^Nightmare^ wrote:my mate has seen this web site and it says "the ps3 will have a prosseser 300 times faster then the average home pc".
is this true?
and please aggree that the xbox is better then pc2!
using only my judgement, and the information you have provided, I would say that it's a load of old tosh. if for instance, the average home PC had a CPU running at 1Ghz, then the PS3 will be 300Ghz?? come one, sounds a bit "ahead" of current, or near future technology if you ask me.
wether or not the XBox is better than PS2 depends on, in which way, if you're talking about hardware specs, then it is certainly superior.
It's marketing bumph. They can probably say that the statement is true as follows :
The 'average' home PC is a p3 800 with a geforce 2, which can push, let's say, 1 million polygons per second.
Then they will say that 'theoretically' the PS3's 'uber-bitching-parallel-emotion-vector-badass-chip' can move 300 milliong flat-shaded polygons per second, IN THEORY.
Sure it'll be fast, but no faster than the X-Box 2 or nintendo's next offering.
mid_gen wrote:It's marketing bumph. They can probably say that the statement is true as follows :
The 'average' home PC is a p3 800 with a geforce 2, which can push, let's say, 1 million polygons per second.
Then they will say that 'theoretically' the PS3's 'uber-bitching-parallel-emotion-vector-badass-chip' can move 300 milliong flat-shaded polygons per second, IN THEORY.
Sure it'll be fast, but no faster than the X-Box 2 or nintendo's next offering.
ahh, I now understand.
hmm, owning all the consoles is the solution to all these problems eh? shame not all of us can afford to do this
on a similar subject rather than starting a new thread...ive been thinking about possibly purchasing an xbox, but im having difficulty selling it to myself due in part to the lack of any real KILLER games....while it does have enough games on it to warrant purchasing if i had no other consoles, it doesnt however have many original titles to pursuade me to get off my ps2 high horse (bit of a turn around i once swore i would never own a playstation)
At the mo ive got a ps2 with (a small but perfect collection as i like to call it) GT3, MGS2, Devil May Cry and FFX, if i was to get an Xbox the only games i can think of really wanting are Halo (natch) and Panzer Dragoon Orta (me = worlds biggest panzer dragoon fan) but other than that i cant see myself wanting any of the other games since my ps2 titles negate any others from that genre (mgs2 vs splinter cell for instance) the one title i am looking to get tho which i beleive will be on both formats is Soul Calibur 2 which middy mentioned...this will be killer, but is it worth purchasing a whole new box to play it on?
your mission should you choose to accept it is to sell me some killer game titles that i hopefully havent heard of before.
p.s. i know the Xbox has yadda yadda boring statistics, but i cant really tell that much difference in graphical quality other than anti aliasing (take gt3 for example, graphics = mint) and graphics maketh not the good gaming experience anyhow
Splinter Cell is far superior to MGS2...
Though why has no-one mentioned the Gamecube yet? I give you Super Mario Sunshine, Monkey Balls 1 & 2, Metroid Prime & Zelda Wind Waker.
My copy of Zelda : The Wind Waker shipped today....
/me dribbles a little
Metroid Prime is probably the finest console title available at the moment, just for being so damn GOOD. Hard to explain, but when you play it, it just screams I AM A FANTASTIC PIECE OF WORK at you.
dogmeat wrote:Splinter Cell is far superior to MGS2...
Erm, didn't Splinter Cell (at least on the PC) really suck? I found it reeeaaaally linear, and never actually felt part of the story. Sure, some of the moves you can pull off were fun, but ultimately I felt kind of incidental to the fact that the game progressed...
Never mind, eh?
Pete
"If at first you don't succeed, call it Version 1"
True, the storyline was definitely secondary to the gameplay, but I've never come so close to shatting myself regularly during a game since AvP
I really enjoyed playing it on me xbox, bit frustrating at times, but still a top game. Actually, the fact that it got me really pissed off with it occasionally I see as a good thing, I'm bored of just playing through most games in a couple of days.
On the current strength of the xbox lineup I would probably say it isn't worth getting one unless you're a really big fan of Halo. Don't get me wrong, I love my Xbox, but there aint much out there at the minute. Once Orta is released and there's a firm release date for Fable then it's definitely worth getting.
If you're planning on getting a modchip as well then it's a different matter entirely, buy one today. Theres nothing better than having a Snes/Megadrive/MAME emu/DivX player all in one console and plugged into your widescreen TV
Some people whinge about it being cel-shaded, but IMO it works brilliantly, I've never seen a game where facial expressions are expressed to clearly. The first boss is absolutely breathtaking.
Yes Zelda:The Wind Waker is a class game. As for it be cell shaded I think that it looks amazing. Also got Soul Calibur 2 today which is another class game and prolly the beat em up ever.
shrek wrote:Yes Zelda:The Wind Waker is a class game. As for it be cell shaded I think that it looks amazing. Also got Soul Calibur 2 today which is another class game and prolly the beat em up ever.
personally I prefered the realistic look in Ocarina of Time, but every game can have a different graphic style that will suit it's content, and what I've seen from the wind waker is that the cel shaded goes perfectly, I like it, and 'ickle link looks great as he is
I love the zelda games, I've got the major one from the SNES (can't remember name right now) and the two games on the Nintendo 64.
and now I want to own the wind waker, shame I don't have a gamecube, or enough money to buy one