Can you see/hear any BIG difference between GC/PS2/Xbox/DC ?

[Zaxxon]

Back in the day there were huge graphical and sonic differences between the 2600/CV/Intv ports of the same game. Are you able to see any big differences between the GC/Xbox/Ps2 games or DC games? I never did a side by side a/b/c tests but they all seem so samey to me.

[Drexel923]

I've seen a bunch of head to head videos on IGN and you can tell the difference. The PS2 isn't as sharp as the others and the "jaggies" are usually glaring. The other thing which is different is the texture quality on each system. As far as sound, I think it depends on the game and what the developer decides to put in. I've seen some reviews where the xbox had 5.1 sound, the gamecube had dolby pro logic 2, and the PS2 had another kind (I can't remember). So I'm sure it sounds different with each version.

[zmweasel]

N/A

[can_dude]

I'm going to use soul caliber 2 (and one if you want to throw the Dreamcast in the bunch) as an example...great graphics game...now the differences I noticed were as follows...

On an analog, or s-video tv: GameCube and Xbox versions looked Identical, the PS2 version definitely had less detail, but not so much as to make a fuss, since the graphics were still great.

On an HDTV: XBOX mudered the other system with 720p support. No jaggies at all it seems, the GameCube versions 480p was still very impressive, but not as much as the XBOX. Now the PS2 in 480p looked the same as S-Video...not very good when matched up with the GC or XB HDTV...very sad.

Now this is just for jaggies and what not...as for polygons, the XBOX and GC had the same number of poly's but the PS2 had about 500-1000 less per character (really not that much out of several million.).

Man, seems like a PS2 bash, but this is just the honest observation in my part. Im interested to see if anyone can see a graphical difference btwn SC for DC and SC2 for PS2.

[zmweasel]

N/A

[davidbrit2]

With the advent of digital audio, there's really no way to compare the sound quality among game consoles anymore. As long as they don't have something generating noise on the circuit, it usually comes down to a comparison of the speakers and stereo receiver.

As far as graphics go, I use a 14" television with SVideo to play my PS2 and Gamecube, and I can say that the GC tends to hold a consistent frame rate much better, and doesn't stutter much at all with lots of stuff being rendered. I've only been able to make it drop frames in Metroid Prime and Viewtiful Joe.

[Anthony1]

I think it really comes down to whether or not you have a kick ass home theater. If you are playing your games on an average 27 inch TV, using composite or S-Video for your video signal, and the TV's crappy speakers for your audio, then the differences between all 4 of these systems isn't that great.


But, if you are playing these systems on a big HDTV in progressive scan mode, with a full on dolby digital 5.1 sound system, then you will notice a big difference between these systems.



Sega Dreamcast - The Dreamcast actually has a very good video signal. If you hook it up to a Computer monitor with the VGA cable, then the Dreamcast actually has a better visual quality than the mighty PS2. Jet Grind Radio in progressive scan on a PC monitor looks freaking amazing, to this day. From an audio standpoint for the Dreamcast, it's right there with the PS2. Neither system can do Dolby Digital 5.1 in game. And the Dreamcast's audio is about the same as the GameCube.

Sony Playstation 2 - The Playstation is acutally the weakest system of the 4, when just talking about video quality. There is only a small handlfull of progressive scan games for the PS2. In fact some of the early PS2 games that were also on Dreamcast, look superior on the Dreamcast when the DC is hooked up to a PC monitor with the VGA box. As for sound, the PS2 is definitely as good as the DC and Cube, but it definitley can't hang with the XBOX's on the fly Dolby Digital 5.1 decoding in game.

Nintendo GameCube - The Gamecube games that run in progressive scan mode, look sensational when hooked up to a HDTV that can display those signals. Not quite as good as NBA 2K3 on the XBOX is 720p High Definition mode, but pretty damn impressive. As for sound, if you have a Audio reciever that does Dolby Pro-Logic II, then the GameCube is pretty damn good from an audio standpoint. It's isn't as good as real deal Dolby Digital 5.1 in game, like the XBOX does, but it's still pretty damn good. Better than what the Dreamcast does, and maybe even slightly better than the PS2, when it's actually in the Dolby Pro Logic 2 mode.

