Do exclusives blur the difference in power of consoles?

  • 84 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Serioussamik (736 posts) -

PS2 was clearly much less powerful than original Xbox and yet in the later years we witnessed God of War, Okami, Shadow of Colossus on the console.

Similarly Xbox 360 came up with Gears of War 3 and Halo 4 and led me into believing that God of War 3 and Uncharted series more than met their match. Now I was under the impression that PS3 would be way powerful than X360 when the specs surfaced (in 2005 maybe) , but then found little to choose between the two.

Now I see many posts saying how clearly PS4 is better than XB1 in the graphics department.

My question is, would not the console exclusives bridge the gap between the two in the visuals department, as in every gen?

#2 Edited by icygangsta (2895 posts) -

The gawd understands your concern. Let me reference the flawless platinum ice cube which gives the G-A-W-D absolute knowledge.


1) Ignorance/poor flow of information ''blurs'' the difference in power
2) A ''casual'' gamer may be swayed one way or the other based on their experience/perception on a game and its consoles

In conclusion, Cocaine Biceps AKA Game God AKA Ice G O D-izzle would like to remind you that someone well versed in the console architecture and the game line-up shouldn't have any issues. Someone who is not interested in the ''behind-the-scenes'' may experience ''blurred'' differences.

ICE CUBES.

#3 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

Does it matter ?

Nintendo still has better Exclusives because in the end Gameplay is more fun than Graphics.

But I wouldn't buy their games if There was a Multiplatform Alternitive since I believe everybody should have access.

#4 Posted by icygangsta (2895 posts) -

Does it matter ?

Nintendo still has better Exclusives because in the end Gameplay is more fun than Graphics.

But I wouldn't buy their games if There was a Multiplatform Alternitive since I believe everybody should have access.

Lol.

#5 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@icygangsta

????

#6 Edited by icygangsta (2895 posts) -

@icygangsta

????

Please do not speak while the platinum ice cube is in play.

*The god resumes and takes his seat*

#7 Edited by SambaLele (5167 posts) -

All we're doing this early in the gen is betting. And my bet for exclusives graphical potential is:

X1's exclusives will look great. Ryse is only the start, they'll get better than that. But PS4's will look a lot better. At some point, on both platforms, they'll start sacrificing resolution and framerate in order to achieve an overall better rendering quality, with more advanced effects and techniques. But later on in the gen, there'll be a clearer difference between PS4 exclusives and X1's.

#8 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@icygangsta

Oooooooh, fanboyism.... Now I understand, thanks for clearing that up. ;)

#9 Posted by scottpsfan14 (3736 posts) -

Halo 4 looks no worse than Uncharted 2/3 or TLOU. The PS3 exclusives certainly took advantage of the extra power of the Cell, but Halo 4 looks just as pleasing to the eye if I'm honest. And we will see which game translates better to modern hardware out of TLOU R and Halo 4 in MCC.

#10 Edited by blue_hazy_basic (27383 posts) -

Here's the thing. Sony have more talented studios than MS. That's how they were able to get the best out of the messy PS3 architecture. This gen I'd expect Sony's exclusives (and mulitplats) to look consistently better than MS's across the board due to the PS4 having the beefier hardware, but honestly not by a vast amount, simply because the resources needed to do that for an entire game aren't really worth it.

Things like frame rate might be much more prominent than just looking pretty though.

#11 Posted by DocSanchez (1562 posts) -
#12 Posted by sHaDyCuBe321 (4064 posts) -

@DocSanchez: she's actually one of the few people on this board who I consistently see giving pretty fair evaluations across the board. Being a fan =/= being a fanboy

#13 Edited by farrell2k (5801 posts) -

Who cares about power between the two!? If you care so much about graphics, you should not be playing games on a console. Playing games on a console and expecting great graphics is like brushing your teeth with a pork chop and expecting clean teeth.

Wait, hold on, here. Ever since Sony said that there would likely be fewer AAA exclusives this gen, cows have been telling us for weeks how it is multiplats that matter, now exclusives.

#14 Edited by DocSanchez (1562 posts) -
#15 Posted by sHaDyCuBe321 (4064 posts) -

@DocSanchez: "And I'm sorry Ms. Rosie Perez. I call a spade a spade. It just it what it is."

#16 Posted by cainetao11 (16845 posts) -

I buy for games. There are games I want to play on X1, so I buy it. There will be on ps4 then I will buy it.

#17 Edited by Floppy_Jim (25584 posts) -

Your point seems to hinge on :"It might happen again because it happened before". If the original Xbox had survived until 2007-8 we could have seen things that far eclipse God of War 2 or SOTC.

#18 Posted by icygangsta (2895 posts) -

Here's the thing. Sony have more talented studios than MS. That's how they were able to get the best out of the messy PS3 architecture. This gen I'd expect Sony's exclusives (and mulitplats) to look consistently better than MS's across the board due to the PS4 having the beefier hardware, but honestly not by a vast amount, simply because the resources needed to do that for an entire game aren't really worth it.

Things like frame rate might be much more prominent than just looking pretty though.

Blue Haze has pleased the Gawd with this logical comment. Logic pleases the god.

ICE CUBES.

#19 Edited by hiphops_savior (7856 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: In other words, the only thing that matters in performance is how it would affect gameplay (60fps, better technology base allows for bigger levels).

#20 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@DocSanchez

Well.... I'm not... Even if I was... You couldn't prove it... :) suck on that !

#21 Posted by jsmoke03 (12743 posts) -

PS2 was clearly much less powerful than original Xbox and yet in the later years we witnessed God of War, Okami, Shadow of Colossus on the console.

