PDA

View Full Version : Poor Asher


Sean
04-11-2002, 01:46:42
Nintendo to continue making consoles (http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2896491,00.html).

Asher
05-11-2002, 19:36:11
Just when I thought Nintendo might have started to clue on how to survive. Will it take a Dreamcast for Nintendo to figure it out?

For shame, they were so with it back in the 90s when they were anti-competitive. Now they let everyone stomp all over them, let out a little whimper about how they'll put out another console.

Toast!

Shining1
06-11-2002, 11:47:24
It's not like that other company's console is doing any better:D.

Funkodrom
06-11-2002, 11:53:17
I actually know people with Game Cubes.

Funkodrom
06-11-2002, 11:54:30
At least Nintendo have their own market niche for people who want Nintendo style games. X-Box is going for the PS2 market. :lol:

Shining1
06-11-2002, 12:39:03
And the PC market.:lol:

Funkodrom
06-11-2002, 12:58:28
Yeah! The reason the PC market is strong is things like keyboard and mouse interface and the internet and all the other things that make FPS and strategy games good.

PS2 has the market cornered in mid-20s console gaming. What's left for X-Box?

Shining1
06-11-2002, 15:00:08
Asher?:)

Funkodrom
06-11-2002, 15:23:24
How many consoles can he buy?

Scabrous Birdseed
06-11-2002, 15:33:08
As Bill Gates's son? As many as he likes, I imagine.

Funkodrom
06-11-2002, 15:48:14
:lol:

Venom
06-11-2002, 16:31:54
I don't know anyone with a GameCube. Then again I don't know anyone but me that likes Pokemon.

Scabrous Birdseed
06-11-2002, 16:56:08
I like pokemon.

Asher
07-11-2002, 04:33:40
Originally posted by Shining1
It's not like that other company's console is doing any better:D.
I guess you missed the news that the Xbox has been outselling the Gamecube by a wider margin each week in the UK, Canada, USA, and Australia. :gasmaske:

How many consoles can he buy?
I've owned all three at one point. I sold my PS2 a long time ago to buy a Gamecube. So now I just own an Xbox and Gamecube.

The PS2 is obsolete IMO, and I hate soccer games so I don't have Pro Evolution Soccer to suck me in. ;)

Asher
07-11-2002, 04:39:11
Originally posted by Funkodrom
Yeah! The reason the PC market is strong is things like keyboard and mouse interface and the internet and all the other things that make FPS and strategy games good.

PS2 has the market cornered in mid-20s console gaming. What's left for X-Box?
PC and console gaming are different experiences.

I take it you haven't played Xbox Live yet. Once you play MechAssault, Unreal Championship, MotoGP, or even Ghost Recon on Xbox Live you'll see where the Xbox's niche comes in. :D

The Xbox's niche is the hardcore gamers. It's why Xbox gamers buy way more games on average than PS2/Gamecube gamers, it's why 50%+ of Xbox users have broadband while 40%+ for PS2 and 30%+ for Gamecube, and it's why the Xbox gets the better support from Sega out of all of the consoles.

The PS2 is great, but it's just not doing much for me anymore. I'm reminded of the Dreamcast when I play it, which isn't a good thing -- this is almost 2003.

Once the PS2 can output every game in progressive scan (Tony Hawk 4 runs in 720p on the Xbox), and every game with Dolby Digital 5.1, and a headset supported by 50+ online games out by the middle of next year -- give me a call. Until then I'll dismiss it as a serious game console and label it as a mass-market whore.

Asher
07-11-2002, 04:40:58
And I still maintain Sony is ripping everyone off.

You want four controller inputs? Buy multi-tap extra!
You want ethernet? Buy the adapter extra!
You want a harddrive? Buy the adapter extra!
You want to save games? Buy the memory card extra!

Christ...when you add in all of the costs it's about twice as much as the Xbox for a lot less horsepower.

As a techie I could never bring myself to buy a PS2 in today's market. :D

Darkstar
07-11-2002, 05:53:01
Originally posted by Venom
I don't know anyone with a GameCube. Then again I don't know anyone but me that likes Pokemon.

Pokemon? (points and laughs at Venom)

Sorry. My girlfriend likes Pokemon, but that's due to the cute stuffed animals. Do you like it because of the cute stuffed animals, Venom?

Shining1
07-11-2002, 08:09:51
That would obviously explain why TonyHawk 4 has internet support for PS/2 and not Xbox then:).

Asher
07-11-2002, 08:37:22
Xbox TH4 has internet support too, through XBConnect/Gamespy arcade. ;)

It doesn't support Xbox Live because, well, they never said why. :rolleyes:

Scabrous Birdseed
07-11-2002, 09:48:10
I like Pokemon because it was an enjoyably addictive, if easy, tactical RPG on the Game Boy, certainly one of that console's killer titles.

I couldn't care less about the side merchandise.

Funkodrom
07-11-2002, 09:50:08
Serious console vs Mass marketing whore

The playstation market is made up of people who are gamers traditionally and people who've never really played games before. Sony was very clever getting into the post club market when it did and offering games for grown ups. X-Box and gamecube are undoubtably more powerful machines but they, certainly here, don't have the universality associated with them that playstation does. And they don't have as many people wanting to play them from outside the traditional games markets. At the end of the day you get more developers writing games for a system that more people own. That doesn't ensure quality but out of that lot you'll get a good crop of excellent games, and a very wide variety. X-Box is a long way behind in terms of titles and diversity at the moment. It has a few big name titles which are excellent but not a huge strength in depth of great names. Getting to market a year earlier than the competition with a backwards compatible machine that most people could play their old games on and use old controllers with was definitely a good move. As was having the sole rights to Pro Evo Soccer. :beer:

Tony Hawk 3 had internet support on the PS2. First game to do so.

