Xbox vs. PS2 - Nubblies.net Forums

Steven · 08-29-2003, 11:43 AM

What do you people think about this, personnally, I think that xbox is better because it has better graphics, sweet games such as halo. But yet PS2 is somewhat good because it has grand turismo 3, but i have been boared with PS2 within the last 3 months because they never make any new games for it!

Fruitacious B · 08-29-2003, 11:57 AM

They both have their ups and downs. I'd say it's too close to call, I love both with an equal passion.

Titan · 08-29-2003, 01:02 PM

firstpersonshootersfirstpersonshootersahmilitarysp ygamesmilitaryspygamesaaaahhhh
fuckingxboxplaystation2ruleshellyeahyeahyeahyeahpe niscockandballswahoooeeeeey.

Gamecube.

[ August 30, 2003, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Orgazmo ]

Nathan · 08-29-2003, 03:17 PM

Id take a PC over any console, but if I had to choose it would be PS2.

ninjaface · 08-29-2003, 03:57 PM

The following reply to XBox vs. PS2 is my opinion. So if the only reply you can think of revolves around "you are a dumbass" then you should save yourself the trouble of posting. If you have a logical argument, then by all means, reply.

The XBox is little more than a PC shoved into a console box. The system is huge. I don't have any exact measurements, but I believe the XBox to be about twice as big as the PS2. What does that mean? If The PS2 is just about as good as the XBox and it takes only half as much space to do it in, then PS2 is better (at the very least, ergonomically speaking).

The controls are simply huge. I've heard that if you were to drop one on a small household pet from 5 feet up, it would kill it. Whether that is true or not, it still illustrates my point. Some of you might be thinking, "Hey, you can go buy the smaller ones." Yeah, I could go buy a lot of things. The PS2 comes with the normal, comfortable controllers.

Some might say the XBox is better simply because it has better graphics. The simple fact that the XBox has better graphics is not enough to make it better than PS2. As crazy as that might seem, how much better are the graphics? Noticably better? No. So if the graphics are not noticably better, is the XBox truly better? No.

The argument might come down to amount of games vs graphics. Amount of games goes to PS2 and graphics goes to Xbox (barely).

If your argument is XBox is better because it has better graphics, get a valid argument. Saying the Xbox is better simply because of unnoticable graphics is like saying cow shit smells better than bull shit. The games that have been made for both consoles such as Silent Hill 2 are no different. I've yet to see anything from the Xbox that truly outclasses the PS2 or even begins to come close.

PS2 Wins.

buckeye · 08-29-2003, 05:24 PM

Ninja Face that is the most stereotypical argument against Xbox i've ever seen infact your whole post is complete bullshit.

Firstly regarding the size of the consoles, does the PS2 have a harddrive? Nope, built in ethernet adapter? Nope, go ahead and spend the money to get those upgrades and you'll find the PS2 to be relatively the same size of a Xbox.

The controllers are huge? have you been keeping up with consoles at all? Obviously not, the Xbox switched its controller design to the Controller S (small) about a year ago, meaning this is the standard controller bundleded with EVERY Xbox. Once again you'll find the sizes of the two to be realatively similar.

Now the graphics department. This is a no brainer here. The xbox can support bump mapping, pixel & vertex shading, and antilasing. Look at Doom III the most advanced graphical game, then look at the systems is slated to be released on, PC, and Xbox. Wait no PS2 why is that? Well basically the brains of the videogame developer world, John Carmack, said it would be impossible for PS2 to run Doom III, given its graphical limitations. It doesnt support any of the advanced graphical techniques he employs to make Doom III shine. Which makes me wonder, what game to do you consider to have the best graphics on PS2? You have to be an idiot to use a mult platform release as a benchmark for the graphics, especially a game like Silent Hill 2 that uses prerendered backgrounds. Developers take little or no time to make changes from one platform to another, graphical changes especially since developers have limited time to port a game, and major graphical overhauls just arent possible.

Next the games. I must say i'm glad the PS2 has more games, seeing how it was released 1 year before the Xbox. However what you probably dont know is that as of Christmas the Xbox had 200 games for its console, which was the fastest pace ever for a console to reach 200 video games. You should also do some further research and take note that Xbox has more games online than any other console.

