General console chat (was HALF-LIFE 2 for PS2?)

[Warbie]

who cares about Xbox's and PS2's?

The PC quite simply owns them both.

and the only people who think otherwise havent ever compared the two seriously.

Not true - infact I believe the opposite.

Also, i've noticed most posts in this thread are banging on about gfx. While important, the quality of the visuals matters little when compared to the gameplay and innovation ..... the pc has many pretty games that lack any substance.

 

[smwScott]

First of all I didn't compare the games you mentioned to HL2 because there's no need to, you don't need to look to PC games of the futer to beat current console games. Also I'm sure you said "better than any PC..".

If Jak2 really does have a 15,000 poly count, it's wasted because it still looks crap. Hl2's 5000 poly characters look alot better and so do Unreal2's, stalkers, doom3's, FarCry's, PainKillers...

Lets compare some Screenshots:
PC:
http://www.planetunreal.com/images.asp?/unreal2/screenshots/shot02.jpg
http://www.planetunreal.com/images.asp?/ut2003/screenshots/ut2003p.jpg
http://www.codfiles.com/screenshots/29/news2/6060_3.jpg
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/gallery_image.asp?media_id=15&pic_id=8
http://www.strategyinformer.com/misc/screenshot-viewer.shtml?commandconquergenerals,10,3
http://www.gengamers.com/html/stal171.html
ttp://img.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/FPS/Doom_3/Doom3_18.jpg

PS2:
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/jak2/screens.html?page=110
http://www.gaminghorizon.com/images/games/news/gt4051303_2003/gt4051303_1.jpg
http://img.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/Playstation_2/Metal_Gear_Solid_3/new_05.jpg

Well I really can't be bothered to post anymore.. but one thing I have noticed is that PS2 screenshots are always very small (wonder why :upstare: ) and the thing with small screenshots is they compress the detail makeing it look more complex than it really is. I know for a fact that on my TV there going to look alot worse, I also know that my PC games are going to look alot better when I run them full screen.

I didn't say Jak 2 looks "better than any PC game" - I said it has more polygon counts and even made a point of stating that it does not mean it has better graphics than all PC games, as a matter of fact it isn't one of the best looking PS2 games. The truth is it does have an insanely high polygon count, which is quite impressive. The reason Hl2's characters look better is because they have normal mapping. The reason for the insane polygon counts is to compensate for a lack of these effects.

And the character models for MGS3, Jak 2, and SH3 are better than Unreal2k3, Unreal 2, and Unreal 2k4 - which you posted pictures for. Also that is the worst MGS3 pic I have EVER seen - the camera angle is looking directly up so all you get is a bad angle of the character, and that pic was from when the game was over a year and a half away (hell, it still may be, they haven't even given a release target).

Generals is a very impressive game, I have it and play it at max everything. I don't know where that came from though.

You are trying to turn this into a PC verse PS2 war, this is about HL2. I have constantly tried to stay on topic to HL2, I made all my comparisons to HL2. You simply didn't have a good enough response to that and went off on a tangent about unrelated games. My point is that HL2 could be ported to PS2 with some sacrifices, and you blindly scream it couldn't, when it obviously could.

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

There is something in what you speak...


It is true there is a greater *Proportion* or average to good games to bad on consoles. There are defeinatly many hundruds of games for the PC that are shitty. But there are still plently of extremely good titles out there. Allthough not as many recently i have to admit. I hope DOOM3, Farcry, Stalker Oblivion Lost, etc and of course HL2 will change this and revive the PC market somewhat. As well massive multiplayer games such as planetside to become cheaper and of a higher quality. Consoles are unlikely to penetrate this market for quite a while in my opinion for various reasons, not just technology.


Anyway, the reason games are sometimes beter (Content wise) is because it is a simple fact that making a game is far less work for consoles than it is for PCs for various reasons. Examples of which include the obvious range of differnt machines that the game will have to run on right down the the many hundruds of different input devices and the now allmost standard need for excelent online play.