Similarly Xbox 360 came up with Gears of War 3 and Halo 4 and led me into believing that God of War 3 and Uncharted series more than met their match. Now I was under the impression that PS3 would be way powerful than X360 when the specs surfaced (in 2005 maybe) , but then found little to choose between the two.

Now I see many posts saying how clearly PS4 is better than XB1 in the graphics department.

My question is, would not the console exclusives bridge the gap between the two in the visuals department, as in every gen?

ps3 exclusives looked way better than 360's.

i cant think of any xbox exclusives that showed of graphics at the moment, but every game looked better on the xbox.

#22 Edited by PAL360 (26704 posts) -

No. God of War 2 was an amazing game and very impressive for PS2 standards, but it didnt came any close to Xbox games like Halo 2, Half Life 2, Ninja Gaiden, Doom 3, etc. As for last gen, the reason why the best looking 360 and PS3 looked at the same level, was because both consoles were technicaly similar. Both had advantages over the other but none was superior.

This gen we will probably see a scenario similar to PS2 vs Xbox, but the gap isnt as big. PS4 exclusives will look better but not by much.

#23 Edited by kinectthedots (1613 posts) -

My question is, would not the console exclusives bridge the gap between the two in the visuals department, as in every gen?

No, it will become a lot clearer actually.

also:

lel stealth damage control thread about PS4 50% power advantage over XB1 and $500 buyers remorse.

#24 Edited by leandrro (801 posts) -

PS2 was clearly much less powerful than original Xbox and yet in the later years we witnessed God of War, Okami, Shadow of Colossus on the console.

Similarly Xbox 360 came up with Gears of War 3 and Halo 4 and led me into believing that God of War 3 and Uncharted series more than met their match. Now I was under the impression that PS3 would be way powerful than X360 when the specs surfaced (in 2005 maybe) , but then found little to choose between the two.

Now I see many posts saying how clearly PS4 is better than XB1 in the graphics department.

My question is, would not the console exclusives bridge the gap between the two in the visuals department, as in every gen?

exclusives are not the best looking games, multiplats like battlefield 3 and crysis 3 are the best looking ps3 games

on ps2 you had battlefield 2 on PS2 (bf modern combat) that used visual tech not available to other games on that time on console, also xbox 1 had half life 2 (ps2 only had hl1) that was a console game far better looking than god of war (im a big gow fan) and still far behind half life 2 on PC

so no, a cheap PC could run half life 2 and "optimization" on PS2 did not blur the power difference

xbox 1 had games with far better visuals than god of war (again, im a big gow fan) no reduced gap again

exclusives only look good if they are corridor tech demos and this does not means the gap in hardware disapeared

for more on how PS2 visuals are not that great check this video

#25 Posted by Serioussamik (736 posts) -

@leandrro: Enlightening stuff mate. That video surely shed new light. I never knew the chasm between PS2 and Xbox was so huge...that brings me to

@Floppy_Jim- wondering why did Xbox not survive till 2008 when PS2 was still going strong in 2009-10.

#26 Edited by Gue1 (9492 posts) -

nah. No PS2 exclusive looked even close to Halo on xbox. And have you seen farcry on xbox or ninja gaiden black?

PS3 and 360 where really close in power though, is just that most devs didn't want to invest the time in programming for the cell.

#27 Edited by Floppy_Jim (25584 posts) -

@leandrro: Enlightening stuff mate. That video surely shed new light. I never knew the chasm between PS2 and Xbox was so huge...that brings me to

@Floppy_Jim- wondering why did Xbox not survive till 2008 when PS2 was still going strong in 2009-10.

They lost a ton of money on the original Xbox due to the components or possibly the hard drives used, I'm sure someone else here knows more. Since it wasn't profitable MS cut its life short and rushed out the 360 to beat Sony & Nintendo.

#28 Posted by Heil68 (43435 posts) -

SONY shows their true power each gen with their exclusives.

#29 Posted by asylumni (2113 posts) -

@Serioussamik said:

@leandrro: Enlightening stuff mate. That video surely shed new light. I never knew the chasm between PS2 and Xbox was so huge...that brings me to

@Floppy_Jim- wondering why did Xbox not survive till 2008 when PS2 was still going strong in 2009-10.

They lost a ton of money on the original Xbox due to the components or possibly the hard drives used, I'm sure someone else here knows more. Since it wasn't profitable MS cut its life short and rushed out the 360 to beat Sony & Nintendo.

They were losing money because the original Xbox was rushed to market. It was barely more than a year from start to release, which meant they had little opportunity to customize parts or negotiate more favorable deals. The biggest part was the Nvidia chip that MS had no choice but to buy from Nvidia who refused to reduce price as much as independent manufacturers would.

I would also ignore that video. On one hand, you have the manufacturers that actually design the chips like AMD, Intel, Nvidia and major developers saying that console optimization is real and on the other hand, you have someone with a youtube account.

#30 Posted by leandrro (801 posts) -

@asylumni said:

@Floppy_Jim said:

@Serioussamik said:

@leandrro: Enlightening stuff mate. That video surely shed new light. I never knew the chasm between PS2 and Xbox was so huge...that brings me to

@Floppy_Jim- wondering why did Xbox not survive till 2008 when PS2 was still going strong in 2009-10.

They lost a ton of money on the original Xbox due to the components or possibly the hard drives used, I'm sure someone else here knows more. Since it wasn't profitable MS cut its life short and rushed out the 360 to beat Sony & Nintendo.