The Xbox has done much more than any other console to bring radical changes to the console gaming industry, therefore Xbox wins.

Also Titan you might want to check out Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic on Xbox, its one hell of an RPG, and Fable when it is released.

ninjaface · 08-30-2003, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by buckeye:
does the PS2 have a harddrive? Nope, built in ethernet adapter? Nope..

Do you need a hard drive to play games? Nope. Do I want an ethernet adapter? Nope.

As far as the controllers go, sure, you got me there.

Quote:

The xbox can support bump mapping, pixel & vertex shading, and antilasing.

Other than anti-aliasing, I have no idea what those things are. Nor do I care.

Quote:

You have to be an idiot to use a mult platform release as a benchmark for the graphics, especially a game like Silent Hill 2...

I wasn't using Silent Hill 2 as a benchmark for graphics. I was simply stating that it looks the same on both consoles.

Quote:

Xbox had 200 games for its console, which was the fastest pace ever for a console to reach 200 video games. You should also do some further research and take note that Xbox has more games online than any other console.

200 games by christmas.. Ok. So they put in a good effort to catch up. Awesome. They had to shit out a large amount of games in a short amount of time to attempt to be competative. It makes sense. They relied on Halo for the longest time. It was a crutch.

Further research is out of the question. I have no desire to learn about online games that I have no interest in playing.

Quote:

The Xbox has done much more than any other console to bring radical changes to the console gaming industry

Like what?

buckeye · 08-30-2003, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ninjaface:
Do you need a hard drive to play games? Nope. Do I want an ethernet adapter? Nope.

Harddives, hmm well i dunno downloading an extra level to splinter cell was pretty cool, along with new maps, game types, and mechs in Mech Assault. Its also nice not having to buy a memory card with a very low capacity to save all your games. For example saving plays in sports games is only possible with a harddrive.

I could see why you might not need an ethernet adapter, but if you'd like to play a game online, or even play against other Xboxs over a network it just comes in handy.

Quote:

Originally posted by ninjaface:

Other than anti-aliasing, I have no idea what those things are. Nor do I care.

Those fancy smancy graphical techniques are what make games like Halo, Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic shine, and what keep games like Doom III from ever reaching a PS2, and trust me its alot cheaper to buy an Xbox than to build a computer to support Doom III. The best thing about these techniques is that they can constantly be improved, and developers become more efficient with them. Therefore sequels to games are like night and day, example: Halo and Halo 2 then look at the PS2, and look at Grand Theft Auto III, and Vice City, almost mirror images of each other.

Quote:

Originally posted by ninjaface:
I wasn't using Silent Hill 2 as a benchmark for graphics. I was simply stating that it looks the same on both consoles.

By saying the PS2 version is the same as the Xbox version is comparing the two, and in a sense benchmarking them. Either way it's a multiplatform release and is irrelevant when comparing two systems.

Quote:

Originally posted by ninjaface:

They had to shit out a large amount of games in a short amount of time to attempt to be competative.

The same thing can be said about PS2 my friend, just with Grand Theft Auto, and Grand Theft Auto reheated. But here is what doesnt make sense to me Ninjaface, if the Xbox games are so shitty, then why does the Xbox have the highest attach rate of any other system (games bought when the console is purchased)?

Quote:

Originally posted by ninjaface:

Like what?

They pioneered online gaming for consoles (dreamcast tried but did a piss poor job of it)
, along with voice communication (they were to first to be successful at it). Downloadable content for games, built in harddrive and ethernet adapter.

More to come later, as of now, i'm tired from my drive to Columbus, Ohio, and i'm waking up to swim in 6 hours.

Fruitacious B · 08-30-2003, 02:54 AM

Not to steal buckeye's argument, because I know he's going to shread that previous post, but as far as radical changes go, try a hard drive in a game console, or an ethernet adaptor. Halo wasn't and isn't a crutch, it's probably one of the top first person shooters ever created.

