Xbox graphics Vs. PS2 graphics, which is better?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 19858
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 19858

Guest
Playing the same game on each console, are they the same or is one better than the other. Take for example Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance would they look the same or one better than the other.
 
Depends if it's been optimized per console, but it should run better on Xbox due to more power...
 
Thats what I'm thinking as well but I wonder if it would be anything noticeable. I am going to be buying a PS2 however I have never played it and have played Xbox. The graphics on the Xbox are quite nice obviously and want to know how the PS2 will compare.
 
The difference is pretty marginal, at the end of the day it's up to the developer though.
 
There are a few games that are noticeably better looking on the Xbox. NFSU is one of them.
 
xbox is just going to run better graphics in most games because it just has more powe than the ps2, its as simple as taht and you cant argue it...

-warsaw
 
warsawtag said:
xbox is just going to run better graphics in most games because it just has more powe than the ps2, its as simple as taht and you cant argue it...

-warsaw
Click to expand...

Heard of architecture?
 
Depends on the game and developer.

If the developer actually uses the full power for each system then the xbox will come out on top.

If the dev amkes the game for ps2 and ports it over to xbox, then it might look just a tad better, not much.

As far as games made exclusivley, xbox would win.
 
Seriously, after five minutes, you forget about the graphics and worry more about the game and the mechanics. Don't always judge a game by it's graphics. There are plenty of games that are so good, the graphics are secondary.
 
Theres tons of games that you can really, really notice the difference. Mafia, Rainbow Six 3, Max Payne 1-2, Splinter Cell. Anything that used a big amount of good textures, or anything that was ported from PC to Xbox then PS2 your gonna notice the PS2 one just cant hang with the textures.
Xbox:
max_screen002.jpg


PS2:
914909_20031114_screen001.jpg
 
Still the difference there isnt that bad, not to mention the fact that PS2 has way more games that I want.
 
People still think PS2 is good ? Wow.

The only thing good about that consol is the game selection. And most of those titles are being ported to GC and Xbox.
 
SnowPunk98 said:
Still the difference there isnt that bad, not to mention the fact that PS2 has way more games that I want.
Click to expand...

That picture was similar so I used it, but close up on the faces and such are worse, I think the difference is pretty bad, any textures that had, well any texture on them are just blurry mush on the PS2, im in no way knocking gameplay, I own the PS2 as well, but the same game running on the PS2 and the Xbox, the Xbox is pretty much always gonna give you the better graphics and smoother gameplay. If its exculsives you want, then yea, thats easy, just go with whatever console has the better exclusives for your taste.
 
theNoid said:
People still think PS2 is good ? Wow.

The only thing good about that consol is the game selection. And most of those titles are being ported to GC and Xbox.
Click to expand...

Yes, titles that are meant to be on multiple platforms. But as I've said before, no amount of whining or praying will get you Gran Turismo 4, Star Ocean 3, Xenosaga, Suikoden, and a bunch of others anywhere else.
 
How about

Project Gotham Racing 2, Fabel, Sudeki, Full Spectrum Warrior, B.C., Halo2, Chronicles of Riddick. Beotch.

Both systems are established enough now they have excellent games exclusive and multi-platformed. As for my arguement, the PS2 is late in the product cycle and the age of the hardware can't compete with Xbox or GC. Simply for longevity I would purchase an xbox.
 
The age of the hardware has little to no bearing at this point in time. The Xbox is not leaps and bounds over the PS2 or the Gamecube in terms of graphics or gameplay, so it's pointless to use such an argument.

The smart decision would be to buy the console that has the games you want. Period.

If you find yourself worrying about the longevity of your hardware, then you're in the wrong place. You ought to be at Newegg looking at AMD64 prices.
 
SnowPunk98 said:
Playing the same game on each console, are they the same or is one better than the other. Take for example Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance would they look the same or one better than the other.
Click to expand...

flamebait
:D
 
heatsinker said:
The age of the hardware has little to no bearing at this point in time. The Xbox is not leaps and bounds over the PS2 or the Gamecube in terms of graphics or gameplay, so it's pointless to use such an argument.