However, I still think the PC is the future as computers get faster smaller and more usefull in every day life. Consoles will become obsolete as the PC ends up the same size and can do exactly the same quality of games or beter as well as being able to do everything a home computer does today and much much more.
Also is a game on a console anywhere near as likely to get any kind of a mod community which extends the life of the game for up to and includeing 5 years approx. This has earnt valve shedloads of cash because they were smart and were proud of their game. I hope more games companies do the same in the future.


Meh, I think I have typed enough for now....

 

[AmishSlayer]

I like PC's...

I like Consoles...(except GC...Mario Kart: DD and Smash Bros. are the only good exclusive games IMO although I haven't played many games..it's just that most don't really appeal to me)

There are certain games on each that you just can't reproduce for others. As said before, PC's have strategy and online games. While consoles have fighting games and (for the most part) RPG's. I'm talking about traditional RPG's like, FF games (Minus 7 and 8...they're on PC) and Xenosaga, Xenogears, So many others. The only RPG's that really hit PC lately are untraditional ones like KOTOR, Gothic 2, and others.

I'm a fan of the traditional ones...so that's one reason I like consoles over PC's sometimes.

I think some people here need to open up their minds a bit when it comes to consoles and PC's. Quit being such retarded fanboys and f*ckin' open your eyes to both sides of the issues.

As for HL2 to PS2...I highly doubt it. I think with gfx and gameplay, (physics, vast amount of things happening at once) HL2 is too advanced of a game for PS2. Sure lots of stuff is going on in GTA games, but gfx aren't anywhere near what HL2 is at with lighting, physics and just overall complexity.

 

[Stigmata]

Anyway, the reason games are sometimes beter (Content wise) is because it is a simple fact that making a game is far less work for consoles than it is for PCs for various reasons. Examples of which include the obvious range of differnt machines that the game will have to run on right down the the many hundruds of different input devices and the now allmost standard need for excelent online play.

I completely agree with you. But looking to the future, I just hope to God that the hardware industry develops SOME sort of standard for input devices and such. I'm really tired of having to install drivers, tweak settings, install third-party compatability programs, RAM-eating background programs, etc. etc. just to get gamepads or joysticks working properly. If not, then I can see the peripheral and hardware industry branching off into so many different modes of input, compatabilities, and supported hardware that it will become nearly impossible to find something that will work on your system.
Additionally, if any of you out there have tried this, installing a new motherboard or a new case for your computer creates a whole bunch of complications mainly due to the location of the necessary plugs. The worst offender is the group of +/- plugs on the motherboard for the little lights and buttons on your case. I've installed four or five of my friends' motherboard or cases, and just figuring out which prongs are for which plugs takes nearly half an hour. Sorry for the rant

Also is a game on a console anywhere near as likely to get any kind of a mod community which extends the life of the game for up to and includeing 5 years approx.

I know this will probably never happen, but I think it may be possible to create mods for console games. Once harddrives become standard on consoles, creating mods that work may not be as hard as you think. If you've got the space, you could copy the needed game files from the game disc to the HDD and modify them there. Then, with Mod-enabled games, the use of modded files on the HDD would supercede the use of the CD's files, and voila, a console mod is born. At least, I think it would work...

 

[smwScott]

There is something in what you speak...


It is true there is a greater *Proportion* or average to good games to bad on consoles. There are defeinatly many hundruds of games for the PC that are shitty. But there are still plently of extremely good titles out there. Allthough not as many recently i have to admit. I hope DOOM3, Farcry, Stalker Oblivion Lost, etc and of course HL2 will change this and revive the PC market somewhat. As well massive multiplayer games such as planetside to become cheaper and of a higher quality. Consoles are unlikely to penetrate this market for quite a while in my opinion for various reasons, not just technology.


Anyway, the reason games are sometimes beter (Content wise) is because it is a simple fact that making a game is far less work for consoles than it is for PCs for various reasons. Examples of which include the obvious range of differnt machines that the game will have to run on right down the the many hundruds of different input devices and the now allmost standard need for excelent online play.