Scabrous Birdseed
07-11-2002, 10:07:21
I want Psychonauts. :(

Sean
07-11-2002, 11:57:18
Originally posted by Asher
The Xbox's niche is the hardcore gamers.
Oh goody, I love the hardcore gamers argument.

Shining1
07-11-2002, 12:03:13
Once you play MechAssault, Unreal Championship, MotoGP, or even Ghost Recon on Xbox Live

As opposed to playing the almost identical games on the PC?

Funkodrom
07-11-2002, 12:04:31
With better control methods.

Shining1
07-11-2002, 12:11:08
Yeah, FPS with a controller instead of a mouse would take some getting used to.

It might help, though. No-one could use the sniper rifle properly, and that's always a plus:D.

Sean
07-11-2002, 12:16:57
I’ve played Goldeneye, Turok (various versions), Quake 3, and Halo (FPS?) on console controllers, and it isn’t that bad. Different, not as good, but still decent.

Venom
07-11-2002, 13:18:02
I like Pokemon because chicks dig Pokemon. And Picachu will fuck your ass up.

And I think Asher is just making up all his statistics.

Sean
07-11-2002, 13:20:14
Pokémon is cool, as is the Poké Floats stage in Super Smash Bros. Melee.

Shining1
07-11-2002, 14:04:40
Sean: Golden eye was pretty cool:). Still damn hard to get going in it, though.

Venom: So he's like diahoria or a really hot indian curry then?

Venom
07-11-2002, 14:16:29
Electrified diarrhea.

Shining1
07-11-2002, 14:41:16
God dammit how do you spell that!

Funkodrom
07-11-2002, 15:16:11
Er... the way Venom spelt it.

Shining1
07-11-2002, 15:18:33
That's alright then.

Asher
07-11-2002, 16:15:21
Originally posted by Shining1
As opposed to playing the almost identical games on the PC?
There's nothing like MechAssault on the PC, at all.

And, as I said, they are different gaming environments.

One is played on a couch on a bigscreen TV with DD surroundsound, one is played hunched over a small computer monitor. ;)

Oh goody, I love the hardcore gamers argument.
It's true -- that IS the Xbox's "niche". That's precisely why Sega brought games like Panzer Dragoon Orta, Jet Set Radio Future, Gunvalkyrie, SegaGT, etc only to Xbox.

And I think Asher is just making up all his statistics.
From computerandvideogames.com:
18:17 After nearly seven months at retail, Microsoft's Xbox console has finally muscled its way into the number two spot in the UK, boasting a larger installed user base than GameCube.
Despite releasing almost two months ahead of GameCube, Xbox had a slow start in the UK and Europe, with brand loyalty allowing Nintendo's console to hit the ground running.

But with the vital Christmas period approaching, Xbox has confounded expectations by pulling well clear of GameCube in weekly sales, while edging past Nintendo's machine in the all-important yearly totals.

UK figures for the week ending November 2, compiled by ChartTrack, show Xbox shifting an impressive 10,371 units, marking a rise of 42 percent on the previous week's sales, with GameCube tailing on 6,657 units - an increase of 15 percent.

The cumulative totals for 2002 make even more interesting reading, with GameCube on 230,876 since launch, and Microsoft just ahead on 233,503. But on the back of a successful new Xbox bundle, this trend seems unlikely to change, with the gap expected to widen in the run up to Christmas.

Microsoft is understandably delighted by the results, a spokesperson telling us: "We are really pleased with the positive momentum we have going into the Christmas period and are delighted that more and more gamers are experiencing the superior gaming offered by Xbox."

But this will make sobering reading for Nintendo, now faced with a much bleaker Christmas than it surely would have anticipated.

Super Mario Sunshine, despite big early sales, has simply not shifted GC units in the numbers Nintendo anticipated. Furthermore, it's no secret in development circles that bringing a title exclusively onto GameCube is a less profitable exercise that it is for PS2 and Xbox.

How Nintendo will respond to the new figures is unclear. A spokesperson for the company was unavailable for comment at the time of writing.

The ChartTrack figures as a whole, however, represent a positive overall sales rise in the run up to Christmas, with PS2 in an unassailable position, shifting a massive 39,719 units last week, up 35 percent, and GBA clearing 13,693 units - a weekly increase of 26 percent.

The fight for second place is well and truly on and Xbox is winning. We'll keep you updated on all developments.

Funkodrom
07-11-2002, 16:18:44
Go PS2!

Sean
07-11-2002, 16:19:15
Originally posted by Asher
It's true -- that IS the Xbox's "niche". That's precisely why Sega brought games like Panzer Dragoon Orta, Jet Set Radio Future, Gunvalkyrie, SegaGT, etc only to Xbox.
Hardcore gamers buy and play games on all platforms. That’s how you know they are hardcore.

Funkodrom
07-11-2002, 16:20:16
True.

Asher
07-11-2002, 16:23:04
Originally posted by Sean
Hardcore gamers buy and play games on all platforms. That’s how you know they are hardcore.
Which is exactly what Sega was counting on when they made them for Xbox. They knew the overall sales base wasn't as large as PS2's, but the percentage of people those games catered to would be much higher on the Xbox than PS2.

And since hardcore gamers tend to own multiple consoles, they figured the gamers would want to play the games on the most capable hardware.

Shining1
07-11-2002, 16:23:42
I'm certainly finding myself agreeing with what seems to be a growing consensus: Mario the plumber, as a gaming attraction, is definitely losing steam.

Venom
07-11-2002, 16:24:26
I know how to spell diarrhea.

Sean
07-11-2002, 16:26:48
Originally posted by Shining1
I'm certainly finding myself agreeing with what seems to be a growing consensus: Mario the plumber, as a gaming attraction, is definitely losing steam.
Mario Party 4 out in three weeks and a day.