They were losing money because the original Xbox was rushed to market. It was barely more than a year from start to release, which meant they had little opportunity to customize parts or negotiate more favorable deals. The biggest part was the Nvidia chip that MS had no choice but to buy from Nvidia who refused to reduce price as much as independent manufacturers would.

I would also ignore that video. On one hand, you have the manufacturers that actually design the chips like AMD, Intel, Nvidia and major developers saying that console optimization is real and on the other hand, you have someone with a youtube account.

on one hand you have a few bribed developers repeating things the console manufacturers pay them to say

on the other hand you have real facts,

you can discuss statements but against real life benchmarks there is no argument

#31 Posted by scatteh316 (4841 posts) -

The gap between PS2 and Xbox 1 was massive and the gap between PS4 and Xbone is even bigger..

PS4 has 100% more ROPS and 50% more shader performance, there has never been a gap that big in console history.

#32 Edited by GoldenElementXL (2762 posts) -

@scatteh316:

Um no.

The Xbox/PS2 gap was bigger.

http://www.theverge.com/products/compare/1678/1668/1680/1666

#33 Edited by scatteh316 (4841 posts) -

@GoldenElementXL said:

@scatteh316:

Um no.

The Xbox/PS2 gap was bigger.

http://www.theverge.com/products/compare/1678/1668/1680/1666

No it wasn't, the single biggest advantage that Xbox had over PS2 was double the RAM and texture compression, if PS2 had those 2 things the gap would of been much closer.

CPU wise PS2 had a big advantage and fillrate? PS2 also trashed Xbox, 4Mb VRAM for texture storage with no hardware support for texture compression is what crippled PS2.

Much in the same way that 10Mb EDRAM did to 360 and now 32Mb ESRAM is crippling Xbone.

#34 Edited by SolidTy (42422 posts) -

@GoldenElementXL said:

@scatteh316:

Um no.

The Xbox/PS2 gap was bigger.

http://www.theverge.com/products/compare/1678/1668/1680/1666

That links not even very accurate, nor does it explain that the GC and Xbox were 32bit, the PS2 was 128 bit, and the DC used the Hitachi SH-4 processor is a 64 bit processor. It also has no resolution for the PS2 in that link, although GT4 was 1080i and various other games supported 480p. In fact, the PS2 had games in 480p as well and was the first console that had retail component video plugs. It has an Audio/Video spot, but no specs for PS2 or the sweet Gamecube which also supported 480p for certain games. The link is just bad. It doesn't break down Sony's emotion engine (the PS2 CPU crushed the competition), nor does it explain the gap in years (1998, 2000, 2001). It's verge so it's expected, but it's certainly not a good link to prove a point since it lacks way too much information. If you are suggesting looking simply at CPU speed, that's not enough. Can't even look at resolution, it's missing for two consoles. Knowing how much work is being done per cycle is relevant, but then again, it's old news. Yes, the PS2 was graphically inferior to the Xbox, but that link doesn't have enough information to prove it as it's missing information. There's nothing to really compare there. You can look at RAM too, the link does provide that. 16 MB for the Dreamcast, 24 MB for the GC, 32 MB for the PS2, and 64 MB for the Xbox. That's a component to scrutinize, but it's not enough for a good breakdown of each box and looking RAM suggests PS2 > GC. Again, there is more to it than RAM or CPU speed.

For the Xbox, it has 10 GB for storage, but the Xbox had 8 GB. There were a few early models that shipped with 10 GB, but since it was in blocks it didn't matter and all models were formatted to 8GB! What's the point of stating 10 GB if the consumer can only use 8GB? They could have written 8 GB or 10 GB, but all systems used 8 GB, but nope. It's just a bad link. The verge got that wrong even. The more I look at that link, the more problems I find.

In the old SW days we had tons of much better links and comparison charts for discussion (in very long threads) for the Dreamcast, Xbox, Gamecube, and PS2 and nearly all of them were better than the verge link you provided. I would link them, but it seems they were purged. Still, I did find this old Wii vs. the original Xbox SW link. Funny thing, I'm even in that link talking about specs regarding Xbox vs. Wii. I clicked on that verge link as a curio and came away disappointed as it has a lot of wrong or incomplete spots. I knew it was the verge so my expectations were low and they certainly delivered.

If you believe the gap is bigger and your source is that link, then you should re-examine your beliefs. I don't have a pony in this race, I'm simply disputing that poor link as some sort of evidence.

#35 Edited by asylumni (2113 posts) -

@leandrro said:

@asylumni said:

@Floppy_Jim said:

@Serioussamik said:

@leandrro: Enlightening stuff mate. That video surely shed new light. I never knew the chasm between PS2 and Xbox was so huge...that brings me to

@Floppy_Jim- wondering why did Xbox not survive till 2008 when PS2 was still going strong in 2009-10.

They lost a ton of money on the original Xbox due to the components or possibly the hard drives used, I'm sure someone else here knows more. Since it wasn't profitable MS cut its life short and rushed out the 360 to beat Sony & Nintendo.

They were losing money because the original Xbox was rushed to market. It was barely more than a year from start to release, which meant they had little opportunity to customize parts or negotiate more favorable deals. The biggest part was the Nvidia chip that MS had no choice but to buy from Nvidia who refused to reduce price as much as independent manufacturers would.

I would also ignore that video. On one hand, you have the manufacturers that actually design the chips like AMD, Intel, Nvidia and major developers saying that console optimization is real and on the other hand, you have someone with a youtube account.

on one hand you have a few bribed developers repeating things the console manufacturers pay them to say

on the other hand you have real facts,

you can discuss statements but against real life benchmarks there is no argument

OK, I'll bite. Let's see the proof of console manufacturers bribing developers and hardware companies to spread lies about console optimization. Let's see the console maker that's behind AMD's big push with Mantle, who's sole purpose is to bring optimization on PC to somewhat even close to that of consoles.