Microsoft XBOX - You can hate Microsoft and the XBOX and Bill Gates all you want, but from an audio/visual standpoint, the XBOX is King. First off, virtually every single XBOX game is progressive scan. Virtually every XBOX game is Dolby Digital 5.1, and a vast majority of them use that 5.1 sound to it's fullest extent. Then you have the high definition factor. The XBOX has some games that are actually in High Definition. Like Enter the Matrix and Dragon's Lair 3D. Both games are in 1080i. And games like Tony Hawk 4 and NBA 2K3, look stunning in 720P. So when you add the High Definition visuals, along with the subwoofer shaking Dolby Digital 5.1, XBOX is where it's at, if you want the ultimate audio/video experience.

[Ed Oscuro]

I have no idea. It seemed to me that Phantasy Star Online, in its original Version 1 form, was rather graphically primitive. Version 2 completely blows it away...but I don't know for sure if it was on the Dreamcast in the form I see on my GameCube.

The XBOX certainly has better graphics than the rest. Morrowind, despite all its bugs, has really rather nice graphics with lots of polygons. They did mess up with their palettes a bit, but that doesn't have to affect other games.

Can't wait to see Ninja Gaiden.

[Sylentwulf]

It's not a PS2 bash, the hardware ISN'T as good as the box or cube (box, cube, and station, Ha! never noticed) and the graphics DO suffer. As far as sound goes, I don't see any difference between the 3, it depends WAY TOO MUCH on your speaker setup and the game itself. I've had PS2 games soudn a MILLION times better than an xbox game plenty of times.

The xbox DOES look much better than either of the other 2 systems, but IMO the game library is hurting, too many pc-type games. No Japanese-style games.

A lot of people say the dreamcast looks almost as good as the PS2, Personally I think these people are friggin NUTS. Just DC fanboys, and sony-haters. I suppose when you accidentilly buy a failed system instead of a best seller, it makes you bitter <shrug>

[Ed Oscuro]

(box, cube, and station, Ha! never noticed)

They're really just NeXT Cubes/Stations, in disguise. ;)

[Kid Ice]

A lot of people say the dreamcast looks almost as good as the PS2, Personally I think these people are friggin NUTS. Just DC fanboys, and sony-haters. I suppose when you accidentilly buy a failed system instead of a best seller, it makes you bitter <shrug>

I have to disagree here, as games that were released for both systems (Silent Scope and Crazy Taxi come quickly to mind here) look just about the same to me, and you'd think SC2 would look much better than the original considering the 4 years it took the sequel to show up.

Coming from someone who is not at all a Sony hater, when the DC was at its height I bought at least 2 new games per month; I've had the PS2 for a year now, and have 5 games to show for it (not to mention that I purchased the system a year after release)

[hydr0x]

you can clearyl see difference in graphics, especially sharpness and colors:

Ranges of Quality:

Gorgious(100)<------------------->PSOne(10)

Xbox 98<-------------------------------->60
GC 95<-------------------------------->60 (not counting charlies angels here :p)
PS2 87<-------------------------------->30
DC 85<------------------------------->8

[Oobgarm]

I agree 100% with Zach on this one.

Put all 4 systems on a level playing field, with standard RCA video and sound, and Casual Gamer will have a tough time telling the difference. I'll bet they can quickly pick out the PS2 one, though, as there are telltale graphical anomalies that pop up.

But to reference Zaxxon's original question, pertaining to the old 2600/CV games:

There are not differences like that anymore. All of the systems today are relatively close to each other in terms of performance.

A good example of the difference of the older games can be seen here:

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20540&highlight=

[pango]

i hate new games.