However, I still think the PC is the future as computers get faster smaller and more usefull in every day life. Consoles will become obsolete as the PC ends up the same size and can do exactly the same quality of games or beter as well as being able to do everything a home computer does today and much much more.
Also is a game on a console anywhere near as likely to get any kind of a mod community which extends the life of the game for up to and includeing 5 years approx. This has earnt valve shedloads of cash because they were smart and were proud of their game. I hope more games companies do the same in the future.


Meh, I think I have typed enough for now....

I agree with almost everything you said, although I think there will always be a market for people who want to play games on their TV.

 

[OCybrManO]

... which is why any relatively new nVidia or ATI card has either S-Video out or VIVO.

 

[mrchimp]

You are trying to turn this into a PC verse PS2 war, this is about HL2. I have constantly tried to stay on topic to HL2, I made all my comparisons to HL2. You simply didn't have a good enough response to that and went off on a tangent about unrelated games. My point is that HL2 could be ported to PS2 with some sacrifices, and you blindly scream it couldn't, when it obviously could.

WTF I said it could be done but it wouldn't be worth it. It would just look like MP2. Also I think the models for MGS3 arn't that impressive at all, they just look bland and I don't think that has much to do with the game desighners.

I honestly don't think that there is any PS2 game that can beat HL2 in any aspect of the game, excludeing stupid things like poly counts which on there own don't make a games graphics great. I have never seen anything on a console that looks more impressive than something on the PC. If I had to put up with PS2 graphics in all there shitness I just wouldn't bother with gameing anymore. I quite honestly fail to see how you can think a console is better in either graphics or depth of gameplay, I can only presume you have a really crap PC.

I love the freedom that my PC gives me, i can do anything the electronics industry has to offer. As long as I have the money I can stay at the forefront of leading technolodgy, constantly upgradeing and customizeing my PC in both hardware and software departments. Even if I don't have the money I am still only restrained in the hardware department and can use other methods to gain performance. If i come to a point where i simply can't run games at a desired level, I will still enjoy playing them more on my outdated PC than trying to entertain myself useing a consoles bland and pixelated graphics.

My computer has many uses unlike a console which has 3 at the very most (DVD's, Games and possibly internet), I couldn't learn to program or creat media on a modern console nor would I want to due to lack of speed and performance. The only consoles i have ever liked are the old school ones, which are fun to play or emulate from time to time but are in my view made redundant my PC's.

I think this console Vs PC thing has come down to a simple matter of opinion and arguing an opinion is for politicians. I can prove you wrong in terms of which platform has the best technolodgy but that never seems to win the PC Vs console argument so there's no point me trying. The only reason why I ever get involved in these things is because I truly do not understand why people like consoles more than PC's when they have the knowledge to use one correctly. If i had the choice between just playing HL2 and every good console game to be made in the next 10 years I'd pic HL2.

 

[smwScott]

WTF I said it could be done but it wouldn't be worth it. It would just look like MP2. Also I think the models for MGS3 arn't that impressive at all, they just look bland and I don't think that has much to do with the game desighners.

I honestly don't think that there is any PS2 game that can beat HL2 in any aspect of the game, excludeing stupid things like poly counts which on there own don't make a games graphics great. I have never seen anything on a console that looks more impressive than something on the PC. If I had to put up with PS2 graphics in all there shitness I just wouldn't bother with gameing anymore. I quite honestly fail to see how you can think a console is better in either graphics or depth of gameplay, I can only presume you have a really crap PC.

I love the freedom that my PC gives me, i can do anything the electronics industry has to offer. As long as I have the money I can stay at the forefront of leading technolodgy, constantly upgradeing and customizeing my PC in both hardware and software departments. Even if I don't have the money I am still only restrained in the hardware department and can use other methods to gain performance. If i come to a point where i simply can't run games at a desired level, I will still enjoy playing them more on my outdated PC than trying to entertain myself useing a consoles bland and pixelated graphics.

My computer has many uses unlike a console which has 3 at the very most (DVD's, Games and possibly internet), I couldn't learn to program or creat media on a modern console nor would I want to due to lack of speed and performance. The only consoles i have ever liked are the old school ones, which are fun to play or emulate from time to time but are in my view made redundant my PC's.

