Well, I returned my XBOX to Best Buy today and I'm going w/ PS2 instead... (1 Viewer)

[John Besse]

Xbox has Project Gotham and PS2 has Gran Turismo 3. Xbox will have Project Ego and the New WWF game. While PS2 currently has Final Fantasy 10.

Not a bad choice if you ask me. The PS2 has two good games compared to the Xbox's one!

I've got an Xbox. I've got Amped, Bloodwake and Project Gotham Racing. I love the system and can't wait for the wrestling game. However, I can't justify having the system for only one real good game. Mine is going up on eBay on Monday and might be purchasing a PS2 just for FF10.

 

[Gary King]

I think SONY's PS2 gets unwarrantly stamped as the "jaggies" nightmare system.

I've seen the same level of jaggies on some XBOX games as well.

I've never seen an Xbox game that even approaches how aliased a bad PS2 game can look. Edge aliasing is a small problem in some Xbox games (non-FSAA 480p Xbox output has roughly the same amount of edge aliasing as non-FSAA 480i PS2 output); however, texture aliasing and interlace flicker plague most PS2 games, while being completely absent on the Xbox.

Compare the Nagi Plains in FFX to any game available for the Xbox -- there's simply no contest. What ruins the image isn't polygons having stair step edges, but the fact that the grass is incoherently changing colors as you move across it.

 

[Joe michaels]

While I agree that PS2 does have a few titles worth playing I would NEVER take back my XBOX in order to get one. (Luckily, owning all the systems thisi isn't a decision I have to make.) The PS2 only ever offered medicore graphics improvement from the Dreamcast if that. Almost every PS2 is way more jaggy than it should be. I'm not saying that the XBOX is free of this, in fact the Gamecube seems to be the least of the jaggy system graphics, what I am saying is that the XBOX can handle stuff that very soon the PS2 will be left in the dust. Sony made some major mistakes with the aliasing issues, not including a hard drive or a modem. Sticking with the XBOX may cause you to miss a couple of titles in the short term but it will be worth it.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

One reason I absolutely love my PS2 is ICO. I can seriously never imagine a game coming out for X-Box (or GameCube, or even future PS2) that gives me the same experience, eye-candy, and fun that ICO gave me. The whole game was like a piece of art. It was beautiful.

The Dark Queen from the game was also amazing to watch. They probably didn't put too much into making her look the way she did, but it was still amazing.

Dunno why I pointed that out. Just had to point that out.

When you compare the PS2 and X-Box libraries, you should really compile a list of good PS2 games then compare them to X-Box games. People point out an X-Box game, then a PS2 equivalent, but what about the PS2 games that have no X-Box equivalent? There are a LOT more great PS2 games than people are listing.

Jak & Daxter, Rayman Revolution, Silent Scope, ST: Voyager, Batman Vengence, and others.....

Hmm...I think I see what you're saying. Should have played FFX, ICO, and MGS2. If you want a good assesment of what the PS2 can do, you should look at the best it has.

 

[Bing Fung]

I toiled over which system to buy before November 15th. I wanted the PS2 for GT3 and Metal Gear 2. There were not a lot of Xbox titles I wanted to play. However I ended buying the xbox for the future investment, and actually along the way discovered how much I like sports games on the Xbox. I was hooked, I ended up buying NFL Fever, NHL 2002, DoA3, Munch's, PRG Racing and Halo.
Still I did covet a PS2 just for those 2 games I mention, and thought of buying a PS2 as well. I loved playing GT1/2 and Metal Gear Solid on my PSX. I finally had the opportunity to play GT3 at Trevor Schell's. While it was fun and impressive sim wise, the graphics really were disapointing. Jaggies really took away for the games as did the light and reflection mapping. The game did not convey a sense of image depth as that seen in PGR racing. In the end while it was fun, I think I had my fix and can move on now.
Now I'm anticipating next gen games like Ralisport Challenge and Pro race driver. Graphics may not be everything, but they sure are a bigger part of the equation for me.
Glad I listened my friend Trevor and bought the Xbox instead of the PS2 like he recommended, it was the correct choice for me.
Kevin, I hope you sort out your gaming needs. I have been in the same situation as you with other items

 

[Duane Robinson]

I'll admit I'm a graphics whore and I'm damn proud of it. All these so called "hardcore gamers" saying that graphics don't matter are full of it. If graphics didn't matter we would still be playing Atari. They're called VIDEO games for a reason. Right now the Xbox is offering me some of the best graphics and gameplay in its short life. Also, people comparing PS2's current lineup to the Xbox's is completely assanine in my opinion. The Xbox has been out for only a few months and it's games are comparable and in some cases better than the PS2's despite the year and a half head start. I have the PS2 and love playing some of the games on it but when it first came out there was damn near nothing to play for a while compared to the Xbox and the Dreamcast's launch lineup.

