things will be much clearer. Then we can look back to this thread and see who was right or wrong.

One of my points (well, a long thread - there has been many), is that I don't think we can come back in a years time and say who was right and who was wrong in the performance question - at least not as far as you or I, or some people like us, are concerned. You see, I don't object to what you feel is likely, I object to you being sure. Even if PS3 turns out the most powerful console, I would still question your reasons for being sure *today*, that it will be all that. At the very least, I would expect you to back it up with more - or if not, at least express some level of healthy doubt in your comments.

You are too sure for your own good. Nobody can say what developers in the future get out of these machines for sure. We can place bets and discuss what is likely or what the hardware features are, but you are just too sure.

As for why people get upset, I think it is your distinct writing style. To recap: How you ignore some posts or parts without comment (even when comment would be more than warranted given the context or the nature of the debate), how you sound like a PR guy and how you drop snide remarks and pointless details into discussions (like saying Xbox had too big a controller when we were discussing its performance). Too many have commented on these for it to be just a figment of imagination, you do have your own very distinct writing style for sure.

It isn't the side you have chosen. I think minator is "on your side" pretty much, but I don't see the same problem with his postings.

I've been thinking about what attracts MikeB in PS3 as well as my own thought process on determining which console to get. Going a few years back I pretty much formulated a similar opinion as that of MikeB's, I too thought of the PS3 as clearly the "more next-gen" of the consoles.

Some things I considered "old" in the Xbox 360 (may be incomplete list):

- No HD drive
- No HDMI
- No full-HD (1080p)
- 100 Mbit/s

As opposed to:

- Blu-ray
- HDMI
- 1080p
- 1 Gbit/s

I'm sure there are other examples, but all in all, I felt the PS3 contained a more complete selection of next-gen technologies compared to Xbox vs. Xbox 360. There certainly are many things in the Xbox 360 that the previous generation already had, like the DVD drive and the Ethernet speed (did Xbox have 100 Mbit/s?). Leaving HDMI out didn't help either.

I also bought the hype that whereas Xbox 360 would be 720p mostly, the PS3 would rock with 1080p. I just thought that Microsoft chose a lesser machine this time around to be early and to compete with Sony on the market-place. I pretty much assumed that guaranteed a console that might make it in the market, but would be of lesser interest to myself who looks for the most advanced piece of technology. I was set to go from Xbox 1 to PS3.

When the Xbox 360 came out I did buy one because it was late 2005 then and PS3 got delayed to late Q1/2007. I wanted to check out HD gaming... but I always intended to replace it with PS3 when it got out.

Many of the things I consider more next-gen in PS3 still remain true today. Xbox still loads games off a DVD drive and as discussed above, the Ethernet is still less than that of PS3. Some things are getting rectified though (and some are just irrelevant like the Ethernet): HD-DVD is now an option for movies and likely HDMI is coming out soon. 1080p is already fixed. Xbox 360 looks good and continues to improve. As far as extras go, Xbox 360 has also improved on the service arena - downloads and other kinds of content services have added bells and whistles. Xbox 360 also has gotten very nice accessories such as the controllers and some new like the wheel, batteries/chargers etc.

At the same time the PS3 has been revealed to the public and not all things are as rosy as they seemed. Remember, I expected next-gen bliss significantly beyond Xbox 360. Many PS3 games are still 720p, some even worse than on the Xbox 360. RSX is lesser than Xbox 360's equivalent. Blu-ray doesn't offer hugely improved load times, actually slower at times. I didn't know Xbox 360 was better at scaling. The firmware, network play etc. are still immature. Heck, it doesn't have rumble, that was a bummer - I really like rumble. The PR on the PS3 may make it more next-gen, and may some of the features paint a more next-gen image of it, but I expected more.

