Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tspikes51
You forget that there was an 7 or 8 year gap between the two systems. We're talking about about half of that. There haven't been that many breakthroughs in computer hardware since then. Refer to this handy chart for a comparison:
This chart isn't completely accurate (I probably didn't even get the release years right) but it's pretty damn close. By analyzing the chart (which is of course made of consumer-ready parts) we can see an increase of 6 times the processor power, 4 times the graphics power, 16 times the RAM capacity, and the addition of a DVD-ROM drive between 1994 and 2001 (There may have been 128 MB GPUs at PS2s release date). Between 2001 and now the increases are as follows: 3.5x CPU, 4x GPU, 4x RAM, 3.25x DVD-ROM. I'm not even counting in vital stuff like GPU speed, FSB speed, RAM transfer speed, processor cache size, and improvemens in overall component performance.
So, I think it's pretty safe to say that technology developed much more between PS1 and PS2 than Xbox and 360. Hardware performance will only increase slightly (about the difference between Xbox and PS2, which, based on sales, people don't care much about), so game makers can't rely as heavily on hardware to make games look better. They will have to invent new software abilities (think of bump mapping, real mode, normal mapping, and the like) to enhance graphics. I think gamers care more about a strong games library than anything else (think PS2 vs. Xbox). If Microsoft can promote their big franchises/exclusives (Halo, Forza, Elder Scrolls, Splinter Cell, Project Gotham, Unreal, Perfect Dark, Ninja Gaiden) and maybe grab some good new licenses (aquiring Sega licenses comes to mind) they can beat out Playstation. |
There's a massive jump from XBox to XBox 360. The XBox had a 700 MHz processor. The XBox 360 has a tri-core processor with each core running at 3.2 GHz each. That's over 10,000 MHz compared to 700 MHz. The 360 has 512 MB of RAM while the XBox has 64 MB of RAM.
No matter which way you look at it, the 360 is a huge leap over the XBox. The XBox 360 has almost 10 times the power of the XBox. I think a graphical improvement on par with PS1 to PS2 should be in order. I'm not the only one that has the same opinion on this...many editorial magazines/websites are complaining about the lackluster XBox 360 graphics as well, especially those that attended E3. I've seen every single XBox 360 video released as of now and only 5 games look better than an XBox game.
Remember: I'm not arguing that graphics are essential for a game to be good, but a next-gen system should have next-gen graphics, and the 360 doesn't. And there was only a 4-5 year gap in between the PS1 and PS2.
Next-gen means next-generation, not "current generation with 5% better graphics." If Microsoft can't squeeze better graphics out of a next-gen system then they should wait until they can, else be maimed by millions of gamers disappointed to see their XBox having just as good graphics as their new 360.
Why do people buy next-gen systems? Because they offer better sound, better gameplay, more games, and better graphics. Right now the 360 doesn't have better sound, doesn't have better gameplay, and doesn't have better graphics. And more games can be found on XBox...so why buy it? I might be sounding like a Microsoft hater, but I'm not. I love my XBox and like how well the system as faired. I'm just worried about the 360 not living up to a next-gen system's expectations.
-Lasereth