[christianscott27]

mm, i dont owm an xbox so i cant say much about it but i do own the other 3. i look at like this when a new generation of systems bumps the old out of the market i expect a graphics revolution to go with it. the genesis was miles better than the NES and the playstation way better than the genesis and the dreamcast was way better than the playstation...but what so far has been way better than the dreamcast? nothing, were still stuck in the 128 era. sometimes it seems like on the football games that graphics have maxed out but still theres room for improvment.

[HeadRusch]

I would like to...respectfully disagree...with the majority of posters that there are huge noticible differences between games that come out today cross-platform.

When you look at Donkey Kong on the 2600 versus Donkey Kong on the Colecovision, there is an example of a Huge difference in videogame graphics.

If you compare modern games....the differences are very rarely distinguishable to any great means. We've all become so accustomed to hollywood-quality graphics in our games, that to see a jagged line or a blurry texture suddenly becomes reason enough to write volumes of criticisim.

Its called "nit picking", and most videogame boards are clogged with people who are so wrapped up in this stuff that they really forget to enjoy the games.

They blow through an entire game in 2 sittings, then complain the game is too short, and start to slice-up every visual and audio flaw it has.

I've got a big HDTV....sadly it wont do 720p natively.....but I've seen the xbox running games at 720p...and to me, the visual difference isn't really that big of a deal. 480p looks fine to my eyes, but for the most part I run my games on a much smaller tube tv.....but wether a game suppots 5.1 sound or offers 1080i output, those things to me are completely inconsequential...

its the game that matters.......!!!

[Berserker]

I own both a GC and a DC, and to be honest, the only real difference I can see are so subtle, to me anyways. such as a few more polygons here and there maybe, maybe some flashier special effects, and DC is supposed to be the lowest of these modern consoles. so it seems like trying to distinguish between the Xbox GC and PS2 would be if anything something you'd have to really focus on to see the differences, and not something that would stick out at you like a neon sign while you're actually playing the game.

[Anthony1]

[quote="Berserker M"]I own both a GC and a DC, and to be honest, the only real difference I can see are so subtle, to me anyways. such as a few more polygons here and there maybe, maybe some flashier special effects, and DC is supposed to be the lowest of these modern consoles. so it seems like trying to distinguish between the Xbox GC and PS2 would be if anything something you'd have to really focus on to see the differences, and not something that would stick out at you like a neon sign while you're actually playing the game.[/quote


I think I would have to disagree, because to me the Playstation 2 has a "PS2 look to it". It's hard to describe, but the PS2 just has this look to it, that is really obvious to me. It seems like there are lots of jaggies, and that the colors are somewhat muted, and alot of pulsating going on in the backgrounds, and at the seams of polygons. Really, it's hard for me to explain with words, what the PS2 look is, but it definitely has it.

[ventrra]

I agree 100% with Zach on this one.

Put all 4 systems on a level playing field, with standard RCA video and sound, and Casual Gamer will have a tough time telling the difference. I'll bet they can quickly pick out the PS2 one, though, as there are telltale graphical anomalies that pop up.

But to reference Zaxxon's original question, pertaining to the old 2600/CV games:

There are not differences like that anymore. All of the systems today are relatively close to each other in terms of performance.

A good example of the difference of the older games can be seen here:

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20540&highlight=
This is phenomenon known as convergence. All computer related technologies will eventually be almost entirely indistinguishable from each other because all of the compainies making the hardware have the same goals.
In my opinion, there really isn't much difference among the current systems. The systems may be implimented somewhat differently, but there are only so many ways that you can render & play a game.

[Kid Ice]

I think I would have to disagree, because to me the Playstation 2 has a "PS2 look to it". It's hard to describe, but the PS2 just has this look to it, that is really obvious to me. It seems like there are lots of jaggies, and that the colors are somewhat muted, and alot of pulsating going on in the backgrounds, and at the seams of polygons. Really, it's hard for me to explain with words, what the PS2 look is, but it definitely has it.

Yeah, I agree with you. PS2 games just look kind of "weird" to me. I've noticed all the things you mentioned above in GTAVC and Wipeout Fusion.