So two things: the Xbox 360 concept has matured and now feels even more next-gen, and at the same time the PS3 has been received with lack-luster reviews when it comes to current games and performance, leaving its image as whole somewhat less than it could have been. It still has some nicer bells and whistles (and it will improve for sure!), but also less so in things like online play and some other features... and most importantly, the performance is a wash at the moment. I will live without those bells and whistles if I get better performance elsewhere.

This is why I understand MikeB fell for the package, but also why I moved from waiting to buy PS3 to just waiting to see if I really even want to buy one.

Last edited by jtsiren on 19-Feb-2007 at 12:06 AM.
Last edited by jtsiren on 19-Feb-2007 at 12:02 AM.

@Trezzer

Quote:

@BrianK Quote: Wasn't Oblivion crunched from 4 DVDs into about 6GB and fit on 1 using procedural analysis? Initially there was talk of the game taking up four discs, yes. I believe the final size of this 100+ hour game was around 4,5 GB - and that was mainly thanks to SpeedTree - not full procedural synthesis texturing.

Thanks much for the info I figured you'd know rather then trying to track it down on some old website.

Lets put some oil in the fire to keep the discussion going

Got myself FullAuto2 over the weekend (and CoD3). FA2 runs in full 1080p and does not really slow down in any case (unlike the first FA I tried a year ago on the 360 . For a launch title, I am pretty impressed. Now, I waited 20years to get games in hires and full color, and I have to acknowledge, that I am to old for that kind of game now. My 9 year old son beats the crap out of me in that game - and I have a hard time to realize what's going on. It simply to fast for me. But its nice made. Nice, clean interface. Strangely, the interface seems to be slower then the game (can't imagine why that is...maybe intended ?) 1080p in splitscreen seems to hit the boundaries. Single player is fluent (not that splitscreen is bad or what, but I have the feeling its renders a bit slower). The textures look great, too. Which makes me wonder, if we'll see more second gen games running in 1080p ? e.g. I don't think they look less detailed then say in Resistance (or any other 720p game). But then, that's fast game and details are less important.

Otho CoD3 is great, too. Even though the package says, it runs 1080i, my version doesn't, just 720p (it updated the game twice on start over the net automatically, so I guess I have the latest version). That's more for an "old" guy like me now. Is a bit slower and more tactical. I can cope with that. But its so realistic now, that I get goosebumps here and there. You can see the blades of grass waving in the wind, the rain is fantastic. And water doesn't just flow straight, no but downhill in case you walk up a hill. Pretty impressive (for me at least). Gameplay...I don't know. I didn't really like the first CoD versions (I think Medal of Honor is better), but its kind of OK. The levels should have more freedom (e.g. to flank enemies, etc.), but thats the same in e.g. Resistance. I'd prefer Resistance over CoD3, though. But visually, I think CoD3 has an edge here.

Now, MotorStorm, March, 06...

_________________
AmigaOne XE G3/933/VIA/FM801/R200 (fixed),
G3SE/600/Voodoo3/Sil680/RTL8139/SBLive! (noiseless!)
µA1-MK2/G3/933/R200/CMI8738
XE/G4 (broken 7450/800)

@Jorge

Quote:

Lets put some oil in the fire to keep the discussion going

Thanks for the post! I for one don't consider it "oil", I consider it valuable input.

CoD3 is, according to reviews, very similar on both Xbox 360 and PS3. Some reviewers say Xbox 360 has improved detail and better framerate, but I don't know how true that is since I haven't seen them play. Xbox 360 can do scaling to any resolution though with its hardware and it has more advanced online play (like ranked play and four people joining in per machine instead of one). Probably very similar game on both machines, though.

It is most interesting to read things like Full Auto 2 commentary. Lets see how the whole "1080p" gaming will shape this year now as both consoles are getting 1080p titles and if PS3 can really try and beat Xbox 360 on this. It is also of interest in general will 1080p result in less content detail than using 720p, that is always a trade-off. You said you didn't feel it was less detailed in this case so that is a valuable reference point at least.