Venom
07-11-2002, 16:27:20
And Asher, that'll teach you to source all your papers.

Shining1
07-11-2002, 16:28:16
The Xboxs capable hardware doesn't seem to make any difference at all.

Firstly, a game is a game, and it's goodness is determined by how fun it is, not by it's running at 1Gig instead of 500Mhz.

Secondly, it might be more, but it's not enough to be a perceptable difference. Xbox gridiron is, being kind, very slightly clearer than PS2 gridiron, and I probably couldn't take a pepsi test on that.

Finally, if you're going to talk about capable hardware, get them to stop including those mammoth controllers with the Xbox. That is not capable hardware.

Shining1
07-11-2002, 16:29:23
Sean: And I don't care:). It doesn't pick me up and make me go "Hmmm, wish I had a gamecube."

Venom
07-11-2002, 16:29:30
Mario's not losing steam. His agent is signing him up for lame games.

Funkodrom
07-11-2002, 16:30:58
If it's the same agent that signed him up for that movie he should shoot him.

Venom
07-11-2002, 16:34:48
Is that some kind of a ethnic statement about all Italians having guns and shooting people?

Venom
07-11-2002, 16:36:14
And back on topic, I think Asher "The X-Box Whore" should meet with Funky "I wax the President of Sony's nut sac" Mingers.

Shining1
07-11-2002, 16:36:54
Are you talkin' a me?

Sean
07-11-2002, 16:43:34
Starscream!!

Funkodrom
07-11-2002, 16:45:32
Originally posted by Venom
Is that some kind of a ethnic statement about all Italians having guns and shooting people?

I didn't actually see the movie so I have no idea.

Starscream rules. :beer:

Asher
07-11-2002, 16:46:58
Originally posted by Shining1
The Xboxs capable hardware doesn't seem to make any difference at all.

Firstly, a game is a game, and it's goodness is determined by how fun it is, not by it's running at 1Gig instead of 500Mhz.
You mean 733 instead of 200. ;)
Yes, that's somewhat true. But if that was totally true, we'd all be using the PSX right now instead.

Secondly, it might be more, but it's not enough to be a perceptable difference. Xbox gridiron is, being kind, very slightly clearer than PS2 gridiron, and I probably couldn't take a pepsi test on that.
This is complete, complete hogwash. There is a night and day difference between PS2 and Xbox on a capable setup. It's why I had to sell the PS2 -- it looked SO BAD in comparison I felt like I was playing on a last-generation console. The aliasing, the blurry textures, the low poly counts, gagh.

Finally, if you're going to talk about capable hardware, get them to stop including those mammoth controllers with the Xbox. That is not capable hardware.
They ship the Xbox with the Controller-S (small controller) standard now. It also comes with SegaGT and JSRF free...

Sean
07-11-2002, 16:47:48
Originally posted by Shining1
Sean: And I don't care:). It doesn't pick me up and make me go "Hmmm, wish I had a gamecube."
But it’s still likely to be a good game. I don’t really care about how good a marketing tool he is.

Sean
07-11-2002, 16:49:59
Originally posted by Asher
This is complete, complete hogwash. There is a night and day difference between PS2 and Xbox on a capable setup. It's why I had to sell the PS2 -- it looked SO BAD in comparison I felt like I was playing on a last-generation console. The aliasing, the blurry textures, the low poly counts, gagh.
That is incredibly, stupidly, dumfoudingly pathetic.

Venom
07-11-2002, 16:52:00
Originally posted by Funkodrom
I didn't actually see the movie so I have no idea.

Starscream rules. :beer:

Had nothing to do with the movie. More of a blanket statement about Mafia movies/stereotypes.

Asher
07-11-2002, 16:54:36
Originally posted by Sean
That is incredibly, stupidly, dumfoudingly pathetic.
I'm in compsci, and I have a fetish for 3D graphics.

Playing a PS2 right now for me would be like Schmacher driving a Toyota Camry...

Venom
07-11-2002, 16:56:45
A regular Camry or a juiced Camry?

Sean
07-11-2002, 16:58:57
Still pathetic.

Shining1
07-11-2002, 17:17:45
This is complete, complete hogwash. There is a night and day difference between PS2 and Xbox on a capable setup. It's why I had to sell the PS2 -- it looked SO BAD in comparison I felt like I was playing on a last-generation console. The aliasing, the blurry textures, the low poly counts, gagh.

Irrelevant. It's still accurately lifelike collections of polygons chasing other accurately lifelike collections of polygons. There's no actual difference there except that one is a bit smoother.

They're both on the same level as far as being actually lifelike goes. It's advanced cartoonery, but it's still cartoonery.

Personally, I think there's a completely different reason why you HAD to sell the PS2:D.

Asher
07-11-2002, 19:53:57
Originally posted by Shining1
Irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant -- if it was irrelevant you'd be using a PlayStation One instead of anything else.

The PS2's graphics syntherizer chip is on par, technology wise, with Nvidia's TNT2.

The only saving grace the PS2 has is the powerful CPU to do all that graphics work. The major downside is developers hate it and it costs them extra money as they hire people who just try to get the code running right on the CPU, which is a challenge.

The PS2 has 32MB of RAM, without texture compression, with high latency, and with low bandwidth.

Gagh. It is old shite, and shouldn't be anywhere near the price it's at. Sony's making a killing off of it.

Much like everything else they make, I suppose...

Asher
07-11-2002, 19:55:18
As for them being on the same level...

compare Panzer Dragoon Orta to the best game the PS2 has to offer. There's a larger difference between Xbox and PS2 than there was between Dreamcast and PS2.

Asher
07-11-2002, 20:00:06
Panzer Dragoon Orta (480p, widescreen goodness):
http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/panzer_101402_72.jpg
http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/iwadex-image20.jpg

Did I mention that's at 60fps?

