Originally Posted by JGordon
People always seem to forget that the PS2 beat the XBox to market by more than a year. Of course it's graphics are worse than the Xbox. Compare any top-of-the-line PC from today to one from a year ago, and it will be the same story. I remember when the PS2 came out, I was amazed by the graphics. Then a year later, the Xbox came out. And while the graphics were better than the PS2's, they didn't have the same "amazing" quality that the PS2 did initially.
While I agree that the better Xbox graphics are a good reason to buy the Xbox over the PS2
now, talking about them as "lagging" is incorrect. They were actually an industry leader, and the Xbox was playing catchup from the get-go, and had to have better graphics due to its later release date and limited game selection (initially), or it would have flopped.
That being said. I don't own a console.
h: That's what I have a PC for, which owns any console in terms of graphics/sound/# of games/playability, etc.
Well, it depends on what you wanted to do with the system. If you compare early DC games to early PS2 games, and look out how much sooner the DC arrived than the PS2 did, you'd be amazed (Hell, every DC game could be played in Progressive scan and hooked up to a VGA monitor no prob). What sold the PS2 was the ability to play PS1 games and be a home DVD player, while having very good graphics. The PS2 has had a checkered history, and it's a good console, but it's taken years until games have come out to really push the system (GTA:SA, MGS3, Killzone, GT4, etc...). The PS2 was a very complex console to program for, and it basically had none of the attributes that we should expect (effective built in AA, standard 480p and 16x9, blah blah...) and expected the developers to determine what they needed in the game. If Sony can learn from these mistakes, the PS3 will be a runaway hit... it's just a question of seeing what will happen...