Are you seriously arguing the GC is more powerful than the Xbox? A look at the Xbox's library supports the numbers, it was clearly more advanced than the GC and PS2.
lilbroex said:
No those aren't. Those were theoretical peaks no context that didn't take features and capabilites into account. The real word results worked out entirely different. Stop posting number without understanding what it is that you are looking at.
Also , none of those sceenshots were FMVs. That is what the game looks like while running. The graphics were just that good.
|
WTF? I know thats the game. I was referringg to the title screens. LOL
I have completed the games several times. They look good. But Half Life 2, Doom 3, Halo 2 among others were all way more impressive.
And by Real World I mean thats what the 2 consoles figures are to begin with. Everyone knows the Xbox was thee most powerful of the last gen. This GC debate was booted out long ago. I didnt know there were still people using these flying games as a bbbbbbb my GC.
| TheBardsSong said: Are you seriously arguing the GC is more powerful than the Xbox? A look at the Xbox's library supports the numbers, it was clearly more advanced than the GC and PS2. |
The librably supports the fact that Xbox had more support, not that it was strong.
The fact regardless of all esle is that the greatest techcnial achievement on the Xbox was 12 million polygons at 30 FPS with minimal use of shading.
The greatest on the GC was 20 million at 60 fps will bloom lighting, dynamic self-shadowing, bump mapping and various other effects running at once dozens of diverse A.I. controlled enemies. Please refer to the videos I posted earlier on page 5.
lilbroex said:
Dude, you just called in game screenshots CG. That alone said how much you have been educated on about tech and what we are discussing. Please stop. |
I didnt refer to your youtube postings at all. Of which I havent watched because I owned the goddamn games.
I know what I'm talking about. The fact we are commparing a game with almost no AI for a start is not good. Andd dont give me bull about Ai. I ave finished tem. RS containss no intelligent AI. Look I havee a Tie on my tail, wait no I lost him wit pure ease. Look I shot that tie on its random path around the battlefield.
Thee games were enjoyable. But tecnically I never once considered them in the top 5 of last gen. I remeber after Half Life 2 won best visuals of 2004 how people said it wouldnt run on a console. ID software even stated that Doom 3 would run on GC but would be graded down from its Xbox counterpart.
| selnor said: WTF? I know thats the game. I was referringg to the title screens. LOL I have completed the games several times. They look good. But Half Life 2, Doom 3, Halo 2 among others were all way more impressive. And by Real World I mean thats what the 2 consoles figures are to begin with. Everyone knows the Xbox was thee most powerful of the last gen. This GC debate was booted out long ago. I didnt know there were still people using these flying games as a bbbbbbb my GC. |
I said this a thousand times. What you find impressive is irrevelent to the facts of what is being technically done.
Master Chielf was 2000 polygon modal no matter how impressive you found him or how much you liked the game.
Kratos and Leon on the PS2 version or RE4 were 5000 polygon modals with far more diverse texturing than master chief.
Leon on RE4 on the GC was a 10,000 polygon modal and his gun was a 12,500 polygon modal. That means that Leon and his pistol alone almost used more polygons than all 16 of the master chiefs combined in a full game of Halo multiplayer.
We aren't even taking the environment and enemies into account.
Those are facts.
Halo had a lot of simple geometry that was smeared with with bump mapping. It was impressive design wise but not technically.
This is the reality of Halo on the Xbox1. Master Chief was the most detailed thing in the game.
There is hardly any geometry and the shadows are not light sourced or accurately mapped.
Anyway, its clear that you have no intention of looking into the details of this, so I am not arguing this with you anymore. Believe what your heart desires.
So, we still don't know which one (GC or Xbox) is more powerful and we know that Sumo Digital never said WiiU was on part w PS3?.... Sometimes this world gets me headaches....
| carlos3189 said: So, we still don't know which one (GC or Xbox) is more powerful and we know that Sumo Digital never said WiiU was on part w PS3?.... Sometimes this world gets me headaches.... |
Yes we do. I just stated the ultimate proof. No game in existence last gen came close to doing what Rebel Strike did in real time on a technical level. They attempted to port it to the Xbox1 but it just wasn't possible without tremendous downgrades so they scrapped. That is bottom line.
Thes things that Xbox1 had over the GC were ease of programmability, stardardized FSAA and more storage capacity. This translated into game with generally higher quality textures with little alaising at a low cost.
Other than that, the GC was stronger.
lilbroex said:
I said this a thousand times. What you find impressive is irrevelent to the facts of what is being technically done. Master Chielf was 2000 polygon modal no matter how impressive you found him or how much you liked the game. Kratos and Leon on the PS2 version or RE4 were 5000 polygon modals with far more diverse texturing than master chief. Leon on RE4 on the GC was a 10,000 polygon modal and his gun was a 12,500 polygon modal. That means that Leon and his pistol alone almost used more polygons than all 16 of the master chiefs combined in a full game of Halo multiplayer. We aren't even taking the environment and enemies into account. Those are facts. Halo had a lot of simple geometry that was smeared with with bump mapping. It was impressive design wise but not technically. This is the reality of Halo on the Xbox1. Master Chief was the most detailed thing in the game.
Anyway, its clear that you have no intention of looking into the details of this, so I am not arguing this with you anymore. Believe what your heart desires. |
Ok. So you base your technical achievement on polygon count. Is that it? Seriously. RE4 ROFL. 2 metre wide levels anyone????
Because your looking at tech so oneway. I cant talk any further. The same way people use GOW3 or UC even tough they look best wen Im half in control.
Ninja Gaiden Black on Xbox was another amazing looking game.
| selnor said:
Because your looking at tech so oneway. I cant talk any further. The same way people use GOW3 or UC even tough they look best wen Im half in control. Ninja Gaiden Black on Xbox was another amazing looking game. |
No, I pointed out a lot of things, but you just keep skipping over them and throwing out useless data with no understanding of what it means or how it effects the games. I simplified it down to just polygons to make it easy for you to understand and you flip it as that being me talking about the only thing that mattters to me and completely disregard the point. I'm done.
lilbroex said:
No, I pointed out a lot of things, but you just keep skipping over them and throwing out useless data with no understanding of what it means or how it effects the games. I simplified it down to just polygons to make it easy for you to understand and you flip that as that being me talking the only thing that mattter to me and completely disregard the point. I'm done. |
But your picking:
Dead Or alive on Xbox 1 2001 - 2004 had 10k for each character.
Soul Calibur 2 was best visuals on Xbox. Not GC.
Answer me thiss.
Why when you type in GC vs Xbox on Bing ( google ) does not 1 article orr site agree with you on the first 5 pages. All say Xbox was clearly more powerful.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
