| MikeB said: @ sieanr Obvious; PS2 did more gigaflops than the Xbox Obvious; Xbox had better looking games I don't know, but I was most impressed by the God of War games for the PS2. Like I pointed out in the original post, CPU Flops aren't important alone for instance bandwidth and other things also comes into play. The Cell has been proven to be a graphics powerhouse in addition to performing more ordinary CPU tasks. With the XBox being released a year later than the PS2 I am sure it has technological strongpoints as well. Dev tools being the most obvious, as the original XBox was more like a cutdown PC than a traditional console. |
Impressed is not the same thing as technically superior. You think using a fixed camera had nothing to do with the game having resources to achieve its high texturing and framerate?* Also, a lot of the cut scenes are done through FMVs, although they are well disguised.
This does not mean the games had bad graphics. It does mean that those were great artistically, and you are discussing NUMERICAL graphical output. What you think of the graphics is irrelevant.
Plus the actual point, which you seem to have missed, was about theorectical maximum FLOPS, and simply used the PS2 vs the Xbox as an example. You used an irrelevant point, which did NOT disprove the actual point.
Frankly, I haven't seen you give ONE FACTUAL DSIPUTE of the gotfrag article. You claiming it's wrong or false is not a dispute.
*To compare, FFXII and RE4 had hight texturing, and a free camera, but ran at 30fps instead of 60fps.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