[Sylentwulf]

I have to disagree here, as games that were released for both systems (Silent Scope and Crazy Taxi come quickly to mind here) look just about the same to me, and you'd think SC2 would look much better than the original considering the 4 years it took the sequel to show up.

Coming from someone who is not at all a Sony hater, when the DC was at its height I bought at least 2 new games per month; I've had the PS2 for a year now, and have 5 games to show for it (not to mention that I purchased the system a year after release)

This is where the word PORT comes into play. A game designed and released for the dreamcast, then ported over to the PS2, will, indeed, most likely look and play the same or WORSE on the PS2. Just Like Skies of arcadia on the gamecube sounds like CRAP doesn't mean the GC is inferior.

[Berserker]

I think I would have to disagree, because to me the Playstation 2 has a "PS2 look to it". It's hard to describe, but the PS2 just has this look to it, that is really obvious to me. It seems like there are lots of jaggies, and that the colors are somewhat muted, and alot of pulsating going on in the backgrounds, and at the seams of polygons. Really, it's hard for me to explain with words, what the PS2 look is, but it definitely has it.

Fair enough, as I said I don't own a PS2, so I wouldn't have any real experience about the "PS2 look". just going off of what I know owning a DC and GC. and as far as I can tell they have no real GC or DC "looks", except good that is ;)

[Kid Ice]

I have to disagree here, as games that were released for both systems (Silent Scope and Crazy Taxi come quickly to mind here) look just about the same to me, and you'd think SC2 would look much better than the original considering the 4 years it took the sequel to show up.

Coming from someone who is not at all a Sony hater, when the DC was at its height I bought at least 2 new games per month; I've had the PS2 for a year now, and have 5 games to show for it (not to mention that I purchased the system a year after release)

This is where the word PORT comes into play. A game designed and released for the dreamcast, then ported over to the PS2, will, indeed, most likely look and play the same or WORSE on the PS2. Just Like Skies of arcadia on the gamecube sounds like CRAP doesn't mean the GC is inferior.

OK, Crazy Taxi was a DC port (I guess), but if the PS2 was so superior, would it not have been optimized in the fashion that THPS and Spiderman were when they went from PS1 to DC?

Silent Scope was a DC port??

[ManekiNeko]

It's not what WAS released on the Dreamcast that matters, but what wasn't. I kind of doubt that Grand Theft Auto III or its sequel could have been done to full capacity on the Dreamcast. Same goes with State of Emergency, as crappy as that game was. There were just too many characters running around for the Dreamcast to handle without slowdown.
Having said that, one of the PS2's more graphically impressive games, Maximo, was originally in development on the Dreamcast.

JR

[Captain Wrong]

If a game is intended for a multi-platform release (PS2, Xbox, and GCN), the developer of the game usually creates a 3D engine that can be easily ported, which means it doesn't have any features beyond what the lowest-common-denominator platform, the PS2, can handle. There may be slight tweaks to the Xbox and GCN versions -- 60 frames per second instead of 30 is a semi-common upgrade -- but they're generally very close to the PS2 version. There are no big differences because it's quite literally the same program code, artwork, etc. on all three consoles.


Might I throw something in here along these lines? It's hard to really compair the DreamCast to the other three in this aspect as when the DC was out a lot of games were being ported from the PSX or N64. It might be more fair if one of the DCs best looking games was avaliable on the 3 modern contenders, but really there isn't anything that appeared on all 4 platforms, is there?

And you might think I'm a friggin nutty Sega fanboy, but I still say the DC has got it over the PS2 in the graphics departement. :P

[zmweasel]

N/A

[ManekiNeko]

I don't think it's a stretch to say (not citing any official stats, since tech specs can be spun any which way -- just eyeballin' it) that the difference in graphic horsepower between the PS1 and DC is larger than the difference between the DC and PS2. Thus, a game ported from PS1 to DC will have more noticeably improved visuals than a game ported from DC to PS2.

-- Z.