Funkodrom
07-11-2002, 20:09:37
Graphics alone don't make a game good.

Asher
07-11-2002, 20:18:04
That's not what the argument was.

Shining1 asserted they were on the same level of being lifelike, which very much has to do with graphical capabilities.

Venom
07-11-2002, 20:23:14
Hell, those are background graphics. Easliy displayed on any system. I'll be much more impressed with people/machines and their animations.

Sean
07-11-2002, 20:27:20
The trees look funny.

Asher
07-11-2002, 20:32:34
Originally posted by Venom
Hell, those are background graphics. Easliy displayed on any system. I'll be much more impressed with people/machines and their animations.
Hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but they're not background graphics. You can fly around through them.

The demo is on December's OXM magazine disc which I got the other day, it's all very real.

Asher
07-11-2002, 20:34:01
How's this for people and machines (also from PDO):

http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/panzer_101402_85.jpg

Venom
07-11-2002, 20:34:20
So that's the 3d environment. Good textures.

Asher
07-11-2002, 20:35:50
Here's people, machinery, and a dragon
http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/panzer_101402_33.jpg

Shining1
08-11-2002, 09:22:19
They're still on the same level of being lifelike, though. There was a noticable jump between the PS and the PS2, where you went from quite blocky animations to much smoother, more real characters.

The Xbox does this even better, but it's not another step up, which is the only reason a console gamer should worry about graphics.

If you want to properly understand what I'm saying, consider Southpark vs. the Simpsons. And then the Simpsons vs. some really well drawn cartoon. And then that cartoon vs. something done with proper computer animation techniques instead of being hand drawn.

At each stage, there's a clear, obvious, useful improvement in the technology. At the same time, there's a good chance most people would rather just watch Southpark or the Simpsons.

Sean
08-11-2002, 13:07:26
Originally posted by Shining1
And then that cartoon vs. something done with proper computer animation techniques instead of being hand drawn.
Proper?

Asher
08-11-2002, 17:49:06
I still really disagree about being not another step up.

When the Xbox can bumpmap everything without much of a performance hit, put reflective maps on everything without much of a performance hit, use vertex and pixel shaders to create a much more dynamic environment, etc - it's clearly another step up.

Compare the Xbox screenshots of Wreckless to the PS2 and figure out which one looks more lifelike (hint: It's not the PS2 version, where none of the cars are even reflective).

Venom
08-11-2002, 18:19:27
Maybe the cars in the PS2 version are just dirty.

Shining1
09-11-2002, 02:17:42
Asher: That's minor realism, it's not remotely another step up.

It might do a few things better, but overall the Xbox characters are about as lifelike as the PS2 ones. In the context of awesome gameplay, a bit of dynamic lighting and reflective water is nothing.

Hell Picmen and Super Smash Bros. are arguably the major hits for the gamecube so far, and neither of those games could remotely be called cutting edge as far as the graphics go. And I don't think anyone's going to vote for PES2 as the game of the way because it resembles football on T.V (the ability to sidestep seems to be the main selling point).

Asher
09-11-2002, 03:05:05
It all depends where you want to draw the line.

Frankly, there is a night and day difference for me between the PS2 and Xbox versions of Wreckless, for example.

The PS2 version comes off more as a cartoon than the Xbox's, because mostly everything is flat shaded, lower polygon counts, blurry textures, that kind of thing.

The scene just isn't very dynamic, and it's something that's patently obvious to me. And the lack of bump-mapping is another pet peve of mine -- everything is way too flat in PS2 games to pass as real.

Look at the ice in Rallisport Challenge -- THAT is real. :D

Asher
09-11-2002, 03:11:27
Stuff like this is what sets the Xbox apart from the PS2 (aside from the higher poly counts & better textures & dolby digital sound):

Swaying individual blades of grass:
http://xboxmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/rallisport/moralli15.jpg
http://xboxmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/rallisport/bgrallisport01.jpg

Realistic reflections, refractions, and bump-mapping...
http://xboxmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/rallisport/RalliSport_1-3-02_03.jpg

It's the little things like that which make a big difference for me. Other people may not pay as much attention to those details, I guess, but I do. :D

LadyRachel
09-11-2002, 09:39:32

LadyRachel
09-11-2002, 10:47:55
DAMN YOU NED.

The Shaker
09-11-2002, 11:16:07
I sat here fro ages wondering if there was a picture there waiting to load :(

Shining1
09-11-2002, 12:28:32
:lol:

Sean
09-11-2002, 13:17:52
Originally posted by Asher
Stuff like this is what sets the Xbox apart from the PS2 (aside from the higher poly counts & better textures & dolby digital sound): <snip>
First picture: building textures look weird, one building appears to only be half there.
Second picture: tree looks wrong (again), grass doesn’t look any more impressive than any other game, although it’s the animation you were talking about, the far right hill looks really strange.
Third picture: background hill/mountain looks like a cardboard cut-out, car and front right ground look too shiny, reflections in car windows are probably too good.

That’s what I like about a lot of games: they don’t pretend to be realistic, and instead go for a style. This mainly applies to console games, and of those mainly Japanese games like the Final Fantasy series.

Shining1
09-11-2002, 13:32:27
Yeah, good graphics won't save a bad game.

Asher, perhaps you should look at a picture of a REAL rally car and the come back and compare the lifelife qualities of the two. The graphical difference between those shots and a real life one is huge, and any gameplay differences between the Xbox game and a PS2 or Gamecube rally game will totally blow away the small graphics advantage the Xbox has.

You keep mentioning bump-maping and anti-aliasing as if they actually matter, instead of them just being cunning ways to put a polygonal graphic of a car on a 2D screen and make it look semi-real. No 'hardcore' gamer will worry about this, they'll make decisions based on what they can do with the cars in the game, both on and off the road.