The smart decision would be to buy the console that has the games you want. Period.

If you find yourself worrying about the longevity of your hardware, then you're in the wrong place. You ought to be at Newegg looking at AMD64 prices.
Click to expand...

What sort of argument is that? you shouldn't worry about it because you shouldn't?

Longevity of hardware is a serious buying decision for any gamer or geek. I have enough money in my budget for tech to get the hardware I want but it is a constant balancing act of what is on the horizon and how long hardware will be usefull. The xbox is certainly leaps and bounds over the ps2 in hardware. I don't think anyone will deny or try to argue that the ps2 can produce the same level of graphic immersion the xbox can. You should buy based on the games you want to play, the games I want to play aparently need the xbox architecture.
 
You just answered your own question then.

It doesn't matter how old or outdated a console is, as long as there are developers supporting it. Just take a look at the Dreamcast; much more powerful than both the N64 and PS1 combined, yet only managed to get a tiny fraction of the market. Obviosly its 128-bit architecture didn't help there.

People turn to consoles because they are sick of BSODs and having to worry about constantly updating to the most expensive hardware available.

In short, longevity of hardware < longevity of quality support from developers
 
hehe time to jump in with my everlasting nintendo fanboyism

i think it goes Xbox>Cube>Ps2

although the best graphics in my opinion came from resident evil zero(frickin awesome game right there)
metroid prime also hands down was cooler than halo in single player, much longer and its deeper set in the roots of gamers from its ancestors

Ps2 has pretty cool games though, all my friends play socom2 online and i feel left out, but in the few short months when halflife2 and doom3 come out, i will fart in their general direction(monty python :D )

Ps2 hasnt really shown me its graphics power yet, but with an older age it must have older hardware
 
I don't doubt it has some seriously ancient hardware (RDRAM? What the hell is that?), but the developers are doing amazing things with what they have. Gran Turismo 3 (and the upcoming 4) can still hold its own against Sega GT 2004 and PGR.
 
This isn't really an argument of which system is best. It's a question of whether the PS2 or Xbox is capable of better graphics. The objective answer is that the Xbox is technically superior.
 
Even on straight ports, the Xbox a lot of time wins out because it has progressive scan in most games.
 
I've noticed that the textures on xbox games are far superior to ps2 games, therefore, IMO, making the xbox get my vote for better graphics.
 
Play Ninja Gaiden or The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay for Xbox, then play...well, anything for the PS2. You'll know which is better.

Gran Turismo 3 (and the upcoming 4) can still hold its own against Sega GT 2004 and PGR.
Click to expand...

Gran Turismo 3 was nowhere near PGR2 or Rallisport Challenge 2 (Or the originals of either, to be honest). It looked good, but there are a noticeable amount of aliasing problems.

**This is coming from a guy who put at least fifty hours into GT3: A-Spec. I love the game, but from a technical standpoint, the PS2 is nowhere near as strong (And nor should it be expected to, for it came out far earlier).
 
According to an interview with the Codemasters programmers their game Pro Race Driver can put 9 more cars per screen on the XBOX and have smoother graphics to boot. I'd rather have a fun game than something that looks good any day though.
 
True HR, but then again, we paid four/five times as much for our PC's as we did our consoles :eek:

I love 'em all, but games like Ninja Gaiden/Chronciles of Riddick do make you wonder how they're doing so much with the hardware they're using (The Xbox is using a modified Geforce 3...the results are damned impressive and epitomize the relevance of focused, single-platform development).

Now, factor in the knowledge that ATi, and not nVidia as with the original, will be in charge of the Xbox 2 video card and imagine the possibilities there.
 
OK I'll chime in as well.

