21 replies to this topic

[Foxy Cleopatra]

yes the biggest PS2 fanzine ALMOST admits that the XBox can do something better then their overtauted, precious PS2.
Issue 119 March 2003 pg. 70

GameInfromer said:

Splinter Cell Here Comes the Gun  
Most, if not all of you, know about Splinter Cell at this point. If you don't, you're reading the wrong magazine. The question on everyone's mind isn't whether or not Splinter Cell will be a good game on the PS2, but rather, will it look as good? The Xbox version has unbelievable visuals, and it's expected that the older and slower PS2 be able to keep up....it comes close, but that sharpness the Xbox version enjoys is noticeably missing. Muddy textures and blurry environments mask the PS2's weaker graphical capabilities, but the result is obvious to someone who has seen both. That's not to say that the PS2's version looks bad - it's still freaking incredible graphically- (umm if you are blind as a bat-Foxy)it's just different than the 'box.

So close and yet so far away. Until the end I thought they were actually going to admit that at least SC (if they will admit to no other) looks better on the Xbox than the PS2. Nope, it's just "different". Yea if "different" means better.
And once again they failed to mention the crappy control of PS2.
HA!

[Miqorz]

Who cares?

The ps2 IS OLDER and has worse graphics than the X Box but that just means the ps2 has WAY MORE good games than that low end microsoft PC piece of shit!!

Who cares if the graphics aren't ON PAR with the stupid X Box's? I Don't.

Does that make the X Box the better system? not by a LONG shot.

[CPUWIZ]

[MegaManFan]

Amen R. I personally think they're all equally good. To me this argument is like saying owning a Porsche is better than a Ferrari because it can go 0 to 60 in 2.8 seconds instead of 2.9. Who cares? Either way you still get there REALLY DAMN FAST.

[chrisbid]

i didnt read to many reviews, but i got a kick of them giving Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch for Sega CD a zero in their classic section

[Dracula-X]

And the point of this is...? to start yet another infantile console war?
I hope you're not trying to peddle the idea (especially on Atari forums where your typical Atari enthusiast remembers gameplay as being the most important factor, not graphics.) that better graphics (or hardware) make a better game? I don't think so. Chocolate covered dogshit is still dogshit, is it not?

Anyways, Eurogamer gives it a favorable review, and it holds it's own against the xbox, not that that even matters anyway. http://www.eurogamer...plintercell_ps2
It's a good game for all 3 platforms so everybody wins, right? Isn't that what counts?

[Starscream]

Quazick said:

Who cares?

The ps2 IS OLDER and has worse graphics than the X Box but that just means the ps2 has WAY MORE good games than that low end microsoft PC piece of shit!!

Who cares if the graphics aren't ON PAR with the stupid X Box's? I Don't.

Does that make the X Box the better system? not by a LONG shot.

Don't get your little panties in a ruffle Quazick - I think the point was Game Informer is very biased to the PS2 but the GC and XB never get much credit.

[Invader_dag]

Who cares what game informer thinks anyways?? they would give a GC game a bad reveiw just to turn people away from the system, and glorify every piece of crap on the PS2.

And no, graphics don`t matter to the majority of hardcore gamers. Gameplay is where the X-Box lacks, not graphics, but i don`t care about graphics if the gameplay sucks. So stop acting like you have a superior system cause the PS2 can`t match it graphically. Heck, a good PC blows ANY X-Box offering out of the water, and most of those are much better gameplay wise.

So if splinter cell maintains the same playibilty on the Playstation, then i really don`t care if the graphics are worse. Gameplay is where video games started, not graphics

[Starscream]

Invader_dag said:

Who cares what game informer thinks anyways?? they would give a GC game a bad reveiw just to turn people away from the system, and glorify every piece of crap on the PS2.

And no, graphics don`t matter to the majority of hardcore gamers. Gameplay is where the X-Box lacks, not graphics, but i don`t care about graphics if the gameplay sucks. So stop acting like you have a superior system cause the PS2 can`t match it graphically. Heck, a good PC blows ANY X-Box offering out of the water, and most of those are much better gameplay wise.