I suspect by 'gamer' your press release actually means 'computer science tech geek'. All the hardcore gamers I've encountered think barely anything about graphics - at least until you get to the point it starts interfering with their framerate. They want to:
* See things on the screen.
* React to them.
* Win the game.

Details like waving grass and reflective windscreens become totally irrelevant under such conditions. It's the basic quality of the game that matters.

That, for instance, is why I've gone back to Diablo2 from DungeonSiege. Now, you can't for a moment compare the two graphically - hell, Diablo2 often compares unfavourably with the original Diablo. DungeonSiege might be the prettiest game ever. But Diablo2 provides a great server (at least now), and a much more interesting character progression than DungeonSiege does. And that's what holds a gamers attention. THE GAME.

It would be NICE if Diablo2 looked like DungeonSiege. But that's about all. Good graphics just yield good screen shots. Good gameplay yields good memories:).

Sean
09-11-2002, 13:45:32
To reinforce that point, people who played Quake 3 lots turned the graphics down so the levels were muddy sludge and the other players were bright red. Loads of fancy graphics stuff? I don’t care, give me something that lets me play.

Asher
09-11-2002, 21:15:08
Originally posted by Shining1
Yeah, good graphics won't save a bad game.
You keep saying that, yet no one is asserting that.

Asher, perhaps you should look at a picture of a REAL rally car and the come back and compare the lifelife qualities of the two.
This comment makes no sense -- Rallisport Challenge uses CAD data from the car manufacturers.

The graphical difference between those shots and a real life one is huge, and any gameplay differences between the Xbox game and a PS2 or Gamecube rally game will totally blow away the small graphics advantage the Xbox has.
Well, seeing as all the reviews I've read claimed it was the best Rally Racer (at the time, Feb 2002) on all the platforms, I would doubt that. Not best just in terms of graphics, but best in terms of gameplay as well. But thanks for that comment anyway, it reinforced that I already knew you'd be biased against any game on the Xbox without knowing a damn thing about it. ;)

You keep mentioning bump-maping and anti-aliasing as if they actually matter, instead of them just being cunning ways to put a polygonal graphic of a car on a 2D screen and make it look semi-real. No 'hardcore' gamer will worry about this, they'll make decisions based on what they can do with the cars in the game, both on and off the road.
Red herring.
We're talking about difference in graphical ability between the consoles.

You keep talking about style and gameplay, for some reason.

I suspect by 'gamer' your press release actually means 'computer science tech geek'. All the hardcore gamers I've encountered think barely anything about graphics - at least until you get to the point it starts interfering with their framerate. They want to:
* See things on the screen.
* React to them.
* Win the game.
That's odd -- most of the gamers I know really care about graphics. That is, after all, why they keep buying new consoles the day they come out instead of keeping the N64.

Details like waving grass and reflective windscreens become totally irrelevant under such conditions. It's the basic quality of the game that matters.
It makes the game far more immersive, which is the point when you get games that are simulations.

Asher
09-11-2002, 21:20:14
Just about the "gameplay advantages" of PS2/GCN rally games vs Xbox, you should read some reviews of Rallisport first:

IGN: 9.2/10 http://xbox.ign.com/articles/354/354678p2.html
Gamespy: 91/100 http://www.gamespy.com/reviews/march02/rallisportchxbox/
Gamers.com: 9/10 http://www.gamers.com/game/1043859
Gamespot.com: 9.1/10 http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/0,11114,537530,00.html
Avault: 4.5/5 http://www.avault.com/consoles/reviews/xbox/review_temp.asp?game=rallysc

Sean
10-11-2002, 00:38:04
Originally posted by Asher
This comment makes no sense -- Rallisport Challenge uses CAD data from the car manufacturers.
This is the point when someone talking to you will scream ‘what?!’ at their screen and probably slap their head. So what, it uses CAD data. That doesn’t mean it will actually look like a rally car in anything except shape.

Originally posted by Asher
That's odd -- most of the gamers I know really care about graphics. That is, after all, why they keep buying new consoles the day they come out instead of keeping the N64. That’s odd, I played Mario Party 2 and Mario Kart just this evening, and Goldeneye this week, both with at least enough people for four-player gaming. Most people seem to enjoy playing them.

Asher
10-11-2002, 01:44:25
Originally posted by Sean
This is the point when someone talking to you will scream ‘what?!’ at their screen and probably slap their head. So what, it uses CAD data. That doesn’t mean it will actually look like a rally car in anything except shape.
So in what way does it not look like a rally car?

The CAD data point is very relevant, as no other console has the available T&L power to use the full CAD data and takes approximations (the best competition here is V-Rally 3, which uses ~15,000 polys per car whereas Rallysport is ~25,000)

That’s odd, I played Mario Party 2 and Mario Kart just this evening, and Goldeneye this week, both with at least enough people for four-player gaming. Most people seem to enjoy playing them.
You are certainly the exception and not the rule.

Asher
10-11-2002, 01:45:25
May I also point out the only reason you're playing those games is because of Nintendo's gross ineptitude and taking forever to bring suitable sequels to the Gamecube.

Sean
10-11-2002, 02:01:30
Originally posted by Asher
So in what way does it not look like a rally car?
The surface looks unnatural, through no fault of the X-Box. It still looks like a game car and not a real car.

(I forgot to type ‘real car’ before, which was both amusing and confusing, hence the edit.)

Originally posted by Asher
May I also point out the only reason you're playing those games is because of Nintendo's gross ineptitude and taking forever to bring suitable sequels to the Gamecube.
:p I deserved that, but we also played Pro Evolution Soccer 2, Tony Hawks (1) and Super Smash Bros. Melee. I also missed out on playing that NHL game for the GameCube, which I was told is great fun four player.

Asher
10-11-2002, 02:13:52
Which NHL game for gamecube? Sega's NHL 2k3?