I think this console Vs PC thing has come down to a simple matter of opinion and arguing an opinion is for politicians. I can prove you wrong in terms of which platform has the best technolodgy but that never seems to win the PC Vs console argument so there's no point me trying. The only reason why I ever get involved in these things is because I truly do not understand why people like consoles more than PC's when they have the knowledge to use one correctly. If i had the choice between just playing HL2 and every good console game to be made in the next 10 years I'd pic HL2.

Well, I have a nice computer:

Pentium 4 2.2 GHz
512MB DDR RAM
Geforce 4 Ti4200 128MB

It isn't the best on the market, but it it can run everything out right now pretty damn perfect. I don't care nearly as much about graphics as you do, and I think it's insane to run out and buy a new $300 card so the water and walls will be a little shinier in 2 games.

And this coming from the guy who said RTCW looks better than MGS2 - which is totallt incorrect. I mean it's just wrong.

You are obviously set in your ways, and this isn't a debate, you just repeat the same things with absolutely no basis to back it up. I gave detail on why HL2 could be run on PS2 and backed it up with facts. You just say "But MP2 looks bad so HL2 will too." Well, MP2 is one of the worst looking mainstream games on PS2, they did a piss poor job and they don't care. If Valve treats it with the same level of care then you'd get similar results.

And HL2 is one of, if not my most wanted upcoming game. But it'd be hard to convince me to give up MGS3, SH4, and GT4 for it - it is after all only one game.

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

The reason MP2 looks so poor is because they had to scale everything down. It might look worse than other PS2 games but then do many other PS2 games have lifelike physics like max payne 2.
Sorry but at the moment the PC rapes the PS2. I do however believe that the PS3 will rape the PC when it comes out. But only for a while. PCs are bound to catch up pretty fast. They allways do.

 

[mrchimp]

Well, I have a nice computer:

Pentium 4 2.2 GHz
512MB DDR RAM
Geforce 4 Ti4200 128MB

It isn't the best on the market, but it it can run everything out right now pretty damn perfect. I don't care nearly as much about graphics as you do, and I think it's insane to run out and buy a new $300 card so the water and walls will be a little shinier in 2 games.

And this coming from the guy who said RTCW looks better than MGS2 - which is totallt incorrect. I mean it's just wrong.

You are obviously set in your ways, and this isn't a debate, you just repeat the same things with absolutely no basis to back it up. I gave detail on why HL2 could be run on PS2 and backed it up with facts. You just say "But MP2 looks bad so HL2 will too." Well, MP2 is one of the worst looking mainstream games on PS2, they did a piss poor job and they don't care. If Valve treats it with the same level of care then you'd get similar results.

And HL2 is one of, if not my most wanted upcoming game. But it'd be hard to convince me to give up MGS3, SH4, and GT4 for it - it is after all only one game.

I never said that RTCW looks better than MGS3, but with full FSAA and AF I bet it does. Also I have backed up everything I have said even with screen shots. Most of HL2's graphics are based around DX9 specific technolodgys more so than Max Payne 2, so I am afriad it would look really bad. Also PS2 simply does not have the horse power for HL2's physics and AI in there current state, so something would have to be done about that.

TBH I would rather play Master Rallye which is a 2nd rate PC racer than GT4, especially if GT4 is as flat and wooden as GT3. You still havn't actually provided any reason why consoles are better, all you seem to be doing is side stepping arguments i bring up with "thats not what I was talking about", "I said... not ...".PC graphics have always looked better than the PS2's since it came out, although the newest games for PS2 may look better than PC games that came out when the PS2 was launched. The games that were around when the PS2 was launched looked like shit.

I used to have a PC slightly crapper than yours and it couldn't run games like UT2003 very well, I could only get frame rates of about 40 on medium settings at 1024x768, it still looked better than PS2 games though.. alot better but it looked alot worse than what I'm seeing now. The thing is though I didn't enjoy UT2003 anywhere near as much as Tribes 2 which when I played it was already something like a year old and didn't quite have graphics on the same level, plus I had a really crappy computer then (GF2 mx 900hz cpu) so how much graphics effect my enjoyment of games is debateable.