Titan · 08-30-2003, 01:33 PM

I'd like to divulge here for a minute (after noting that I love listening to buckeye and Ninjaface argue about the X-box and PS2, though it is the opposite of what I'm going to discuss, I love seeing people stand up for their shit. It's fun too.) Anyway I'd like to talk about the shittiness of corporate America and how it affects something as wonderful as video games.

Anyway, all systems have their crutches. Otherwise known as the top-selling games. People complain about a lack of good games for all of the systems. That's because what's happening in the music business is also happening in the video game industry.

Nobody wants to take risks on making any really cool new innovative games. They only want to try what has been done before and sold before (hence the first person shooters, military/spy games, sports games, mario games). That's why there are the good stereotypical ones that they know are going to sell, which do, and then the shitty ones which developers try to profitize over, and they just suck because they spend no time on them. It's really fucking sad. There are only a few games that they know everyone is going to buy.

The shittiest part though, is that the fault doesn't lie completely in the developer's hands. There are a shortage of people out there that are willing to try games that aren't the Mario or Zelda or Halo or Silent Hill that they're used to. Same thing with the music business. It's all a big steaming pile of shit because no one wants to step outside of their comfort zone. Fucking hippies. The unemployment rate is way high too, the world is going to shit, I'm tellin' ya.

[ August 30, 2003, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Titan ]

Fruitacious B · 08-30-2003, 07:26 PM

You're mostly right there Titan, but near the end you started to sound like my grandpa.

08-29-2003, 11:43 AM	#1 (permalink)
Steven Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Milan Posts: 5 Internets: 10	What do you people think about this, personnally, I think that xbox is better because it has better graphics, sweet games such as halo. But yet PS2 is somewhat good because it has grand turismo 3, but i have been boared with PS2 within the last 3 months because they never make any new games for it!
	own3d

08-29-2003, 11:57 AM	#2 (permalink)
Fruitacious B Bokononist Join Date: May 2003 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,595 Internets: 11801	They both have their ups and downs. I'd say it's too close to call, I love both with an equal passion.
	"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand." \|vonnegut

08-29-2003, 01:02 PM	#3 (permalink)
Titan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,698 Internets: 10	firstpersonshootersfirstpersonshootersahmilitarysp ygamesmilitaryspygamesaaaahhhh fuckingxboxplaystation2ruleshellyeahyeahyeahyeahpe niscockandballswahoooeeeeey. Gamecube. [ August 30, 2003, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Orgazmo ]
	I do what the fuck I want.

08-30-2003, 02:54 AM	#9 (permalink)
Fruitacious B Bokononist Join Date: May 2003 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,595 Internets: 11801	Not to steal buckeye's argument, because I know he's going to shread that previous post, but as far as radical changes go, try a hard drive in a game console, or an ethernet adaptor. Halo wasn't and isn't a crutch, it's probably one of the top first person shooters ever created.
	"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand." \|vonnegut

08-30-2003, 01:33 PM	#10 (permalink)
Titan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,698 Internets: 10	I'd like to divulge here for a minute (after noting that I love listening to buckeye and Ninjaface argue about the X-box and PS2, though it is the opposite of what I'm going to discuss, I love seeing people stand up for their shit. It's fun too.) Anyway I'd like to talk about the shittiness of corporate America and how it affects something as wonderful as video games. Anyway, all systems have their crutches. Otherwise known as the top-selling games. People complain about a lack of good games for all of the systems. That's because what's happening in the music business is also happening in the video game industry. Nobody wants to take risks on making any really cool new innovative games. They only want to try what has been done before and sold before (hence the first person shooters, military/spy games, sports games, mario games). That's why there are the good stereotypical ones that they know are going to sell, which do, and then the shitty ones which developers try to profitize over, and they just suck because they spend no time on them. It's really fucking sad. There are only a few games that they know everyone is going to buy. The shittiest part though, is that the fault doesn't lie completely in the developer's hands. There are a shortage of people out there that are willing to try games that aren't the Mario or Zelda or Halo or Silent Hill that they're used to. Same thing with the music business. It's all a big steaming pile of shit because no one wants to step outside of their comfort zone. Fucking hippies. The unemployment rate is way high too, the world is going to shit, I'm tellin' ya. [ August 30, 2003, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Titan ]
	I do what the fuck I want.