I'm getting NHL 2K3 for Xbox next week. NHL games are some of the best multiplayer IMO, and NHL 2K3 supports Xbox Live. 4 on 4 hockey with voice communication online, baby. Woooohooo. :D

Sean
10-11-2002, 02:17:42
That’s the one! You control two players a side each, yeah?

Asher
10-11-2002, 02:29:52
I haven't played Sega's NHL games before (I used to be into EA's NHL series, but I hate it now), but it from what I've read it depends on what game you're playing.

You can set it so up to 4 people are on any given team (8 max, with both teams 4 players and 1 CPU and 1 goalie. There is one of the buttons which switches available players.

So if you're just playing with 1 Gamecube, you can do 2 on 2 or 4 vs the CPU, or 1 vs 3, etc. The CPU just controls the other players unless you select to control them.

Sean
10-11-2002, 02:36:46
Yeah, what I meant was: player 1 can control team member 1 or 2, player 2 can control 3 or 4, and you can’t swap? Maybe I just misremembered it.

Asher
10-11-2002, 04:37:47
I haven't played Sega's yet, we'll see.

In EA's games basically pressing A or something rotated between players. It skipped over players occupied already by a player, so theoretically everyone could control everyone.

Sega's may be different

Shining1
10-11-2002, 05:39:34
This comment makes no sense -- Rallisport Challenge uses CAD data from the car manufacturers.

So? Put your screenshots next to a photo of a rally car, and it's blatantly obvious that it's just a 3D computer game impression of one. Just like the PS2 ones. As I said before, not a step up from PS2, just a small improvement.

Well, seeing as all the reviews I've read claimed it was the best Rally Racer (at the time, Feb 2002) on all the platforms, I would doubt that. Not best just in terms of graphics, but best in terms of gameplay as well. But thanks for that comment anyway, it reinforced that I already knew you'd be biased against any game on the Xbox without knowing a damn thing about it.

Good to see you starting with the ignorant emotional arguements. Since I haven't said anything at all about how any rally game plays, I would wonder if you actually read my posts, or wwhether you just post the same damn crap in reply each time.

Anyway, this is the first time you've gotten down off your high horse and even admitted that gameplay might possibly matter in a game. Which reinforces my view that you're about the furthest thing from a 'hardcore' gamer there is.

Red herring. We're talking about difference in graphical ability between the consoles.

You keep talking about style and gameplay, for some reason.

No, Asher, and PLEASE LEARN TO READ. I've never said anything about graphical ability except that the PS2 is similar enough to the Xbox for it to be irrelevant next to the important things in a game. My whole point has been largely along the lines that if you think the Xbox is a superior gaming console simply because it has more graphics power, you are a moron.

The only thing that determines what becomes a superior gaming console is the games available for it, and how well those games play.

You clearly have a vested interested in talking only about graphics and visual effects because that's all the Xbox has going for it - until they get the developers required to make some real hits, the Xbox will remain a minor league console.

That's odd -- most of the gamers I know really care about graphics. That is, after all, why they keep buying new consoles the day they come out instead of keeping the N64.

The marketplace doesn't back you up at all there. People seem very content with their PS2s and certainly aren't rushing out to buy Xboxs or Gamecubes, no matter how cheap they get.

Perhaps you don't know many gamers, or perhaps they just aren't very good gamers?:)

It makes the game far more immersive, which is the point when you get games that are simulations.

Which is nice but again it's only a small bonus compared to the rest of how the game actually plays. Hell, when I was 14 I played flight sims that consisted of a blue ground area, a brown ground area, and some white dots 90% of the time. The dynamics and the missions were well structured though, and the game was great fun.

If you need amazing graphics to make you happy in a game, you AREN'T any kind of serious gamer.

Asher
10-11-2002, 06:12:42
Originally posted by Shining1
So? Put your screenshots next to a photo of a rally car, and it's blatantly obvious that it's just a 3D computer game impression of one. Just like the PS2 ones. As I said before, not a step up from PS2, just a small improvement.
This just doesn't follow logically. The way you're putting it, there's the PS2 realism and then there's the unmistakable-for-the-real-thing realism, and anything inbetween the two is only a small improvement between the two.

I think it's really easy to tell the difference between a PS2 and an Xbox game just by looking at the two, and if it really was a small improvement (just over 50% more detailed, after all), you wouldn't be able to notice it easily.

Good to see you starting with the ignorant emotional arguements. Since I haven't said anything at all about how any rally game plays, I would wonder if you actually read my posts, or wwhether you just post the same damn crap in reply each time.
Perhaps you should read what you posted...
any gameplay differences between the Xbox game and a PS2 or Gamecube rally game will totally blow away the small graphics advantage the Xbox has.
Maybe you didn't mean that as it came out, but that clearly says to me that the PS2 and Gamecube rally games would be better in terms of gameplay, which diminishes the value of the Xbox's graphical superiority.

Anyway, this is the first time you've gotten down off your high horse and even admitted that gameplay might possibly matter in a game. Which reinforces my view that you're about the furthest thing from a 'hardcore' gamer there is.
I don't think you understand what's going on. I'm not TALKING about gameplay, that doesn't mean I'm ignoring it when I look at games. It means the argument was about TECHNICAL ABILITIES, more specifically, GRAPHICAL ABILITIES. You kept bringing up gameplay, which is a moot point because games can have great gameplay no matter what the console is. I find games that retain the same gameplay, but look and sound a helluva lot better, are better games. You may disagree, but that's not what the argument is about.

Your assertion is the Xbox is only a minor improvement to the PS2, and it's clearly not.

