|
Disclaimer: The opinions presented herein are NOT the opinions
of netjak.com, they are the inane ramblings of our senior
editor, the questionably sane Mr. McDank. Netjak is an unbiased
site, one that looks only at the quality of a game; never at the
system which supports it.
Why
XBOX should reign over PS2:
The
console wars are nothing new. In the 80’s, there were Atari,
Colleco and Intellivision. Nintendo hit the scene with the
NES and Sega had the Master System. Turbo Grafix16,
SNES, Genesis, Sega CD and the 3DO systems rounded out
the 16-bit era, and introduced us to CDROM technology for the game
console. 32-bit systems came, and 64-bit systems… after that we
pretty much lost track. It’s a shame though, that we no longer have
such a simple way to measure the basic power of our gaming hardware.
A consumer would never pay as much for a Sega Genesis as they
would for a Saturn. Why not? The Saturn is a 32-bit
machine. It is at least twice as powerful as its predecessor and
paying the same price for inferior hardware would obviously be a bad
purchase choice.
Sure,
it’s a little tougher to judge today’s gaming systems. CPU
architecture is harder to describe than ‘32-bit’ and specialized 3D
hardware differs from system to system. The fact remains: people are
paying the same (if not more) for gaming systems that are a full
generation behind. Some people have no idea that the cash they’re
shelling out for little Johnny’s PS2 could be better spent on
hardware that’s not already obsolete. Some folks make an informed
decision, knowing that they cannot live without GTA3. Others
go so far as to assume that the PS2 is actually technologically
superior. Whether they realize it or not, these people are throwing
a monkey wrench into the gears of gaming evolution.
Let’s
forget about that the fact that the XBOX has twice the raw polygon
throughput, twice the memory at twice the memory speed, and full
HDTV/Dolby 5.1 support. Forget the hard drive and built-in broadband
adapter. Despite simply having twice the raw power, nVidia’s NV21
(256-bit) core GPU (Graphics Processing Unit, the same that powers
the GeForce3) can bump-map, anti-alias and apply per-pixel lighting
using its own native hardware. All of this techno-babble looks even
better than it sounds, and the PS2 can’t match it. Add to this a
streamlined, gameplay dedicated Operating System that allows the
XBOX to effectively out-perform a PC sporting twice the horsepower…
there is no denying that the PS2 is to the XBOX what the NES was to
the Sega Genesis: old news.
At this
point one might be inclined to ask oneself, “How does supporting the
PS2 hurt the natural evolution of video games?”
Consider the Smash Hit Grand Theft Auto 3. While this is a beautiful
example of open-ended game design, the problem comes in
implementation. Playing GTA3 on the PS2; I was appalled at the
grainy, muddy graphics and low poly count. This feeling was
amplified as soon as red and blue lights were cast onto the
cityscape as the police were chasing me, and the framerate slowed to
a crawl. Sony paid a tidy sum to keep GTA3 from showing up on the
XBOX, presumably because if they had allowed it to be ported gamers
would see how truly awesome their gaming experience could be.
The
popularity of the PS2 causes many of the best game developers to
make games for an inferior system. Sometimes good games get ported
to the XBOX. Sometimes these ports are enhanced slightly, most of
the time they are rushed and do not take advantage of the better
hardware (see MGS2). Multi-platform games have to be made to run on
the lowest common denominator, in this case the PS2. The very
existence of the PS2 means that the quality of true next-generation
titles are going to suffer.
There
are those who would argue that the XBOX Live! service is too
expensive. To them I would reply that the superior online titles and
fast, seamless, voice-over gameplay is well worth $50 a year.
There
are those who would proclaim that the sublime XBOX controller is too
large for their weak little arms. To them I would reply that the
dinky controller S should satisfy their meager proportions.
There
are those who would whine about the $30 DVD remote needed to play
DVD movies on the XBOX. I would encourage those people to price a
DVD player which supports true HDTV and Dolby Digital 5.1 surround
sound (once again, PS2 supports neither) and then decide if it’s
worth crying over.
All of
these factors, plus the fact that an XBOX with two top-notch titles
costs as much as a stand-alone PS2 should convince any human being
capable of rational thought that the XBOX is the better machine. It
won’t though, and this is why I take solace in the fact that
Microsoft will continue to push until the sheepish masses have no
choice but to put down their Playstation controllers and join us in
finally bringing the next generation of gaming bliss to the world.
|
|
I just popped into and
internet cafe here in Ikebukuro, and I decided to check out the best
gaming site on the net to see if we had anything new up. Apparently,
during the slow gaming period, it's the time of year where we decide
to post our opinions on which console is best. Fair enough. Now that
McDank's had his say, I feel it would be unthinkable if Netjak
didn't offer a counter-argument to show both sides of the coin.
(Someone feel free to post a GameCube vs. the World editorial next.)
While what McDank said about the XBox being a technically superior
console is true, it's also like the guys at the Nintendo Game Cube
press conference said, "What's the point of showing how many empty
polygons that aren't used in making a game you can put on the
screen?"
Why drive a Ferrari in downtown Tokyo when you won't go any faster than
15km/hr? It's nice to show off, but it's ultimately useless.