Give the Xbox some time and see what happens before you judge or just do like me and get them both since they both have their kickass games that you won't get on another system. As for the Gamecube I'm not mentioning that system until Nintendo shows a game I actually want. Like a new Donkey Kong Country with silicon graphics like the first one in semi 2d/3d instead of that polygonal crap that was on the N64 or Killer Instinct 3. Mario and Zelda aren't interesting to me so I don't see a need to buy the system, but as soon as I do you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be getting one.

 

[Kip]

Also, people comparing PS2's current lineup to the Xbox's is completely assanine in my opinion.

Umm...yeah Duane, people buying a console TODAY should mostly concern themselves with the PS2 lineup in late 2000 vs. the X-Box line up in late 2002. Nevermind what's available today. :frowning:
Kip

 

[Ryan Peter]

Kip, by that reasoning, the DC would have never died.

 

[BrianB]

All these so called "hardcore gamers" saying that graphics don't matter are full of it.

Ah, of course, you know my own mind & opinions better than me.

Yawn.

 

[Iain Lambert]

that polygonal crap that was on the N64

Hmm. Here's a new spade if you want to carry on digging.
Ever since even the first hardware accelerated 3D appeared on the SNES, the very best games have demonstrated that 'looking good' and 'shifting a million textured polys per frame' are completely seperate things. From an artistic point of view, Mario64 wipes the floor with Azurik. Rez looks stunning, but doesn't even texture map. Jet Set Radio spawned a million imitators, with only the brief footage of the next Zelda looking to significantly improve the method. All in all, even from a looking good point of view, its not what you have its how you use it. Halo looks great. So do Ico, Soul Calibur, Rogue Leader, Zelda:OoT, Radiant Silvergun, Tempest 2000, Mario Kart, Sonic The Hedgehog and Image Fight (anyone wishing to continue to go back until they reach the purity of 1980's Asteroids, which none of the remakes and sequels quite managed to grasp, is welcome). Looking great is all about style, as anyone who ever got sick of lens flares will attest.
There, a whole rant without detailing how the point of games is to play them, not look at the pretty pictures. Although when it comes to pretty pictures my DVD of Shrek beats anything your X-Box can do

 

[Dean DeMass]

All these so called "hardcore gamers" saying that graphics don't matter are full of it.

If graphics were all that mattered to me, I never would of played that "grotesque over-head view" game called Grand Theft Auto. :rolleyes
Before you you start giving other people's opinions, you need to think before you type.
-Dean-

 

[Iain Lambert]

Just to clear up my sounding biased, I don't have a PS2, Cube or X-Box of my own right now. As someone who is full of it I'm still getting tons of mileage out of my older machines (Dreamcast games are still getting bought at a faster rate than I can play through them, thanks to the cheap titles lying around, for instance). Meanwhile the price of the PS2 continues to fall, and the other two get closer to being released in the UK, saving me the cost of importing. This is the real issue at the moment, certainly for UK owners; its certainly sensible to take into account the future of the format you are buying, but this is the consumer electronics game - by the time top titles started appearing in the UK we had already had our first price cut, and will see a third one next month when the X-Box launches. Pay now, Play later has its problems.

 

[Dean DeMass]

BTW, I would like to add that I own 7 PS2 games, 4 Gamecube games, and 1 X-box game. I'll be buying my 2nd X-box game next week (Jet Grind Radio Future). Those crappy PS2 and Gamecube games sure are fun.
-Dean-

 

[Calvin Watts III]

I still,every once in a while,pull out my Atari 2600 and play Kaboom.
I still,every once in a while pull out my Vectrex & play some games on that.
I still,every once in a while,pull out my Sega Genesis and play around with that,because it is the only system that has Streets of Rage II.
I still get together with my friends and play Goldeneye007 on my N64.
And Dynasty Warriors 3 for my PS2...
And Star Wars: Rogue Leader for my GC...
And Soul Caliber & NFL2K1 for my DC (if only to give my brother a chance of beating my Patriots,which he will never do)
And,in about 3 weeks, Halo for my XBox
Everybody just have fun! Isn't that what its all about???
Calvin

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I think that when people say "graphics don't matter, gameplay does" its more like "the consoles today are so close to eachother technologically that the graphics are not what sets them apart, its the games." At least, thats what I mean when I say it.