08-29-2003, 03:17 PM	#4 (permalink)
Nathan Nasty Nate Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 627 Internets: 4881	Id take a PC over any console, but if I had to choose it would be PS2.

08-29-2003, 03:57 PM	#5 (permalink)
ninjaface Level 20 Holothetan Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Space Posts: 5,245 Internets: 210144	The following reply to XBox vs. PS2 is my opinion. So if the only reply you can think of revolves around "you are a dumbass" then you should save yourself the trouble of posting. If you have a logical argument, then by all means, reply. The XBox is little more than a PC shoved into a console box. The system is huge. I don't have any exact measurements, but I believe the XBox to be about twice as big as the PS2. What does that mean? If The PS2 is just about as good as the XBox and it takes only half as much space to do it in, then PS2 is better (at the very least, ergonomically speaking). The controls are simply huge. I've heard that if you were to drop one on a small household pet from 5 feet up, it would kill it. Whether that is true or not, it still illustrates my point. Some of you might be thinking, "Hey, you can go buy the smaller ones." Yeah, I could go buy a lot of things. The PS2 comes with the normal, comfortable controllers. Some might say the XBox is better simply because it has better graphics. The simple fact that the XBox has better graphics is not enough to make it better than PS2. As crazy as that might seem, how much better are the graphics? Noticably better? No. So if the graphics are not noticably better, is the XBox truly better? No. The argument might come down to amount of games vs graphics. Amount of games goes to PS2 and graphics goes to Xbox (barely). If your argument is XBox is better because it has better graphics, get a valid argument. Saying the Xbox is better simply because of unnoticable graphics is like saying cow shit smells better than bull shit. The games that have been made for both consoles such as Silent Hill 2 are no different. I've yet to see anything from the Xbox that truly outclasses the PS2 or even begins to come close. PS2 Wins.

08-29-2003, 05:24 PM	#6 (permalink)
buckeye Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,100 Internets: 10	Ninja Face that is the most stereotypical argument against Xbox i've ever seen infact your whole post is complete bullshit. Firstly regarding the size of the consoles, does the PS2 have a harddrive? Nope, built in ethernet adapter? Nope, go ahead and spend the money to get those upgrades and you'll find the PS2 to be relatively the same size of a Xbox. The controllers are huge? have you been keeping up with consoles at all? Obviously not, the Xbox switched its controller design to the Controller S (small) about a year ago, meaning this is the standard controller bundleded with EVERY Xbox. Once again you'll find the sizes of the two to be realatively similar. Now the graphics department. This is a no brainer here. The xbox can support bump mapping, pixel & vertex shading, and antilasing. Look at Doom III the most advanced graphical game, then look at the systems is slated to be released on, PC, and Xbox. Wait no PS2 why is that? Well basically the brains of the videogame developer world, John Carmack, said it would be impossible for PS2 to run Doom III, given its graphical limitations. It doesnt support any of the advanced graphical techniques he employs to make Doom III shine. Which makes me wonder, what game to do you consider to have the best graphics on PS2? You have to be an idiot to use a mult platform release as a benchmark for the graphics, especially a game like Silent Hill 2 that uses prerendered backgrounds. Developers take little or no time to make changes from one platform to another, graphical changes especially since developers have limited time to port a game, and major graphical overhauls just arent possible. Next the games. I must say i'm glad the PS2 has more games, seeing how it was released 1 year before the Xbox. However what you probably dont know is that as of Christmas the Xbox had 200 games for its console, which was the fastest pace ever for a console to reach 200 video games. You should also do some further research and take note that Xbox has more games online than any other console. The Xbox has done much more than any other console to bring radical changes to the console gaming industry, therefore Xbox wins. Also Titan you might want to check out Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic on Xbox, its one hell of an RPG, and Fable when it is released.

08-30-2003, 07:26 PM	#11 (permalink)
Fruitacious B Bokononist Join Date: May 2003 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,595 Internets: 11801	You're mostly right there Titan, but near the end you started to sound like my grandpa.
	"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand." \|vonnegut