So if splinter cell maintains the same playibilty on the Playstation, then i really don`t care if the graphics are worse. Gameplay is where video games started, not graphics

Wow, no need to get your panties in a ruffle either. Funny, someone mentions anything about the Xbox on AA, and it never fails, the fanboys come rollin in............

[jetset]

Chocolate covered dogshit ?

[Dracula-X]

Quote

Chocolate covered dogshit ?

Euphemism for pretty graphics and no gameplay, if it didn't sink in. Or, did you want the recipe?

[jetset]

Please. I've never tried it.

[ubersaurus]

Invader_dag said:

Who cares what game informer thinks anyways?? they would give a GC game a bad reveiw just to turn people away from the system, and glorify every piece of crap on the PS2.

And no, graphics don`t matter to the majority of hardcore gamers. Gameplay is where the X-Box lacks, not graphics, but i don`t care about graphics if the gameplay sucks. So stop acting like you have a superior system cause the PS2 can`t match it graphically. Heck, a good PC blows ANY X-Box offering out of the water, and most of those are much better gameplay wise.

So if splinter cell maintains the same playibilty on the Playstation, then i really don`t care if the graphics are worse. Gameplay is where video games started, not graphics

So what you're saying is that Panzer Dragoon, Halo, Toejam & earl, Shenmue 2, CvS2 (online!), Mech Assault, Steel Battalion, Gunvalkrie, all suck? Lets not forget games that appear on other systems too, the Xbox version tends to look prettier, and when they play the exact same, you would award the superior game version to the one that looks nicer.

I'm getting tired of people comparing the Xbox, the cube, the PS2, whatever, to a low end PC. PC are not consoles. Consoles are not PCs. So to all who want to compare them, shut the hell up.

[Invader_dag]

I`m not a fanboy for anything, Sony, Nintendo, Sega, or Micro$oft. I just don`t like it when X-Box Fanpersons(have to be politcally correct here) talk about how great the Box is, and how everyone loves it. then when ever it gets made fun of, then they complain that it is always getting the shaft.

And i`m not saying the X-box has no good games either. Far from it. I`m saying that if you are all THAT concerned about graphics, stick with a PC, it can do allot more than any console, including X-Box.

I was also comparing, say Halo to Goldeneye when speaking of saying that graphics makes a game. Goldeneye MADE console FPS what they are today. That is the standard. But just cause Halo looks prettier, you all say it is superior.

[Brad2600]

As a PS2 owner, I usually choose whatever game interests me. I've sold many great games not long after buying them because I felt they lacked in gameplay or the concept went stale. I do regret selling MGS2 and MOH:Frontline but I will end up buying them again.

Anyway, as a moderator over at PlanetPS2(same name: Kepone), I see this console war stuff everyday. Whenever I choose to close a topic where fanboys are battling, I ALWAYS get a rude email accusing me of censorship. I'm merely trying to remind the fanboys that the forum is not for them to wage console wars. It's frustrating.

I like all 3 systems..XBOX, PS2 and Gamecube. I like PS2 more. The XBOX is ok in my opinion and I like Gamecube as well. I don't hate any of the systems. I just think the PS2 serves my needs better. I need games where there is more gameplay than shiny graphics.

I only have the Grand Theft Auto games...GTA3 and Vice City. I dunno. I guess they're the only ones that interest me anymore.

[Starscream]

Invader_dag said:

I`m not a fanboy for anything, Sony, Nintendo, Sega, or Micro$oft. I just don`t like it when X-Box Fanpersons(have to be politcally correct here) talk about how great the Box is, and how everyone loves it. then when ever it gets made fun of, then they complain that it is always getting the shaft.

And i`m not saying the X-box has no good games either. Far from it. I`m saying that if you are all THAT concerned about graphics, stick with a PC, it can do allot more than any console, including X-Box.

I was also comparing, say Halo to Goldeneye when speaking of saying that graphics makes a game. Goldeneye MADE console FPS what they are today. That is the standard. But just cause Halo looks prettier, you all say it is superior.