As for benchmarks, you have not provided any to support or deny, you've just shown an old video card running old games at a horrible frame rate. You didn't even show the PS2 version for comparison.

#36 Posted by RyviusARC (4266 posts) -

@SolidTy said:

@GoldenElementXL said:

@scatteh316:

Um no.

The Xbox/PS2 gap was bigger.

http://www.theverge.com/products/compare/1678/1668/1680/1666

That links not even very accurate, nor does it explain that the GC and Xbox were 32bit, the PS2 was 128 bit, and the DC used the Hitachi SH-4 processor is a 64 bit processor. It also has no resolution for the PS2 in that link, although GT4 was 1080i and various other games supported 480p. In fact, the PS2 had games in 480p as well and was the first console that had retail component video plugs. It has an Audio/Video spot, but no specs for PS2 or the sweet Gamecube which also supported 480p for certain games. The link is just bad. It doesn't break down Sony's emotion engine (the PS2 CPU crushed the competition), nor does it explain the gap in years (1998, 2000, 2001). It's verge so it's expected, but it's certainly not a good link to prove a point since it lacks way too much information. If you are suggesting looking simply at CPU speed, that's not enough. Can't even look at resolution, it's missing for two consoles. Knowing how much work is being done per cycle is relevant, but then again, it's old news. Yes, the PS2 was graphically inferior to the Xbox, but that link doesn't have enough information to prove it as it's missing information. There's nothing to really compare there. You can look at RAM too, the link does provide that. 16 MB for the Dreamcast, 24 MB for the GC, 32 MB for the PS2, and 64 MB for the Xbox. That's a component to scrutinize, but it's not enough for a good breakdown of each box and looking RAM suggests PS2 > GC. Again, there is more to it than RAM or CPU speed.

For the Xbox, it has 10 GB for storage, but the Xbox had 8 GB. There were a few early models that shipped with 10 GB, but since it was in blocks it didn't matter and all models were formatted to 8GB! What's the point of stating 10 GB if the consumer can only use 8GB? They could have written 8 GB or 10 GB, but all systems used 8 GB, but nope. It's just a bad link. The verge got that wrong even. The more I look at that link, the more problems I find.

In the old SW days we had tons of much better links and comparison charts for discussion (in very long threads) for the Dreamcast, Xbox, Gamecube, and PS2 and nearly all of them were better than the verge link you provided. I would link them, but it seems they were purged. Still, I did find this old Wii vs. the original Xbox SW link. Funny thing, I'm even in that link talking about specs regarding Xbox vs. Wii. I clicked on that verge link as a curio and came away disappointed as it has a lot of wrong or incomplete spots. I knew it was the verge so my expectations were low and they certainly delivered.

If you believe the gap is bigger and your source is that link, then you should re-examine your beliefs. I don't have a pony in this race, I'm simply disputing that poor link as some sort of evidence.

The GPU in the Xbox was far more stronger than the GPU in the PS2.

The gap between the Xbox and PS2 was so large that there were many games that came out on the Xbox that didn't come out on the PS2 because of hardware limitation.

Games like Doom 3 and Half Life 2.

You should also remember the difference of Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube and PS2.

And keep in mind the Gamecube is weaker than the Xbox.

But this gap should not surprise anyone as the PS2 was released in 1999 (Japan) and the Xbox was released in 2001 which is a 2 year gap.

#37 Edited by Salt_The_Fries (8356 posts) -

I think they should, but for fanboys or casuals they won't. They simply enjoy this processing power game even if they couldn't distinguish two versions from each other. There is quite simply an underlying psychological factor related to the subconscious and placebo sense of superiority. This very factor determines everything and obscures any sense of objective judgement for some people.

#38 Edited by SolidTy (42422 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@SolidTy said:

@GoldenElementXL said:

@scatteh316:

Um no.

The Xbox/PS2 gap was bigger.

http://www.theverge.com/products/compare/1678/1668/1680/1666

That links not even very accurate, nor does it explain that the GC and Xbox were 32bit, the PS2 was 128 bit, and the DC used the Hitachi SH-4 processor is a 64 bit processor. It also has no resolution for the PS2 in that link, although GT4 was 1080i and various other games supported 480p. In fact, the PS2 had games in 480p as well and was the first console that had retail component video plugs. It has an Audio/Video spot, but no specs for PS2 or the sweet Gamecube which also supported 480p for certain games. The link is just bad. It doesn't break down Sony's emotion engine (the PS2 CPU crushed the competition), nor does it explain the gap in years (1998, 2000, 2001). It's verge so it's expected, but it's certainly not a good link to prove a point since it lacks way too much information. If you are suggesting looking simply at CPU speed, that's not enough. Can't even look at resolution, it's missing for two consoles. Knowing how much work is being done per cycle is relevant, but then again, it's old news. Yes, the PS2 was graphically inferior to the Xbox, but that link doesn't have enough information to prove it as it's missing information. There's nothing to really compare there. You can look at RAM too, the link does provide that. 16 MB for the Dreamcast, 24 MB for the GC, 32 MB for the PS2, and 64 MB for the Xbox. That's a component to scrutinize, but it's not enough for a good breakdown of each box and looking RAM suggests PS2 > GC. Again, there is more to it than RAM or CPU speed.

