Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Boomer
This argument kinda reminds me of Windows PCs vs. Macs involving RISC and CISC processors. Macs use RISC processors that don't use as many commands as CISC processors, but does the commands it knows how to do well. I'm guessing that is why Macs are so good at video and sound editing. CISC, however, uses so many more complex commands. While this allows them to do more, they don't do it as efficiently as RISC processors.
Its all preference really. I can see the argument going both ways easily.
|
That'd be great for comparison if they were like PC vs Msc, where one was specialised for certain tasks. The Gamecube keeps up with or surpasses the PS2's capacities with ineferior hardware on almost every level. It's not an issue of preference: The Ps2 is the worst of the three major systems in terms of graphics and power and the like, where XBox is the forerunner in terms of capacity. I won't pretend for a moment that the efficiency of the GCN is a match for the XBox's hardware.
NOw they PS2 is superior in terms of library, where it really counts. Sony blows the other two out of the water there. Not that the Gamecube and XBox don't have good titles (If I didn't like GC titles, I woudln't own one). Just that Sony is better for a large number of game titles that will appeal to the masses.
In terms of graphics, or the processing power though, when you come down to cold elements, it's not a competition because both systems are doing the same thing: Running games. Macs were optimised initially for games, which is why they are more prone to music and video programs. Optimised is a bit strong a word there, but adjectives are failing me. PCs were designed for something different. On the other hand, all three gaming systems are GAMING SYSTEMS. I'm not buying the PS2 to toast bread, I'm buying it to give me a game to play (Hopefully several). The system has better tech specs, but worse output.
The only place preference in this matter comes down is in the types of games you play, and that's probably going to still be the major factor within the next gen system "wars." It's worth noting that increase in power doesn't always mean you're doing something productive. People need to work to make games that pander to that hardware, assuming it's possible. The original PS was a good example, as neither it or the 64 used all their potential, because it really wasn't feasible at the time. 30 times or 15 times or whatever times more powerful sounds great on paper, but if it doesn't change your gaming experience, what the fuck's the point?