Anyway like I said before this is pretty much an argument over opinions which is pointless, i know why I like my PC and why I hate consoles. I also know that PC's are technologically superior and I can prove it, even if the PS3 has a multicore cell CPU from IBM, Intel and AMD will beat the shit out of it sooner or later, Infact I would wager that the current AMD-64 CPU's would give it a run for it's money(in a 64-bit enviroment). Your only arguments are based off of your opinions which for the most part cannot be proved wrong. On the subject of a PS2 port of HL2 why don't you E-mail Gabe and ask him why or look through the Valve information thread to find out why it wouldn't be a very good idea because you won't listen to me.

 

[smwScott]

I never said that RTCW looks better than MGS3, but with full FSAA and AF I bet it does. Also I have backed up everything I have said even with screen shots. Most of HL2's graphics are based around DX9 specific technolodgys more so than Max Payne 2, so I am afriad it would look really bad. Also PS2 simply does not have the horse power for HL2's physics and AI in there current state, so something would have to be done about that.

TBH I would rather play Master Rallye which is a 2nd rate PC racer than GT4, especially if GT4 is as flat and wooden as GT3. You still havn't actually provided any reason why consoles are better, all you seem to be doing is side stepping arguments i bring up with "thats not what I was talking about", "I said... not ...".PC graphics have always looked better than the PS2's since it came out, although the newest games for PS2 may look better than PC games that came out when the PS2 was launched. The games that were around when the PS2 was launched looked like shit.

I used to have a PC slightly crapper than yours and it couldn't run games like UT2003 very well, I could only get frame rates of about 40 on medium settings at 1024x768, it still looked better than PS2 games though.. alot better but it looked alot worse than what I'm seeing now. The thing is though I didn't enjoy UT2003 anywhere near as much as Tribes 2 which when I played it was already something like a year old and didn't quite have graphics on the same level, plus I had a really crappy computer then (GF2 mx 900hz cpu) so how much graphics effect my enjoyment of games is debateable.

Anyway like I said before this is pretty much an argument over opinions which is pointless, i know why I like my PC and why I hate consoles. I also know that PC's are technologically superior and I can prove it, even if the PS3 has a multicore cell CPU from IBM, Intel and AMD will beat the shit out of it sooner or later, Infact I would wager that the current AMD-64 CPU's would give it a run for it's money(in a 64-bit enviroment). Your only arguments are based off of your opinions which for the most part cannot be proved wrong. On the subject of a PS2 port of HL2 why don't you E-mail Gabe and ask him why or look through the Valve information thread to find out why it wouldn't be a very good idea because you won't listen to me.

My PC runs everything fine. It runs Generals at about 40 with everything maxed. It runs UT2k3 and U2 (oddly enough they both perform the same, despite U2 looking better) at 30-40 FPS at everything maxed.

I don't believe I ever sidestepped anything, as a matter of fact when I compared certain PS2 games to HL2 and then you came in with UT2k3, Generals, etc. when HL2 was beaten in certain areas. That's sidestepping, I never mentioned any of those games - my only point was to state that the game could very well be done on PS2 with some visual sacrifices. I made specific comparisions to show that certain PS2 games surpass HL2 in a few areas, which is still true. And the game doesn't have to run with DX9 shaders, the game will look just fine with DX8 quality effects. As a matter of fact similar shaders can be faked into PS2 games, and have been on a few occasions.

Listen, there's no argument that PC's are techincally superior to consoles. But that doesn't mean jack **** if the games don't use it. Games use every little bit they can suck out of a console which is why a lot of the games are of higher quality.