For the Xbox, it has 10 GB for storage, but the Xbox had 8 GB. There were a few early models that shipped with 10 GB, but since it was in blocks it didn't matter and all models were formatted to 8GB! What's the point of stating 10 GB if the consumer can only use 8GB? They could have written 8 GB or 10 GB, but all systems used 8 GB, but nope. It's just a bad link. The verge got that wrong even. The more I look at that link, the more problems I find.

In the old SW days we had tons of much better links and comparison charts for discussion (in very long threads) for the Dreamcast, Xbox, Gamecube, and PS2 and nearly all of them were better than the verge link you provided. I would link them, but it seems they were purged. Still, I did find this old Wii vs. the original Xbox SW link. Funny thing, I'm even in that link talking about specs regarding Xbox vs. Wii. I clicked on that verge link as a curio and came away disappointed as it has a lot of wrong or incomplete spots. I knew it was the verge so my expectations were low and they certainly delivered.

If you believe the gap is bigger and your source is that link, then you should re-examine your beliefs. I don't have a pony in this race, I'm simply disputing that poor link as some sort of evidence.

The GPU in the Xbox was far more stronger than the GPU in the PS2.

The gap between the Xbox and PS2 was so large that there were many games that came out on the Xbox that didn't come out on the PS2 because of hardware limitation.

Games like Doom 3 and Half Life 2.

You should also remember the difference of Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube and PS2.

And keep in mind the Gamecube is weaker than the Xbox.

But this gap should not surprise anyone as the PS2 was released in 1999 (Japan) and the Xbox was released in 2001 which is a 2 year gap.

You misunderstand. I own all of those consoles at launch (Dreamcast, Gamecube, PS2, and Xbox) and you were wrong by the way, the PS2 was released in March 2000 in Japan, not 1999. I know because I imported a Dreamcast and a Japanese Launch PS2 way back then. That's beside the point. I simply proved that the Verge link was a terribly inaccurate link, which it was. That was my only point, to prove how horrible that link was, not argue about each system. I only stated facts that the Verge lacked. I was discrediting a link, not trying to pretend it's SW 2005 again. I'm not going to argue like it's SW DC/PS2/GC/Xbox all over again. I've lived that era. I argued in that era here in SW many times. I bought RE4 on my launch GC. I own Doom 3, Half-Life 2, and many other games on my Xbox including Steel Battalion. You are arguing with a straw-man, certainly not anything I said. Look at my last line:

"I don't have a pony in this race, I'm simply disputing that poor link as some sort of evidence."

That link was poor and you took it as a challenge for some reason. My point is the same, the link is poor. If you want to argue about those machines in 2014, you showed up in the wrong era. I'm well aware of the power breakdown in the machines and the chipsets even as I only partially demonstrated above. The rating goes Xbox>GC>PS2>DC.

You must have not read above, so I'll quote myself again:

"Yes, the PS2 was graphically inferior to the Xbox, but that link doesn't have enough information to prove it as it's missing information."

I was talking about the verge link in my first sentence, I repeated my point was about the link multiple times in the middle of my above post, and I ended the final sentence talking about the link. Everything you are talking about shouldn't have been directed to me. It made no sense, as if you are talking to an invisible poster. A straw-man argument.

That doesn't make the verge link suddenly accurate because it's not. I'm not going to argue about this again as I've been in SW since those days. It's a complete waste of time. What wasn't a waste was pointing out a poor link. It would be nice if poor links don't get abused by users. I set out to prove that link was poor and it was poor and my job was done. You seem to have confused my intentions somehow and you certainly seemed to have skipped over my own words above. Reading comprehension was lost somehow.

#39 Edited by RyviusARC (4266 posts) -

@SolidTy said:

@RyviusARC said:

@SolidTy said:

@GoldenElementXL said:

@scatteh316:

Um no.

The Xbox/PS2 gap was bigger.

http://www.theverge.com/products/compare/1678/1668/1680/1666

That links not even very accurate, nor does it explain that the GC and Xbox were 32bit, the PS2 was 128 bit, and the DC used the Hitachi SH-4 processor is a 64 bit processor. It also has no resolution for the PS2 in that link, although GT4 was 1080i and various other games supported 480p. In fact, the PS2 had games in 480p as well and was the first console that had retail component video plugs. It has an Audio/Video spot, but no specs for PS2 or the sweet Gamecube which also supported 480p for certain games. The link is just bad. It doesn't break down Sony's emotion engine (the PS2 CPU crushed the competition), nor does it explain the gap in years (1998, 2000, 2001). It's verge so it's expected, but it's certainly not a good link to prove a point since it lacks way too much information. If you are suggesting looking simply at CPU speed, that's not enough. Can't even look at resolution, it's missing for two consoles. Knowing how much work is being done per cycle is relevant, but then again, it's old news. Yes, the PS2 was graphically inferior to the Xbox, but that link doesn't have enough information to prove it as it's missing information. There's nothing to really compare there. You can look at RAM too, the link does provide that. 16 MB for the Dreamcast, 24 MB for the GC, 32 MB for the PS2, and 64 MB for the Xbox. That's a component to scrutinize, but it's not enough for a good breakdown of each box and looking RAM suggests PS2 > GC. Again, there is more to it than RAM or CPU speed.

For the Xbox, it has 10 GB for storage, but the Xbox had 8 GB. There were a few early models that shipped with 10 GB, but since it was in blocks it didn't matter and all models were formatted to 8GB! What's the point of stating 10 GB if the consumer can only use 8GB? They could have written 8 GB or 10 GB, but all systems used 8 GB, but nope. It's just a bad link. The verge got that wrong even. The more I look at that link, the more problems I find.