Although Xbox is capable of displaying the best graphics of any console, it is the only console I do not own. I simply feel the Xbox is just too close to a PC in terms of funtionality (if you hack it). I have the PS2 for the vast game library, plus it is the only console that has Castlevania. :D

Gamecube simply has some of the best games for any console ever. Metroid Prime being one example. Sure GameCube does not have the game library or hardware power of Xbox but the unique "Only For Gamecube" games are well worth the $99 bucks to get the GC.

As far as the debate of if the Xbox can show better graphics than PS2. Of course Xbox can. PS2 is older technology. But the PS2 is a true console, and Xbox is a PC stuffed into a big ugly box. Then again, if you have an HDTV Xbox would be the way to go. :D
 
S0mE0nEsMiNd1 said:
I got a good one that pwns all...PC...PWNS...ALL. Screw damn consoles!
Click to expand...

wow thanks, so insightful.

The PS2's limited amount of texture RAM is really what hurts the system....Sony was just dumb in only putting in 4MB.
 
PerfectCr said:
OK I'll chime in as well.

Although Xbox is capable of displaying the best graphics of any console, it is the only console I do not own. I simply feel the Xbox is just too close to a PC in terms of funtionality (if you hack it). I have the PS2 for the vast game library, plus it is the only console that has Castlevania. :D

Gamecube simply has some of the best games for any console ever. Metroid Prime being one example. Sure GameCube does not have the game library or hardware power of Xbox but the unique "Only For Gamecube" games are well worth the $99 bucks to get the GC.

As far as the debate of if the Xbox can show better graphics than PS2. Of course Xbox can. PS2 is older technology. But the PS2 is a true console, and Xbox is a PC stuffed into a big ugly box. Then again, if you have an HDTV Xbox would be the way to go. :D
Click to expand...

bull shit.

Any console is a computer.

Tell me why having a HArd drive is a negative thing? IT HELPS DAMN GAMES, i don't see why someone would not like somethin simply because it has things that help developers and games.

I'd soooooooo much rather have a hard drive to hold all of my saves plus let the game cache bigger textures and such on the HD.
 
IMO MOST games that come out for both PS2 and Xbox look better on the Xbox... however as said before its really up to how the developer optimizes/tweaks the graphics
 
That's why it's no surprise that exclusives are slightly better than all the rest.
 
me <3 my xbox

my friend and i were actually playing prince of persia sands of time at the same time, sorta progressing along at the same time helping each other out. i was on my xbox and he on his ps2. i am a bit biased and think the xbox looks a bit better but in reality it's not that noticable.

and the xbox having a hd makes it easier to run linux on
 
Play Splinter Cell on Xbox and then play Splinter Cell on PS2.

You will see the difference.
 
I simply feel the Xbox is just too close to a PC in terms of funtionality (if you hack it).
Click to expand...

This doesn't really make sense. How is that a bad thing? Now people can pay $150 and get something that is almost as impressive as a $1200 PC can produce without any of the hassle that goes along with PC gaming.
 
WickedAngel said:
This doesn't really make sense. How is that a bad thing? Now people can pay $150 and get something that is almost as impressive as a $1200 PC can produce without any of the hassle that goes along with PC gaming.
Click to expand...

You assume my comment was meant negatively. It was not. What I mean is for people that do not have the latest and greatest PC, Xbox is great for the reasons you mention. I however DO have a great PC (see sig) so I do not need the Xbox. :)
 
WickedAngel said:
This doesn't really make sense. How is that a bad thing? Now people can pay $150 and get something that is almost as impressive as a $1200 PC can produce without any of the hassle that goes along with PC gaming.
Click to expand...

my rig ran me a total of $900, and it will spank the pants off of Xbox, you need to stress the word ALMOST there

and, there is no hassle of PC gaming, sure you have to install it, but we also get frequent patches for the games we play, usually get a no CD patch, and have better gameplay and better multiplayer options.

as for console, i have a gamecube which only can be LAN (from what i know) but its games still kick the ass of any "exclusively for (insert console)" titles not on the cube
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top