No, Asher, and PLEASE LEARN TO READ. I've never said anything about graphical ability except that the PS2 is similar enough to the Xbox for it to be irrelevant next to the important things in a game.
Which is precisely what I was refuting, nothing about gameplay... I can read fine, Shining. :D

My whole point has been largely along the lines that if you think the Xbox is a superior gaming console simply because it has more graphics power, you are a moron.
I've never, ever, asserted that. You drew that assumption yourself. The Xbox is a superior console, hardware wise. Games that have the same gameplay on the PS2 would be better on the Xbox as the graphics and sound are better as well.

You clearly have a vested interested in talking only about graphics and visual effects because that's all the Xbox has going for it - until they get the developers required to make some real hits, the Xbox will remain a minor league console.
Again...I don't know how I can make this clear enough. I wasn't talking about gameplay because that has absolutely nothing to do with the console it's based on. Games can have great gameplay no matter what console it's on.

My focus in this thread has been on the hardware and graphical side, since (and I thought I made this clear), that's what I'm into. Arguing about gameplay and somehow relating that to hardware is absolutely nonsensical, and it's something I haven't done. If anything, you're the one who said the GCN/PS2 gameplay on Rally games would be superior, whether you meant to say that or not.

The marketplace doesn't back you up at all there. People seem very content with their PS2s and certainly aren't rushing out to buy Xboxs or Gamecubes, no matter how cheap they get.

Perhaps you don't know many gamers, or perhaps they just aren't very good gamers?:)
People buy PS2 because that's where all the established, big-brand name games are, and from momentum and BECAUSE it is popular. It says nothing about its graphical ability or the ability on that console for the games to be good.

If you need amazing graphics to make you happy in a game, you AREN'T any kind of serious gamer.
I still play MUDs and MUSHes, I don't need graphics.
BUT --

When I play games that RELY on graphics, and I have a high end PC and Xbox/Gamecube, the PS2 looks decidedly like "ass", to be blunt.

When I'm used to sprawling environments with crisp textures and high polycounts, it's REALLY hard to enjoy a game which is confined, blurry, and low in detail.

At that point I'm less of a gamer and more of a technophile, but that's just how I am. It's my field, and I'm more sensitive to that kind of thing -- it doesn't mean I'm any less of a gamer, just a pickier gamer since I know what the hell to look for.

Shining1
10-11-2002, 07:20:53
My post:

"any gameplay differences between the Xbox game and a PS2 or Gamecube rally game will totally blow away the small graphics advantage the Xbox has."

Means that if there are different rally games on any console, then the gameplay differences will be the important thing, and the graphical differences are a secondary matter. If the Xbox rally has superior handling and realism, it's THAT point that will determine which is the best rally game, not the slightly better graphics it has.

It was a completely unbiased point towards any console, hence I once again ask you to learn to read. I have no idea how you managed to interpret that as a comment that any rally game on the PS2 or Gamecube is automatically superior. You must have read it as:

"any... ...PS2 or Gamecube rally game will totally blow away the small graphics advantage the Xbox has."

And I KNOW you have been talking about graphical abilties and power of the Xbox this whole thread. It's clearly escaped your notice (again because you don't read) that my whole point has been that those things aren't important in a choice of console. What did you think I was doing, denying the very existance of the graphics hardware in the Xbox?

People buy PS2 because that's where all the established, big-brand name games are, and from momentum and BECAUSE it is popular. It says nothing about its graphical ability or the ability on that console for the games to be good.

They wouldn't buy it if they couldn't play anything good on it. I don't think established big-brand games are really much of a factor there - if that was true, Mario wouldn't be languishing in third place.

To say nothing of the sizable number of people who bought an Xbox merely because it had 'Microsoft' on it:).

At that point I'm less of a gamer and more of a technophile, but that's just how I am. It's my field, and I'm more sensitive to that kind of thing -- it doesn't mean I'm any less of a gamer, just a pickier gamer since I know what the hell to look for.

Except that you seem to be looking for graphics instead of gameplay issues. That says to me you don't have a clue what to look for, and you'll be sold a crap game that features pretty graphics instead of a good game that is less system intensive.

Asher
10-11-2002, 07:53:25
Again, shining, I didn't discuss gameplay issues because gameplay issues can't usually be blamed on the console's design itself.

Graphical issues, more or less, can.

And no, I'm not sold for crap games that features pretty graphics instead of intensive good games.

You still don't seem to understand my argument.

Whether that's my problem for not being able to express what I think or yours for not understanding it doesn't matter, the point is this debate isn't working. :)

Shining1
10-11-2002, 08:57:04
Again, shining, I didn't discuss gameplay issues because gameplay issues can't usually be blamed on the console's design itself.

Except that some games are only available for some consoles. So while you can't fault the designers of the console for the lack of good games on it, it's a major concern of anyone who buys a console.

My point is that while the Xbox might be technically nice, unless it has a game I want to play (I haven't seen one yet that would justify the cost), I'm not interested.

Ergo, discussing which console has the superior tech specs and giving a big smug grin because 'YOURS' is the one that does is pointless and silly. It means nothing overall about the quality of the console, because that is determined almost exclusively by the quality of the software available for it.

Asher
10-11-2002, 09:13:32
Originally posted by Shining1
Except that some games are only available for some consoles. So while you can't fault the designers of the console for the lack of good games on it, it's a major concern of anyone who buys a console.

My point is that while the Xbox might be technically nice, unless it has a game I want to play (I haven't seen one yet that would justify the cost), I'm not interested.
That's fine and dandy, but I didn't know that's what we were debating.

Such things fall under my common sense category.

I was taking issue with your comment about the Xbox being only a "small improvement" upon the PS2.

Ergo, discussing which console has the superior tech specs and giving a big smug grin because 'YOURS' is the one that does is pointless and silly.
That's fine if you think that...but next time just say that instead of twisting it into a debate about gameplay and game selection to try to win an argument.

I was only debating about the technical abilities of the consoles, as I took issue with a comment you made on those technical abilities, and you launched it off into a "why should I buy this console" debate overtime for God-knows-what-reason...