In the old SW days we had tons of much better links and comparison charts for discussion (in very long threads) for the Dreamcast, Xbox, Gamecube, and PS2 and nearly all of them were better than the verge link you provided. I would link them, but it seems they were purged. Still, I did find this old Wii vs. the original Xbox SW link. Funny thing, I'm even in that link talking about specs regarding Xbox vs. Wii. I clicked on that verge link as a curio and came away disappointed as it has a lot of wrong or incomplete spots. I knew it was the verge so my expectations were low and they certainly delivered.

If you believe the gap is bigger and your source is that link, then you should re-examine your beliefs. I don't have a pony in this race, I'm simply disputing that poor link as some sort of evidence.

The GPU in the Xbox was far more stronger than the GPU in the PS2.

The gap between the Xbox and PS2 was so large that there were many games that came out on the Xbox that didn't come out on the PS2 because of hardware limitation.

Games like Doom 3 and Half Life 2.

You should also remember the difference of Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube and PS2.

And keep in mind the Gamecube is weaker than the Xbox.

But this gap should not surprise anyone as the PS2 was released in 1999 (Japan) and the Xbox was released in 2001 which is a 2 year gap.

You misunderstand. I own all of those consoles at launch (Dreamcast, Gamecube, PS2, and Xbox) and you were wrong by the way, the PS2 was released in March 2000 in Japan, not 1999. I know because I imported a Dreamcast and a Japanese Launch PS2 way back then. That's beside the point. I simply proved that the Verge link was a terribly inaccurate link, which it was. That was my only point, to prove how horrible that link was, not argue about each system. I only stated facts that the Verge lacked. I was discrediting a link, not trying to pretend it's SW 2005 again. I'm not going to argue like it's SW DC/PS2/GC/Xbox all over again. I've lived that era. I argued in that era here in SW many times. I bought RE4 on my launch GC. I own Doom 3, Half-Life 2, and many other games on my Xbox including Steel Battalion. You are arguing with a straw-man, certainly not anything I said. Look at my last line:

I don't have a pony in this race, I'm simply disputing that poor link as some sort of evidence.

That link was poor and you took it as a challenge for some reason. My point is the same, the link is poor. If you want to argue about those machines in 2014, you showed up in the wrong era. I'm well aware of the power breakdown in the machines and the chipsets even as I only partially demonstrated above. The rating goes Xbox>GC>PS2>DC. That doesn't make the verge link suddenly accurate because it's not. I'm not going to argue about this again as I've been in SW since those days. It's a complete waste of time. What wasn't a waste was pointing out a poor link. I set out to prove that link was poor and it was.

My bad thought it was late 1999 but that was something else.

Still a year and a half gap between both consoles.

#40 Edited by SolidTy (42422 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@SolidTy said:

@RyviusARC said:

@SolidTy said:

That links not even very accurate, nor does it explain that the GC and Xbox were 32bit, the PS2 was 128 bit, and the DC used the Hitachi SH-4 processor is a 64 bit processor. It also has no resolution for the PS2 in that link, although GT4 was 1080i and various other games supported 480p. In fact, the PS2 had games in 480p as well and was the first console that had retail component video plugs. It has an Audio/Video spot, but no specs for PS2 or the sweet Gamecube which also supported 480p for certain games. The link is just bad. It doesn't break down Sony's emotion engine (the PS2 CPU crushed the competition), nor does it explain the gap in years (1998, 2000, 2001). It's verge so it's expected, but it's certainly not a good link to prove a point since it lacks way too much information. If you are suggesting looking simply at CPU speed, that's not enough. Can't even look at resolution, it's missing for two consoles. Knowing how much work is being done per cycle is relevant, but then again, it's old news. Yes, the PS2 was graphically inferior to the Xbox, but that link doesn't have enough information to prove it as it's missing information. There's nothing to really compare there. You can look at RAM too, the link does provide that. 16 MB for the Dreamcast, 24 MB for the GC, 32 MB for the PS2, and 64 MB for the Xbox. That's a component to scrutinize, but it's not enough for a good breakdown of each box and looking RAM suggests PS2 > GC. Again, there is more to it than RAM or CPU speed.

For the Xbox, it has 10 GB for storage, but the Xbox had 8 GB. There were a few early models that shipped with 10 GB, but since it was in blocks it didn't matter and all models were formatted to 8GB! What's the point of stating 10 GB if the consumer can only use 8GB? They could have written 8 GB or 10 GB, but all systems used 8 GB, but nope. It's just a bad link. The verge got that wrong even. The more I look at that link, the more problems I find.

In the old SW days we had tons of much better links and comparison charts for discussion (in very long threads) for the Dreamcast, Xbox, Gamecube, and PS2 and nearly all of them were better than the verge link you provided. I would link them, but it seems they were purged. Still, I did find this old Wii vs. the original Xbox SW link. Funny thing, I'm even in that link talking about specs regarding Xbox vs. Wii. I clicked on that verge link as a curio and came away disappointed as it has a lot of wrong or incomplete spots. I knew it was the verge so my expectations were low and they certainly delivered.

If you believe the gap is bigger and your source is that link, then you should re-examine your beliefs. I don't have a pony in this race, I'm simply disputing that poor link as some sort of evidence.

The GPU in the Xbox was far more stronger than the GPU in the PS2.

The gap between the Xbox and PS2 was so large that there were many games that came out on the Xbox that didn't come out on the PS2 because of hardware limitation.

Games like Doom 3 and Half Life 2.