Graphics, overall, DO matter. They are at least 1/3 of the game, but most of the game is the gameplay. A 2-D game can have better graphics than a 3-D game, it just depends on how well its done. Graphics doesn't mean polygons, huge 3-D levels, and amazing explosions, but rather just well developed visuals.

 

[Romier S]

Calvin,
You said it best! There isn't a day that goes by that I dont pull out my old NES and throw in some good old Castlevania. Same goes for my Genesis, Super Nintendo, Atari, and just for kicks even my Jaguar (Alien Vs Predator was a kick ass game!).
Call me retro, call me "hardcore" but I love what I love and if a game has some very compelling gameplay graphics take a serious back seat. (although they can be great icing on an already delicious cake)

Everybody just have fun! Isn't that what its all about???

Not anymore apparently, People are too concerned justifying their purchases and arguing about which console is better than actually playing the games. *sigh*

 

[Duane Robinson]

Before you you start giving other people's opinions, you need to think before you type .

Before you start jumping to conclusions over other people's opinions maybe you should read then think before you type. Just sending it back your way guy, don't take it too personally, we're just talking about games anyways.

 

[Joe michaels]

I think SONY's PS2 gets unwarrantly stamped as the "jaggies" nightmare system.

I think it is very justified. While Halo and a few other games suffer from a few Jagged edges, the PS2 system games are much worse, especially Metal Gear Solid 2. I am playing mine on a 46 inch Mitsubishi 16:9 TV and I unhooked the PS2 and hooked it to a regular smaller TV because I just couldn't take the jagged edges anymore. They are worse than the year older Dreamcast. So far, the Gamecube seems to have the least amount of jaggies in the games that I have anyways.

 

[Iain Lambert]

Sorry Duane, I think you can see that your post rubbed a few of us up the wrong way, and it appears that I interpreted your stance overzealously. As I said in my second post, the main thing with a console is indeed what is available at the time - which is why I didn't even consider buying a PS2 until there were plenty of good games available, and went for a Dreamcast instead. In fact, during the wait for decent PS2 games the console dropped the entire price of what I paid for my Dreamcast a year ago, so I certainly don't regret my decision.

My comparing a DVD to a game was the logical extension of the argument about ignoring how well it plays to concentrate on the graphical quality, which seemed to be the way your argument was headed. There is room in all of us for a bit of 'wow, that looks cool' in our games, but I for one see it as a way to increase immersion in the game, rather than an end itself. As a simple example, a properly done 3D game is a qualitatively different experience to its 2D equivalent, rather than just a way to improve the way it looks. The rain in MGS2 may just be adding atmosphere, but fancy effects like the proper shadows really do affect the way the game is played - you may not see round the corner, but you can see the guy's shadow first.

Hopefully, that explains a little bit more about why I take a 'gameplay first' stance and yet still upgrade my PC and buy modern consoles. You're welcome to think and act differently.

 

[Dean DeMass]

Duane,
You wrote:

Before you start jumping to conclusions over other people's opinions maybe you should read then think before you type. Just sending it back your way guy, don't take it too personally, we're just talking about games anyways.

Your last comment makes no sense. You were saying that myself and other hardcore gamers are "full of it". You were giving an opinion for others and in a way, calling us liars. End of story. We can be talking about games, women, movies, or anything else, but when you say people who say certain things about the things they love are "full of it" because you don't agree with what they say, people will take things personally. This time it just happened to be about games and graphics. I love games, period. I don't care what system they are on or even if it is a board game. It is a hobby that I have been into since 1980 playing Pong at age 5. Graphics are nice, but if the gameplay isn't there, what is the point. If the gameplay is there and the graphics are pretty, that is just a bonus to me.
I have a friend that bought an X-box on launch day and this was his 1st new system since the PS1. He bought NFL Fever. I waited for NFL2K2 to come out for the PS2 before I bought a new football game. I played Fever and think it is good, but nowhere near as good as the 2K series from SEGA. He couldn't figure out why I was playing 2K2 because it doesn't look as good as Fever. I keep telling him. Fever may be pretty but it does not have the gameplay of 2K2. So as you can see, I am not full of it. I want the game that plays the best to me, not the prettiest.
I am not trying to be a dick. I am just trying to say that there are people out there who don't get hard-ons just because a game "looks" incredible.
I know you said you are a graphics whore, and that is great, but that doesn't mean people who say they are not graphics whores are full of it.
BTW, I am a video game whore.
I do like hearing the opinions of graphics whores because they usually point out the little things in games that I don't notice. The next time I am playing that game, I'll look for it, and 90% of the time it is something that is neat and cool.
-Dean-