The question at the core of McDank's editorial was, "At this point one
might be inclined to ask oneself, 'How does supporting the PS2 hurt
the natural evolution of video games?'"
Answer: It doesn't.
First off, you can't use the term "natural evolution" to describe
anything about the console gaming market. Tons of things get added
as afterthoughts, and new consoles are ones that were developed and
built using hardware that was cutting-edge 6-12 months ago.
If you're looking for the "natural evolution" of video games, look to the
PC...everyone's working with the same platform, stuff they learn
doesn't become outdated as a new console ships, and they have to
code in a new style, and figure out how which processing unit
interacts with what. There's nothing natural about a major player
bowing out of the market and new ones jumping in all the time.
Furthermore, if we're speaking evolutionary here, the PS2 should be
providing the best games, because everyone knows the worst games
come out at launch. By years 3-5, programmers have figured out
tricks to make the best games that the console will see in its
lifespan. Lo and behold, this is the case, with the PS2 churning out
far more polished products than are currently found on the XBox. As
near as I can follow, this means we should be supporting the PS2, as
it is already in its golden stage, while the XBox is still waiting
to molt.
As far as all the add-ons and stuff go...I honestly don't care about
playing console games online. The same random craze is happening
here in Japan. Nobody sent digital photos through email before, but
now that they can do it with their phones, everyone LOVES sending
these cheesy little lo-res photos of wherever they are to their
friends like it's something new.
We've been playing games online on our PCs for years. They make games
more fun, and extend their lifespan. This is a BAD thing for console
makers. They want you to buy MORE games, not play games you love
more. The only games I see myself playing online on a console are
ones that keep big ranking databases online. For some reason PC
games don't seem to be willing to do this, and that's the only thing
that really interests me. Other than that, I'll take a mission of
Ghost Recon or any of its expansions online with Roger Wilco and
with 4 of my friends than a game of anything that's ever going to be
online on a console.
DVD...whatever. I don't use my PS2 as a DVD player. Sure, the XBox is a
progressive scan DVD player. But I stopped watching movies because I
needed my TV to play stuff like Suikoden III, not watch Shaolin
Soccer again. Plus, if you're really looking for a DVD player, get
an Apex. You can find a region-free model for under $75.
While McDank goes on to state, "Add to this a streamlined, gameplay
dedicated Operating System that allows the XBOX to effectively out-
perform a PC sporting twice the horsepower, there is no denying that
the PS2 is to the XBOX what the NES was to the Sega Genesis: old
news." this is not necessarily true.
Do you remember the jump from 8 to 16-bit? I made this argument when the
new round of console wars first started, and nobody really
noticed...we've already hit the upper bound on numbers of colors the
normal human eye can discern, (there are a handful of females who
see in tetra-chromatic color, and I don't think we've hit their
limit.) we've hit the limit on the number of frames per second the
eye can process.
The difference between 8 and 16 bit was night and day. Same with 16 and
32-bit. The difference between PS2 and XBox is like 11:45am and
noon. You can notice, but you honestly don't care most of the time,
and like McDank says, "Others go so far as to assume that the PS2
is actually technologically superior". It's THAT close
folks...the average person can't even tell which is the technically
superior system. So does all the technobabble REALLY matter? When
the day is over, nobody except for a small handful of people seem to
care.
In the comments section of his review, McDank says that basically he
demands the best gaming experience possible. Well, despite his
claim, I don't think he goes around upgrading his PC every time a
new CPU comes out to get a better gaming experience. While you can
argue that a game designed completely from the ground up would be
better looking, and smoother running on the XBox, I also take into
account that the programmers coding the PS2 games have inherited
tricks up their sleeves that would take the XBox version another 2-3
years to be developed just to be on par with the PS2 version.
It's the same reason John Stockton, Michael Jordan, Gary Payton still
hold their own in a league when players like Kobe Bryant, Tracy
McGrady, Darius Miles, and Kevin Garnett are quicker, jump higher,
are younger, and have more stamina than they do. When you've been in
the system for a while, you learn how to exploit it...to get it to
do what you want.
As a reviewer, and a value-oriented gamer, I want the best experience
possible, too. But, I'm not going to go tilting at windmills. I've
got Suikoden III and Dynasty Tactics for my PS2...am I going to sit
around longing for the day when they come to the Xbox? Nope. I'm
going to kick my feet up, grab a box of chocolate covered almonds,
load up my save, and continue pounding on Kingdom Hearts: Final Mix,
and Houshin Engi 2.
If console were around longer than 5 years, you could successfully make
McDank's claim...that the PS2's existence is bad for gaming in
general...but given that everyone learns how to optimally code for
the console right as another is being developed, McDank's theory can
never fully come to pass.
So have a hearty, guilt-free round of MGS2, GTA3:VC or whatever have you,
on yours truly, PS2 owners. Know that you are not to blame for
stunting the progress of console gaming...the console manufacturers
have you beat by oh-so-many-fold. Ply your gaming craft on whichever
console you own, and play the best game where it lies.
Unfortunately for XBox owners, that ain't on your console right now.
(Sorry, that just the facts. Although Panzer Dragoon Orta is pretty
darn fun.) But, given Microsoft's track record...XBox3 will be
something to look out for...maybe they'll have a trade-in deal for
their early supporters. |