You should also remember the difference of Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube and PS2.

And keep in mind the Gamecube is weaker than the Xbox.

But this gap should not surprise anyone as the PS2 was released in 1999 (Japan) and the Xbox was released in 2001 which is a 2 year gap.

You misunderstand. I own all of those consoles at launch (Dreamcast, Gamecube, PS2, and Xbox) and you were wrong by the way, the PS2 was released in March 2000 in Japan, not 1999. I know because I imported a Dreamcast and a Japanese Launch PS2 way back then. That's beside the point. I simply proved that the Verge link was a terribly inaccurate link, which it was. That was my only point, to prove how horrible that link was, not argue about each system. I only stated facts that the Verge lacked. I was discrediting a link, not trying to pretend it's SW 2005 again. I'm not going to argue like it's SW DC/PS2/GC/Xbox all over again. I've lived that era. I argued in that era here in SW many times. I bought RE4 on my launch GC. I own Doom 3, Half-Life 2, and many other games on my Xbox including Steel Battalion. You are arguing with a straw-man, certainly not anything I said. Look at my last line:

"I don't have a pony in this race, I'm simply disputing that poor link as some sort of evidence."

That link was poor and you took it as a challenge for some reason. My point is the same, the link is poor. If you want to argue about those machines in 2014, you showed up in the wrong era. I'm well aware of the power breakdown in the machines and the chipsets even as I only partially demonstrated above. The rating goes Xbox>GC>PS2>DC.

You must have not read above, so I'll quote myself again:

"Yes, the PS2 was graphically inferior to the Xbox, but that link doesn't have enough information to prove it as it's missing information."

I was talking about the verge link in my first sentence, I repeated my point was about the link multiple times in the middle of my above post, and I ended the final sentence talking about the link. Everything you are talking about shouldn't have been directed to me. It made no sense, as if you are talking to an invisible poster. A straw-man argument.

That doesn't make the verge link suddenly accurate because it's not. I'm not going to argue about this again as I've been in SW since those days. It's a complete waste of time. What wasn't a waste was pointing out a poor link. It would be nice if poor links don't get abused by users. I set out to prove that link was poor and it was poor and my job was done. You seem to have confused my intentions somehow and you certainly seemed to have skipped over my own words above. Reading comprehension was lost somehow.

My bad thought it was late 1999 but that was something else.

Still a year and a half gap between both consoles.

That gaming era was my jam, I remember it well. It's all good.

Yes, there was a year and half between consoles...but that was deliberate. Originally the Xbox was going to release in 2000, but it was delayed to get that extra power. They weren't happy with the 2000 specs as they had planned to launch the same year as the PS2 (2000), but in Fall giving them a six month spec advantage. I remember reading an interview (Next Gen Magazine which I had a subscription too) with J.Allard, Ed Fries, and Robbie Bach (founders of Xbox) talking about the deliberate delay to get that extra juice since they weren't happy with the Xbox as it would have been in 2000. The delay meant Fall 2001, but it also allowed for more power and Bungie to get Halo ready for launch.

My only point was that verge link, it's not a good link. It left out too much information and got some simple stuff wrong.

#41 Edited by tormentos (17067 posts) -

Who cares about power between the two!? If you care so much about graphics, you should not be playing games on a console. Playing games on a console and expecting great graphics is like brushing your teeth with a pork chop and expecting clean teeth.

Wait, hold on, here. Ever since Sony said that there would likely be fewer AAA exclusives this gen, cows have been telling us for weeks how it is multiplats that matter, now exclusives.

That few people on PC even care,juts because you are a PC gamer doesn't make your PC a graphics power house it is confirmed and re confirmed PC gamers are cheap ass gamers.

Most will not pay for those ultra powerful GPU,and will carry the same old hardware for years without upgrading.

Few people on PC have stronger PC than the PS4,and just because you like consoles doesn't mean you don't care about power,there is a huge console market out there and many do care to pick the stronger hardware in the CONSOLE MARKET which is a totally different and separate market from pc,power has matter since gaming on PC wasn't even popular.

The GPU in the Xbox was far more stronger than the GPU in the PS2.

The gap between the Xbox and PS2 was so large that there were many games that came out on the Xbox that didn't come out on the PS2 because of hardware limitation.

Games like Doom 3 and Half Life 2.

You should also remember the difference of Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube and PS2.

And keep in mind the Gamecube is weaker than the Xbox.

But this gap should not surprise anyone as the PS2 was released in 1999 (Japan) and the Xbox was released in 2001 which is a 2 year gap.

March 2000 vs November 2001 20 months,so the advantage was justify,just like the PS2 did against the Dreamscast same situation,November 1998 in Japan the PS2 arrived in March 2000 16 months latter,and like the xbox vs the ps2 the PS2 double the dreamcast in Ram and ported a stronger GPU and CPU.

No it wasn't, the single biggest advantage that Xbox had over PS2 was double the RAM and texture compression, if PS2 had those 2 things the gap would of been much closer.

CPU wise PS2 had a big advantage and fillrate? PS2 also trashed Xbox, 4Mb VRAM for texture storage with no hardware support for texture compression is what crippled PS2.

Much in the same way that 10Mb EDRAM did to 360 and now 32Mb ESRAM is crippling Xbone.

Yep that fillrate is responsible for the xbox version of MGS2 shocking on xbox during the rain scenes,which xbox fans claimed was Konami been lazy,but was that the PS2 fillrate was heavily use for that scene and the xbox suffer for it.

Games like Tekken 5 truly showed what the PS2 could do,ram limitation and a cumbersome hardware hurt the PS2,it was the hardest of the 4 consoles on that gen to code to as well.