To be honest, I don't give a rats ass if HL2 comes to the PS2 or not. I'm gonna buy it for PC and play much better than any controller could for an FPS game, and with better graphics. But that doesn't change the fact that it could be done on PS2. And Gabe isn't gonna tell me jack about releases for upcoming games. If there's an upcoming port coming they ain't gonna tell some guy who e-mails them.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Well, I have a nice computer:

Pentium 4 2.2 GHz
512MB DDR RAM
Geforce 4 Ti4200 128MB

It isn't the best on the market, but it it can run everything out right now pretty damn perfect. I don't care nearly as much about graphics as you do, and I think it's insane to run out and buy a new $300 card so the water and walls will be a little shinier in 2 games.

And this coming from the guy who said RTCW looks better than MGS2 - which is totallt incorrect. I mean it's just wrong.

You are obviously set in your ways, and this isn't a debate, you just repeat the same things with absolutely no basis to back it up. I gave detail on why HL2 could be run on PS2 and backed it up with facts. You just say "But MP2 looks bad so HL2 will too." Well, MP2 is one of the worst looking mainstream games on PS2, they did a piss poor job and they don't care. If Valve treats it with the same level of care then you'd get similar results.

And HL2 is one of, if not my most wanted upcoming game. But it'd be hard to convince me to give up MGS3, SH4, and GT4 for it - it is after all only one game.

NO offence man, but you havn't seen much with that card. Try using a new ATI or Nvidia card, you'll see the difference

 

[Brian Damage]

Wow. Cool.

Some of these posts are so dense and wordy, it's like reading a brick.

 

[mrchimp]

Listen, there's no argument that PC's are techincally superior to consoles. But that doesn't mean jack **** if the games don't use it. Games use every little bit they can suck out of a console which is why a lot of the games are of higher quality.

No there not, 99.9% of console games look like shit and suck balls, plus I know you can't run U2 maxed out at those frame rates, so stop bullshitting. The only console game I have actually enjoyed in receant times was Splinter Cell and I was useing the PC version, I doubt I would have liked it as much if I was playing on Xbox, with it's crappy controller and pixelated graphics.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Obviously there are a large amount of people here who own PS2s and enjoy them, given the huge pro-console posts the size of childrens novels. The same can be said for X-box people and - gasp - even PC fans.

The point is that, if there are that many people who are willing the write an essay about how much fun something is, it's obvious that they got thier money's worth of fun and amusement. Regardless of inferior bitmaps, GFLOPS and whatever other shite there is that may or may not even exist.

I've got a PS2, and frankly it's got some great games. Metal gear solid 2 still continues to impress me. Does it have best-quality per-pixel shading? Who gives a crap! I had fun, simple as that. People still play Super Nintendo because the games are amusing, not piss-yourself graphical wonders.
Why else would pac-man have something like 16 sequels?

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

MY GOD I THINK HE GOT IT!





Nice post

 

[smwScott]

No there not, 99.9% of console games look like shit and suck balls, plus I know you can't run U2 maxed out at those frame rates, so stop bullshitting. The only console game I have actually enjoyed in receant times was Splinter Cell and I was useing the PC version, I doubt I would have liked it as much if I was playing on Xbox, with it's crappy controller and pixelated graphics.

I wasn't bullshitting. I run it at 1024x768 with no AA or AF, with all the game settings maxed at around 30 FPS. That's the truth, I wasn't lying. If you don't believe me, then I don't care.

And I have no intention of buying a $300 card, I could buy a new console and open up an entirely new selection of games rather than slightly better versions of the ones I have.

 

[waedoe]

Will HALF-LIFE 2 be comming to Playstation2?

not happening, ps2 is like my old gate way 2000, 233 mhz processor. Like 16 megabytes of ram, and who knows why type of integrated G card. POS, probably will make it to the box though.

 

[Pitbul]

the Ps2 can handle HL2 especially with the release of the HDD soon. the Ps2 has 2 times the Processing power of the X-Box, yes fan boys that is correct, its so called 300 MHz CPU can out do the X-Box, and no fanboys and morons alike, MHz is not the real way to measure Processing power, its really shown in FLOPS, and the X-Box can barely put out 3.2 GFLOPS while the Ps2 can do 6.2 GFLOPS. but then again i dont expect the regular idiotic brainless X-Box fanboy to know this type of technical stuff after all, you are moronic fan boys blinded by your MS and intel stating that more MHz actually means more power which is extremely false. sadly KillZone's textures surpass HL2's and KillZone (which will be exclusive to the Ps2) hasn't been in development for 5 freakin years. its almost hilarious how stupid X-Box fanboys are, i laugh at you at every moment of your ignorants, from stating that MHz is the determining factor in Processing power to you thinking the X-Box is far superior to the Ps2. its funny just sitting back watching you bable, but really you dont know sh*t. even the mods here are un-intelligent here.