I have yet to see anyone here on AA say everybody loves the XBox - don't know where you got that from. And, I also never hear anyone complain the XBox gets the "shaft". What I always do see is someone wanting to start a war over anything that they don't like.

Now, I own all 3 current systems, so if graphics aren't important, then I should just sell my XBox version of Splinter Cell and pay the same $50 for the one with the shittier graphics as long as the gameplay is the same? I don't think so. I kinda like to get my moneys worth.

And finally, to say that anyone who loves Halo, loves it because it "looks prettier" is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

What tickles me is that this whole thread started to point out the bias of Game Informer.....

[Foxy Cleopatra]

Unfortunately my job and class tonight has kept me from putting an end to this "war" before it got started. Everyone (mostly) knows that I do not like the PS2 because I have had really bad gaming experiences, but the point of this was NOT to debate the whole I suck, you suck, we suck, rather to discuss this fanzine's bias. I wonder how big a kickback the fanzine is getting from Sony. It's a pretty popular periodical, and I can't stand the bad reviews they constanly give the Xbox nad GC games. And to refute their claim of non bias.
I have been reading GameInformer for well over a year, and have constantly been exposed to their bias for the PS2. They even answered a letter from a reader that asked them why they were so biased against the Xbox and GC, and said they weren't biased against either system, but you only have to read the magazine to see that just isn't true. another prime example of their bias came through when the discussed the online gaming potential of the systems, and how the Xbox's would do poorly because it was broadband only.
I wanted to point out how impossible it was for that magazine to admit that the Xbox version of SC was better graphically then the PS2. I know many people feel that graphics aren't the end all be all of gaming experience. Why else would we so enjoy the classic systems, but the point is... I was sitting there reading the review and looking at comparison pictures of the same scene from each game and the PS2 was clearly lacking, AND YET GameInformer says it's not bad just different.

[Brad2600]

To be honest, I feel that GameInformer is run by fanboys. Why? Because they assign goofy names to each other and as you said Foxy, they rarely mention any other system other than the PS2. I only read GI for the classic gaming part anyway.

I think there are too many PS2-biased gaming magazines. Though I own a PS2 myself and sometimes I think it's the shit, I still think that they could do the XBOX and Gamecube some justice and stop treating both consoles like crap.

If anyone wants to see what a shell PlanetPS2 has become, drop by anytime. It's proof that the PS2 is not as popular as anyone would think. In reality, PlanetXBOX and PlanetNintendo are far more busier.

I dunno. Just my 2 cents.

[chrisbid]

seeing how GI is a funcoland/gamestop vehicle, of course they are going to push the system that has the most sales. I enjoy the classic gaming section, that and they have a female editor...

[Invader_dag]

sorry about helping out in this argument.

anyways, I used to have a subscription to GI to get the discount for games i bought from funcoland. That was back in the summer of '98. They were extremely biased towards N64 and the dying Saturn. Most of the time, the only codes included were for PSX, which bug the heck out of me.

I didn`t renew my subscription after the 6 months or whatever ran out.
It's kinda sad that even EGM is starting to be somewhat biased aswell. They used to be great too. oh well.
Are there any reliable gaming magazines left anymore??

[Brad2600]

I had a 6 month subscription to GI as well. Unfortunately, I never renewed and I lost the goddamn card that gave you a 15% discount on used games..

I feel that today's gaming magazines are out of touch with gaming fans. They cater mostly to the corporate parents that publish them. If it sells, then they'll talk about it. They have no room for systems that don't sell. That should answer your question to as why they're biased towards the PS2. They need to make money..not make friends. That explains their actions.

It is my goal to be a publisher someday. I would love to start a magazine of my own.

A good example of a modern gaming forum that is not console biased at all and has a rapidly expanding group of mature gamers(such as myself) is at www.gamepaused.com There's even a Retro-Gaming section which was set up because of me because I would ask other games what their favorite retro games were and all. Check it out if you're looking for another forum to frequent.

Otherwise, I've done my part on this subject.

[future assassin]

I only own the Jaguar.