Is incredible how MS has refuse to drop embed ram,the PS2 suffer for it,so did the 360 and the xbox one is now as well.

#42 Posted by farrell2k (5801 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

Who cares about power between the two!? If you care so much about graphics, you should not be playing games on a console. Playing games on a console and expecting great graphics is like brushing your teeth with a pork chop and expecting clean teeth.

Wait, hold on, here. Ever since Sony said that there would likely be fewer AAA exclusives this gen, cows have been telling us for weeks how it is multiplats that matter, now exclusives.

That few people on PC even care,juts because you are a PC gamer doesn't make your PC a graphics power house it is confirmed and re confirmed PC gamers are cheap ass gamers.

Most will not pay for those ultra powerful GPU,and will carry the same old hardware for years without upgrading.

Few people on PC have stronger PC than the PS4,and just because you like consoles doesn't mean you don't care about power,there is a huge console market out there and many do care to pick the stronger hardware in the CONSOLE MARKET which is a totally different and separate market from pc,power has matter since gaming on PC wasn't even popular.

Blah blah blah blah, another TormentTroll reply. The people who care about graphics do not play games on toys, they play games on powerful PCs.

#43 Posted by tormentos (17067 posts) -

Blah blah blah blah, another TormentTroll reply. The people who care about graphics do not play games on toys, they play games on powerful PCs.

I know the truth hurts but it is the truth never the less.

It has matter to console gamers before you where even born probably.

Oh where was PC gaming on 1980.?

#44 Posted by farrell2k (5801 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

Blah blah blah blah, another TormentTroll reply. The people who care about graphics do not play games on toys, they play games on powerful PCs.

I know the truth hurts but it is the truth never the less.

It has matter to console gamers before you where even born probably.

Oh where was PC gaming on 1980.?

I had an apple II as a 5 year old. PC gaming was always king. Console just couldn't do awesome games we played back then. in 1985 I got a nes and have been a console gamer since.

#45 Edited by tormentos (17067 posts) -

I had an apple II as a 5 year old. PC gaming was always king. Console just couldn't do awesome games we played back then. in 1985 I got a nes and have been a console gamer since.

What awesome games.? did you play in your so call apple 2 at 5 years old.? lol

Now run to wiki....lol

Is that the same Apple 2 that arrived 5 years after the first console ever build the Magnabox odyssey.?

Man stop i proved my point it has matter for endless years and PC has sh** in the fight,PC will always be PC,hell the first console pre-dates Microsoft..lol

And apple 2 is not what you consider gaming as today is,and consoles are basically close computers with a different os,hardware or set of instructions.

#46 Edited by clone01 (24499 posts) -

PS2 was clearly much less powerful than original Xbox and yet in the later years we witnessed God of War, Okami, Shadow of Colossus on the console.

Similarly Xbox 360 came up with Gears of War 3 and Halo 4 and led me into believing that God of War 3 and Uncharted series more than met their match. Now I was under the impression that PS3 would be way powerful than X360 when the specs surfaced (in 2005 maybe) , but then found little to choose between the two.

Now I see many posts saying how clearly PS4 is better than XB1 in the graphics department.

My question is, would not the console exclusives bridge the gap between the two in the visuals department, as in every gen?

I don't think so. It just depends what the exclusive is going for. TLOU, for example, is fantastic looking. Same with the Gears franchise. Halo 4, while okay, I didn't find to be exceptionally beautiful. Same with Demon's Souls. I think it just comes down to what the developer was aiming for with gameplay experience.

#47 Posted by clone01 (24499 posts) -

I think they should, but for fanboys or casuals they won't. They simply enjoy this processing power game even if they couldn't distinguish two versions from each other. There is quite simply an underlying psychological factor related to the subconscious and placebo sense of superiority. This very factor determines everything and obscures any sense of objective judgement for some people.

Pretty much. If one wants to test their superiority, go play a sport, write something, create something...play chess, etc. Justifying your existence with what piece of plastic you play games on is just sad.

#48 Posted by Bruin1986 (1230 posts) -

I honestly don't care too much.

The majority of the games I'm currently playing could be played on last gen consoles.

As for the PS4/Xbone debate, I'm going to wait for Uncharted 4 and Halo 5 to finally make my determination. Those are going to be, at least personally, the ultimate expressions of what each console is technically capable of producing. Long development cycles with high budgets and top-tier development teams exclusively on each console.

#49 Edited by Gue1 (9492 posts) -

Does it matter ?

Nintendo still has better Exclusives because in the end Gameplay is more fun than Graphics.

But I wouldn't buy their games if There was a Multiplatform Alternitive since I believe everybody should have access.

@DocSanchez: she's actually one of the few people on this board who I consistently see giving pretty fair evaluations across the board. Being a fan =/= being a fanboy

Twilight Zone.

#50 Posted by farrell2k (5801 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

I had an apple II as a 5 year old. PC gaming was always king. Console just couldn't do awesome games we played back then. in 1985 I got a nes and have been a console gamer since.

What awesome games.? did you play in your so call apple 2 at 5 years old.? lol

Now run to wiki....lol

Is that the same Apple 2 that arrived 5 years after the first console ever build the Magnabox odyssey.?

Man stop i proved my point it has matter for endless years and PC has sh** in the fight,PC will always be PC,hell the first console pre-dates Microsoft..lol

And apple 2 is not what you consider gaming as today is,and consoles are basically close computers with a different os,hardware or set of instructions.

I remember playing Ultima. And man, you are a troll to the extreme!