1:21 - absent textures on battlecruisers on PS2 1:32 - absent shadows and images on electronic board on PS2 2:09 - Control panel on Xbox with lighting, PS2 - absent this effect 3:00 - glass has stripes on XBox 7:16 - loading time A lot of differences. Xbox is absolutely winner
*Xbox advantages* - Textures: Much higher resolution textures; higher color depth for textures which means no color banding artifacts like on PS2; use of environment mapping on character/object/weapon/environment textures (the shiny ”reflections” that are missing on PS2); from what I can make out from footage of the Xbox version it uses normal mapping/DOT3 bump mapping and detail texturing on environment textures (can’t tell if the window textures are normal maps or detail textures) but not characters/objects - in a fashion similar to Halo: Combat Evolved - but as I have yet to play Mace Griffin myself (definitely planning on doing that now, though) I’m not 100% sure if this only applies to static/environmental geometry. - Rendering: Bloom lighting is used in abundance for almost every light source, which seems to have been (almost?) completely axed on PS2; dynamic lights emitting from weapon fire/spark emissions are missing on PS2, as only fixed/baked/static light sources are visible there; the dynamic multi-directional shadows cast from characters, possibly done using the nVidia-specific shadow buffers technique to generate real-time shadow mapping, are also not on PS2; weapon viewmodels are either rendered and shaded using many more polygons than the PS2 counterparts or possibly normal (and specular?) mapped which gives the illusion of there being more polygons on the viewmodels. Will have to investigate this myself at some point. *Conclusion* While the PS2 is capable of generating most of the effects used on the Xbox version of Mace Griffin as seen in other PS2 games (detail textures in Area 51, bump/normal mapping in Malice/Hitman: Blood Money/The Matrix: Path of Neo, complex multi-directional real-time shadow mapping as seen in all IO Interactive games etc.), this is a LOT harder to accomplish - especially using multiple of these effects - given that you need to make the most use of both VUs on PS2 to make it happen at all, not to mention having to use a specific flavor of assembler language to program the VUs for use of the more complex effects (bump mapping). Even assuming that the PS2 can have a game with all of Mace Griffin’s Xbox effects in place with a good performance you would be VRAM starving like crazy, which would require constant data streaming from a hard drive to overcome if you want it to look comparable, but the framebuffer size would still have to suffer in the end. Don’t get me wrong, the PS2 IS a capable console for late ‘99/early 2000s hardware but the main issues (f*ckall VRAM for both textures and resolutions/color depth, proprietary low-level programming of TWO vector processors required to get desired effects, no API support for complex effects etc.) is ultimately why the PS2 cannot compare to Xbox on a hardware or easy-of-programming level. Keep in mind that I’m an owner of multiple consoles, including the original Xbox and PS2 (both modded to stream games from hard drives), and so this is being said with as much sincerity as possible. If you read through all of this then I thank you for your time! I’m no tech expert or programmer, but I like trying to understand the inner workings of software as best as I can.
Also note that the Xbox version is running in 60fps compared to PS2's 30 fps along with Xbox's much faster load times. But yeah I agree with everything you said overall.
@@masterlee1988 Wow, hey, I forgot that I had written this short novel years ago LOL. Thanks for reminding me. Yeah, I did play Mace Griffin on Xbox not too long after I wrote this comment and was struck by the smooth frame-rate and *very extensive* use of DOT3 bump/normal mapping on almost every surface. Really cool stuff!
Xbox Original was ultimate console for its time. Better textures, lighting, shadows, normal mapping implemented on the parts of the shell, faster loading. It is like Xone X for current-gen consoles.
Xbox more definition, less pixels, more shadows and lights effects, plus reflects, textures, audio and speed to charge into chapters if loading from hard drive, like always Xbox wins.
Unfortunately many Gamcube ports were inferior even to the PS2 version. The Gamecube simply didn't get the same attention as the two other systems for 3rd party titles.
I don't think so, Halo has some very open areas with lots of enemies and effects in battles. This uses a lot of ram, the xbox has 64meg whereas the ps2 only has 32. I'm not saying there couldn't have been some kind of approximation but it wouldn't have looked or played anywhere near as well as the xbox. The reason Mace Griffin looks very similar is that 99% of third party games were developed on ps2 and then a few bells and whistles added to the xbox version. This gives the false impression that the ps2 was nearly on par with the xbox.