 

[SpuD]

Negative!!!1

 

[Zoorado]

the Ps2 can handle HL2 especially with the release of the HDD soon. the Ps2 has 2 times the Processing power of the X-Box, yes fan boys that is correct, its so called 300 MHz CPU can out do the X-Box, and no fanboys and morons alike, MHz is not the real way to measure Processing power, its really shown in FLOPS, and the X-Box can barely put out 3.2 GFLOPS while the Ps2 can do 6.2 GFLOPS. but then again i dont expect the regular idiotic brainless X-Box fanboy to know this type of technical stuff after all, you are moronic fan boys blinded by your MS and intel stating that more MHz actually means more power which is extremely false. sadly KillZone's textures surpass HL2's and KillZone (which will be exclusive to the Ps2) hasn't been in development for 5 freakin years. its almost hilarious how stupid X-Box fanboys are, i laugh at you at every moment of your ignorants, from stating that MHz is the determining factor in Processing power to you thinking the X-Box is far superior to the Ps2. its funny just sitting back watching you bable, but really you dont know sh*t. even the mods here are un-intelligent here.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The Xbox has a processing capability of about 80 GFLOPS, which is more than 10x that of the PS2. Stop acting as if you have great technical knowledge about the 2 consoles when you don't know peanuts.

 

[Shuzer]

The textures in KillZone are nowhere near that of HL2's. Even the old screenshots we've seen of HL2 look better than KillZone. KillZone looks good, for a PS2 game, but it looks nowhere near as good as any of the nextgen PC games.

 

[mrchimp]

Obviously there are a large amount of people here who own PS2s and enjoy them, given the huge pro-console posts the size of childrens novels. The same can be said for X-box people and - gasp - even PC fans.

The point is that, if there are that many people who are willing the write an essay about how much fun something is, it's obvious that they got thier money's worth of fun and amusement. Regardless of inferior bitmaps, GFLOPS and whatever other shite there is that may or may not even exist.

I've got a PS2, and frankly it's got some great games. Metal gear solid 2 still continues to impress me. Does it have best-quality per-pixel shading? Who gives a crap! I had fun, simple as that. People still play Super Nintendo because the games are amusing, not piss-yourself graphical wonders.
Why else would pac-man have something like 16 sequels?

And in my childrens novel sized posts I'v covered more reasons why I hate the modern consoles like the PS2 and Xbox than just graphics.

smwScott: I remember the PS2 costing £300(roughly $400-500) just after it came out (it orginally cost £3000) and that was just for the console and one controller. The games brand new cost £40-45 which is on adverage £10 more than a PC game and another controller plus memory card is going to set you back a bit more so it's not really that much cheaper than building your own PC and buying a couple of games for it.

 

[smwScott]

And in my childrens novel sized posts I'v covered more reasons why I hate the modern consoles like the PS2 and Xbox than just graphics.

smwScott: I remember the PS2 costing £300(roughly $400-500) just after it came out (it orginally cost £3000) and that was just for the console and one controller. The games brand new cost £40-45 which is on adverage £10 more than a PC game and another controller plus memory card is going to set you back a bit more so it's not really that much cheaper than building your own PC and buying a couple of games for it.

In America it cost $300 for the exact same package you got. The memory card costs about $20, and an extra controller $35. The individual games cost $40-50. Obviously consoles are cheaper to own in America than the UK.

The PC I built (wouldn't cost this much now) cost me about $1200, and I play them both about the same amount (actually the PC a little more because of online). Of course games are just one thing I use my PC for, if I didn't play games on it then it'd be a lot cheaper.