I think that's what's called the law of diminishing returns. The more powerful game systems become, the fewer differences you'll notice between one system and its competitors. It's like comparing the speed of a 133MHz Pentium to a 333MHz Pentium... then comparing a 1.0GHz computer to a 1.2GHz system. There's a speed difference of 200MHz between these two sets of machines, but it's a lot more likely to be noticed when you upgrade from the 133MHz computer to the 333MHz computer.

JR

[zmweasel]

N/A

[Nature Boy]

Back then, you connected your system to your TV using a TV/Game switchbox, and that was that. Today, you can hook up each system in *many* different ways. Cable/Composite/S-Video/Compnent for the video. Cable/Composite/Digital for the audio.

Do you want to get into a discussion about which system offers the best connection options and looks the best? or would you rather compare the same basic, standard setup and go from there?

Personally, all that matters to me is how each system looks when I play it. I don't have the luxury of an S-Video setup (yet - coming *very* soon). Component connections for the four recent systems would be *impossible*. So would digital audio. I just don't have a receiver that can handle *that* many digital inputs (I've also got a Satellite Receiver and a DVD player connected on the same unit).

To me, in general, they're all pretty much the same. I buy a game available on all systems based on memory issues, controller, and/or general tastes. Graphically they're close enough for me.

HOWEVER: I *did* notice a *huge* difference in Splinter Cell. I only had the demo PS2 version to compare to the full Xbox version, but that one level was *definitely* different. It was *much* more clausterphobic and the PS2 didn't handle the lighting effects nearly as well (which is important for that game). If MS were advertising in the Intv mold of 'compare this to this', it would be a perfect game to use.

[Hypnotuba]

I have a DC, Xbox, and GC (although we'll leave the Cube out because I just got one and can't get a full appreciation of it's capabilities yet). They are all hooked to my 14" TV via s-video, as are my PlayStation, N64, and Saturn.

The Xbox is clearly superior to the DC. Games like World Racing, Rallisport, Halo, etc. would never look that good on the DC. In its way, the Xbox is to the DC what the DC is to the PlayStation.

But the DC still looks quite fine to me. Sonic Adventure 2 looks great with some great textures. . .Rez will always look good. In fact, I prefer the look (and gameplay. . . :) ) of Jet Grind Radio to Jet Set Radio Future.

In the console world, before the Dreamcast, 3D was. . .this really isn't the best term, but it was defective. Whether it was low-res textures warping and seams galore and just generally looking like at any point the screen was going to rip it self apart (OK, I'm exaggerating) on the PSone, or the blurriness of the N64, the 3D was tough to take sometimes, and doesn't hold up well.

The Dreamcast took care of most of the problems (except for some jaggies). Also, most of the games on the DC are at 4 times the resolution of games on the PSone and N64 (640x480 vs. 320x240. . .not sure if that's exact, but its close), which is a huge difference.

On a standard TV, the Xbox doesn't put out any higher resolution than the Dreamcast, so there isn't that huge leap. Also, there aren't really any graphical defects than need to be corrected, except jaggies, which still appear in Xbox games.

You know, my thoughts are clear and concise in my head, but never come out that way in print. Anyway. . .

The Xbox of course puts out more polygons, generally has better textures, things like bump-mapping, etc. But even though it's clearly better than the Dreamcast, for me anyway, there isn't that "Whoa. . ." factor that you get when you go from Dreamcast to PlayStation.

So what's my point? Its that 2D is timeless and way better than 3D. No. . .I guess it's that for most of us on regular TVs, since there's no improvement in resolution, and jaggies are still there, the advantages the Xbox has over the DC don't come through as well as the DC vs. PSone.

Heck, all the Dreamcast had to do to beat the PlayStation was put out a stable image that didn't look like it was going to shake itself to death (OK, sorry again about the exaggerating, I like my PS).

I wonder what differences we'll see when the next generation of consoles come out, and many of us are still using our ol' standard analog TVs?

Of course, I'm just restating what others have already said. If I've made any mistakes, please let me know.

Well, that post stank. Sorry. :D