It's not wrong. The thing is, PAL versions of games and systems have differences compared to the Japanese versions, and Japanese versions are different compared to the US. Different features, content, performances. ^^
The differences are so mundane and subtle in my opinion but its mainly all about the controllers and how they feel. Try playing DarkWatch or max Payne 2 on PS2 and Xbox or gta 4 on 360 and PS3 and get back to me. The textures and resolution are totally different in those games compared to this and other games
Uh, there are a lot of notable differences between the Xbox and PS2 versions of Mace Griffin. Xbox version runs in 60fps, has much faster load times, better textures, lighting, shadows, bloom, etc. PS2 version runs in 30fps, load times are way longer, worse overall graphics and is missing shadows during gameplay!
@@masterlee1988 it's hard to tell I guess based off the video cause the games I listed are way more obvious. Psi Ops and The suffering: ties that bind on PS2 and Xbox are other great examples
@@Salamander676 Yes, that is true about Splinter Cell Chaos Theory as that's one of the biggest ones(maybe the biggest one overall) for differences between Xbox and PS2 versions. However Mace Griffin is up there too. I can tell the differences in this vid alone. PS2 version is missing various graphical effects(and lowered the graphical detail overall), loads way too long and runs at 30fps which are huge and makes me want the Xbox version more since it does graphics, load times and fps better.
I have this on Xbox and finished it back in the day but I never have my Xbox out because it's just huge and ugly system. Tempted to buy the PS2 version, despite the graphics difference. It's a shame we never got an Xbox slim model. This game didn't get 360 support I don't think either.
How?! The textures look like garbage, there's no bloom effects, so much more aliasing. In terms of graphics, there's no way PS2 wins. You must be blind.
1:21 - absent textures on battlecruisers on PS2
1:32 - absent shadows and images on electronic board on PS2
2:09 - Control panel on Xbox with lighting, PS2 - absent this effect
3:00 - glass has stripes on XBox
7:16 - loading time
A lot of differences. Xbox is absolutely winner
*Xbox advantages*
- Textures: Much higher resolution textures; higher color depth for textures which means no color banding artifacts like on PS2; use of environment mapping on character/object/weapon/environment textures (the shiny ”reflections” that are missing on PS2); from what I can make out from footage of the Xbox version it uses normal mapping/DOT3 bump mapping and detail texturing on environment textures (can’t tell if the window textures are normal maps or detail textures) but not characters/objects - in a fashion similar to Halo: Combat Evolved - but as I have yet to play Mace Griffin myself (definitely planning on doing that now, though) I’m not 100% sure if this only applies to static/environmental geometry.
- Rendering: Bloom lighting is used in abundance for almost every light source, which seems to have been (almost?) completely axed on PS2; dynamic lights emitting from weapon fire/spark emissions are missing on PS2, as only fixed/baked/static light sources are visible there; the dynamic multi-directional shadows cast from characters, possibly done using the nVidia-specific shadow buffers technique to generate real-time shadow mapping, are also not on PS2; weapon viewmodels are either rendered and shaded using many more polygons than the PS2 counterparts or possibly normal (and specular?) mapped which gives the illusion of there being more polygons on the viewmodels. Will have to investigate this myself at some point.
*Conclusion*
While the PS2 is capable of generating most of the effects used on the Xbox version of Mace Griffin as seen in other PS2 games (detail textures in Area 51, bump/normal mapping in Malice/Hitman: Blood Money/The Matrix: Path of Neo, complex multi-directional real-time shadow mapping as seen in all IO Interactive games etc.), this is a LOT harder to accomplish - especially using multiple of these effects - given that you need to make the most use of both VUs on PS2 to make it happen at all, not to mention having to use a specific flavor of assembler language to program the VUs for use of the more complex effects (bump mapping). Even assuming that the PS2 can have a game with all of Mace Griffin’s Xbox effects in place with a good performance you would be VRAM starving like crazy, which would require constant data streaming from a hard drive to overcome if you want it to look comparable, but the framebuffer size would still have to suffer in the end. Don’t get me wrong, the PS2 IS a capable console for late ‘99/early 2000s hardware but the main issues (f*ckall VRAM for both textures and resolutions/color depth, proprietary low-level programming of TWO vector processors required to get desired effects, no API support for complex effects etc.) is ultimately why the PS2 cannot compare to Xbox on a hardware or easy-of-programming level.
Keep in mind that I’m an owner of multiple consoles, including the original Xbox and PS2 (both modded to stream games from hard drives), and so this is being said with as much sincerity as possible. If you read through all of this then I thank you for your time! I’m no tech expert or programmer, but I like trying to understand the inner workings of software as best as I can.
Also note that the Xbox version is running in 60fps compared to PS2's 30 fps along with Xbox's much faster load times. But yeah I agree with everything you said overall.
@@masterlee1988 Wow, hey, I forgot that I had written this short novel years ago LOL. Thanks for reminding me. Yeah, I did play Mace Griffin on Xbox not too long after I wrote this comment and was struck by the smooth frame-rate and *very extensive* use of DOT3 bump/normal mapping on almost every surface. Really cool stuff!
@@Banzeken Nice. But yeah I still need to get this game as well.
Xbox Original was ultimate console for its time. Better textures, lighting, shadows, normal mapping implemented on the parts of the shell, faster loading. It is like Xone X for current-gen consoles.
Xbox more definition, less pixels, more shadows and lights effects, plus reflects, textures, audio and speed to charge into chapters if loading from hard drive, like always Xbox wins.
...and with all that Xbox version has butter smooth animation compared to PS2.
Man I miss that game
I wanted on the Xbox. because it has better sound, frame rate, Clean cut graphics, and load times.
finally new video after five months. ps2 don't even have shadows.
Yeah, it took me a while. But for now on, there will be videos more often. :)
xbox wins,has more effect,lighting,textures in some parts.
Xbox will always win. PS2 has to be very lucky to win.
I wonder how far into development the GameCube port was. Too bad that never arrived.
Unfortunately many Gamcube ports were inferior even to the PS2 version. The Gamecube simply didn't get the same attention as the two other systems for 3rd party titles.
Makes me wonder if Halo could've been on the PS2. I played it. It feels like Halo. Plus you can go from FPS to Space flight seemlessly no load time.
I don't think so, Halo has some very open areas with lots of enemies and effects in battles. This uses a lot of ram, the xbox has 64meg whereas the ps2 only has 32. I'm not saying there couldn't have been some kind of approximation but it wouldn't have looked or played anywhere near as well as the xbox.
The reason Mace Griffin looks very similar is that 99% of third party games were developed on ps2 and then a few bells and whistles added to the xbox version. This gives the false impression that the ps2 was nearly on par with the xbox.
You showed the PAL versions....?
SaviorAssassin1996 Yes. It reads in the video’s desceiption.
I know, what I mean is that why did you show the PAL versions.
SaviorAssassin1996 Well why not? I live in Finland and I have PAL games so why not.
It's not wrong. The thing is, PAL versions of games and systems have differences compared to the Japanese versions, and Japanese versions are different compared to the US. Different features, content, performances. ^^
The differences are so mundane and subtle in my opinion but its mainly all about the controllers and how they feel.
Try playing DarkWatch or max Payne 2 on PS2 and Xbox or gta 4 on 360 and PS3 and get back to me. The textures and resolution are totally different in those games compared to this and other games
Uh, there are a lot of notable differences between the Xbox and PS2 versions of Mace Griffin. Xbox version runs in 60fps, has much faster load times, better textures, lighting, shadows, bloom, etc. PS2 version runs in 30fps, load times are way longer, worse overall graphics and is missing shadows during gameplay!
@@masterlee1988 it's hard to tell I guess based off the video cause the games I listed are way more obvious. Psi Ops and The suffering: ties that bind on PS2 and Xbox are other great examples
@@masterlee1988 the differences on PS2 and Xbox for splinter cell chaos theory are insane!
@@Salamander676 Yes, that is true about Splinter Cell Chaos Theory as that's one of the biggest ones(maybe the biggest one overall) for differences between Xbox and PS2 versions. However Mace Griffin is up there too. I can tell the differences in this vid alone. PS2 version is missing various graphical effects(and lowered the graphical detail overall), loads way too long and runs at 30fps which are huge and makes me want the Xbox version more since it does graphics, load times and fps better.
I have this on Xbox and finished it back in the day but I never have my Xbox out because it's just huge and ugly system. Tempted to buy the PS2 version, despite the graphics difference. It's a shame we never got an Xbox slim model. This game didn't get 360 support I don't think either.
The ps2 version💀💀
and PC?
I would have included the PC version if it was only possible to buy the game from Steam or Good old games.
Ps2 version look like a beta.
Ps2 is better ❤️
ps2 wins
doesn't even have shadows...
Yurgen Véliz No he's right PS2 wins.
How?! The textures look like garbage, there's no bloom effects, so much more aliasing. In terms of graphics, there's no way PS2 wins. You must be blind.
As always, PS Making games look like crap.
Bro Xbox came 3 years after PS2, today PS are smoking on the Xbox