Funkodrom
10-11-2002, 09:54:34
I don't give a shit which has got the best graphics I'll get the console that has the PES series on it.

Gamers buy consoles because of what games are on them not because of the graphics.

End of story.

Asher
10-11-2002, 09:55:14
No shit, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was arguing.

Asher
10-11-2002, 09:56:07
This site is worse than 'poly sometimes.

Shining1
10-11-2002, 10:17:50
Asher: Go back and read your early posts. You definitely start out with the message that 'Xbox is great', and then try to back that up with a host of technical specs.

The thread starts with a discussion of the merits of the three consoles, and Nintendo's continued support of this market. At some point, YOU wander off wittering on about screenshots, and I try to bring you back on topic by point out that graphics, on the whole, don't determine the quality of the game. After which you go off the deepend in a furious rage, determining somehow that I had called the Xbox graphically inferior.

I never twisted it into a debate about gameplay, it was you who kept on bringing up the Xbox's technical stuff when repeatedly reminded that this wasn't relevant to the Xbox's worth as a console.

This site has forums just like poly. The only difference is the people on them. Don't get personal, Asher.

Asher
10-11-2002, 10:23:00
Shining...read the first page.

This is what I was taking issue with:
Secondly, it might be more, but it's not enough to be a perceptable difference. Xbox gridiron is, being kind, very slightly clearer than PS2 gridiron, and I probably couldn't take a pepsi test on that.

That's it. Nothing about gameplay, nothing about game selection.

In fact, regarding your previous point in that very post about gameplay being the most important, I replied "Yes" to that very thing, which should have told you I was in agreement.

I only disagreed with you about your comment about the hardware, and that's all I was debating, and for whatever reason you keep talking gameplay.

Asher
10-11-2002, 10:28:03
This thread is giving me a headache and is entirely too frustrating for me to continue.

Funkodrom
10-11-2002, 10:52:34
Asher you said you sold your PS2 because the graphics were too bad compared to the X-Box. That's what the rest of us are talking about. Not that the graphics aren't worse, just that that's a stupid reason to sell a console.

Shining1
10-11-2002, 10:57:50
You get a headache from arguing?

I stand by my point re gridiron. You have a game. You get animations that look a lot like football players but still obviously aren't. It's the same type of animation (3D polygonal as opposed to 2D frames). The Xbox does this slightly better but certainly not well enough for there to be any major difference in the quality of the product (as say there would be going from 2D to 3D or a very low polygon count 3D to a very high polygon count). The difference was so slight it was immaterial to me between the two games.

I've never argued that the Xbox isn't pushing more polygons or that it has 3 times the power, say. All I've said (repeatedly) is that it isn't a big enough upgrade over the PS2 for it to matter at all. 3 times the polygon count is nothing in terms of gameplay.

Asher
10-11-2002, 19:57:15
Originally posted by Funkodrom
Asher you said you sold your PS2 because the graphics were too bad compared to the X-Box. That's what the rest of us are talking about. Not that the graphics aren't worse, just that that's a stupid reason to sell a console.
I sold it because it looked like ass compared to everything else, and I needed something to fund my Gamecube.

Stupid reason or not, I enjoy my Gamecube now than I enjoyed my PS2 then.

Keep in mind that, since PES is so great, it's never been on sale in North America.

Asher
10-11-2002, 20:02:52
Originally posted by Shining1
You get a headache from arguing?
Yep

I stand by my point re gridiron. You have a game. You get animations that look a lot like football players but still obviously aren't. It's the same type of animation (3D polygonal as opposed to 2D frames). The Xbox does this slightly better but certainly not well enough for there to be any major difference in the quality of the product (as say there would be going from 2D to 3D or a very low polygon count 3D to a very high polygon count). The difference was so slight it was immaterial to me between the two games.

I've never argued that the Xbox isn't pushing more polygons or that it has 3 times the power, say. All I've said (repeatedly) is that it isn't a big enough upgrade over the PS2 for it to matter at all. 3 times the polygon count is nothing in terms of gameplay.
That's what I was disagreeing about. There's a large difference between PS2 and Xbox, large enough for me to be annoyed that the PS2 looks so bad in comparison seeing as they're at the same pricepoint.

You keep shrieking it's all about the games, and it is to an extent, but that's not totally true. If it was, we'd all still use PSX's instead of PS2's. Some of you will say that you'd be happy enough using PSXs instead of PS2s, but you'd be lying.

Maybe you just don't have a system that's capable of showing the differences between the two.

Hook up a PS2 to an HDTV with 5.1 surround, then hook up an Xbox to an HDTV with 5.1 surround. The PS2's problems are amplified to the point where it's distracting to play the game (I actually enabled the side-by-side picture mode on my TV which shrunk the picture from the PS2 to about the size of a 25" screen so it was playable), while the Xbox actually looks better with the HDTV tube. Then there's the sound difference -- DD5.1 in every single game is something that's hard to go without when you're stuck with stereo or pro logic on the PS2.

But blahblah, it's all about the games. I have more fun on my two consoles now, gameswise, than I ever did with the PS2. On top of it, it looks a lot better.

Funkodrom
10-11-2002, 20:08:21
Originally posted by Asher
I sold it because it looked like ass compared to everything else, and I needed something to fund my Gamecube.

Stupid reason or not, I enjoy my Gamecube now than I enjoyed my PS2 then.

Keep in mind that, since PES is so great, it's never been on sale in North America.

Unfortunately they don't seem to think that Soccer games sell enough in the US to bother releasing it. :(

It get's outsold here by EA's FIFA titles which are far inferior but have bigger advertising backing behind them.

LoD
10-11-2002, 20:52:01
Originally posted by Venom
Then again I don't know anyone but me that likes Pokemon.

Venom... Pokemon...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: