SONY or MS: Which one is likely to architect the most powerful console next gen?

  • 162 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for nameless12345
nameless12345

15125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#151 nameless12345
Member since 2010 • 15125 Posts

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="StryderK"]

Umm...No just no on that.

SNES had WAAAYYYYY more power than the Genesis ever will. "Blast processing" was just some ad hoc hokum came up by Sega to slam Nintendo. Especailly near the end of the gen, SNES games supassed any games on the Genesis. Take Mortal Kombat 2 for example, MK 2 on the SNES was almost a perfect arcade translation. The graphics was weaker for sure but it wasn't that much. The sound especially was almost a perfect arcade port. The only exception of course, it's in MIDI. But other than that. Playing MK2 on the SNES at home almost felt like going to the arcade...MK 2 Genesis...The lesser said about that one the better. Genesis just can't handle it, especially sound wise, was a FARKING TO HELL MESS! The skull moutain stage was a black and red mess, sound basically consists of "bee beep be bop to wa wa poop!".....One session with it I was about to puke. It was that bad. Power wise, it was Genesis lack of power that eventually led Sega to go down the "Shoot myself in the foot" road of 32X and Sega CD in order to tie things over till Saturn. And we all Knew how that went!

And same with NGC. NGC had more RAM, had a better GPU and was easier to develop for. As this gen proved, CPU power matters little to a console. GPU, RAM and ease of development matters way more. The only problem was NGC had that funky mini DVD's and Nintendo grip on royalty rights, which peed 3rd party to no end. But still, compare PS2, NGC and Xbox version of Soul Calibur 2. the best version is the Xbox version (the colors, pallate and SFX was by the best on that console), the PS2 was the worst (missing quite a few SFX, jaggies at the edges, and less color, thus, less vibratent). NGC was in between. But still, it was so close to the Xbox version, you can't really tell the difference unless you know exactly what to look for. And that was how it went. RE4 would another great example. RE 4 looked almost like an Xbox game on the NGC. On the PS2, it suffered heavily from Jaggies, framerate, texture tears etc. It's not the same compared to the NGC version.

StryderK

Genesis had a better CPU and that's a fact.

SNES had a better graphics chip (two of them actually) and a better sound chip, hence it had better graphics and sound.

But SNES needed special add-on chips to do some things it otherwise couldn't.

For example Star Fox would not be possible on the SNES without the Super FX chip.

MKII on SNES was not arcade-perfect.

Quite far from it actually.

It was better-looking and sounding than the Genesis version, that would be true.

I would agree GC was a newer, more advanced and more efficient design than PS2 was.

But it also suffered from mediocre PS2 ports which didn't utilize it's better graphical capabilities (except for some exclusives like you already mentioned).

Again, no just no.

Like i said, MK II on the SNES was ALMOST an arcade perfect translation.Of course it can't do a perfect arcade translation simply because the horsepower wasn't there. But otherwise, it's as close to being arcade perfect as you can get under the circumstances in those days, and it beats the pants off the poor ass of an excuse of a Genesis version. And that's your whole entire kitten kapoddle right there. SNES may have been weaker in the CPU department, but as so many said, CPU performance in a console is secondary to what the GPU, RAM and sound chip do. SNES can manage Star Fox with the Super FX chip. Genesis? Don't make me laugh! You add all the chips you want, if Genesis wants to do something similar to Star Fox, it would come out looking like a mess instead! Again, near the tail end, Genesis versions of the same game usually look, and performed like crap compared to the SNES version. Again, why did Sega came out with the 32X? It's because they are getting more and more lagging behind by the end during that time and they needed something to hold the fort while they were working on the Saturn.

Suffering from mediocre PS2 is not something to use when it came to discussing power. Just like this gen, everyone with a half a brain (sans maybe diehard lems) knows that PS3 is a smidget more powerful than the X360. But you won't notice it from multiplats. Why? Simple, developers make the X360 a priority, then simply port them over, make sure the game works for the PS3...And that's about it. Which is why you see PS3 version of the same game suffering from framerate, graphic tear, texture jaggies etc. Same with the PS2 vs. NGC, and Xbox...Why? I can tell you 150 million reasons why. This is why Xbox version of the same game, sans some minor improvements, usually look about like a PS2 version. NGC got it even worse simply beause of Nintendo being an ass during that gen, causing lazy ports after lazy ports. But however, those developers that took their time can really show the power difference. Again, Soul Cal 2, NGC is about as clos the Xbox version as possible while the PS2 lagged way behind. That's your differences right there while RE4 really really showed the differences between the two consoles near the end. Simply put, PS2 power wise just can't keep up in the end.

I've played every version of MKII possible and believe me that the SNES port was not nearly "arcade-perfect".

The Sega Saturn port was the closest to arcade but was bugged and glitchy and had some other changes made.

You're incorrect about Genesis not being able to run Star Fox-like polygon 3D games.

Look up "Virtua Racing Genesis" and you'll see it was even faster in 3D with the SVP chip.

Sure, mediocre ports don't demonstrate a system's capabilites.

The problem is that "the general picture" of the console's capabilites isn't shaped just by exclusives and good ports, hence if most multi-plat games look worse on a system (as was the case with PS3), people will think it's worse.

Nintendo couldn't really do much about the crappy ports tbh.

They could have perhaps given the devs more documentation on the hardware and make use of the console's online capabilites (GC was the only system that gen not to have online play) but not much else.

I've already affirmed that GC had a more advanced graphics tech than PS2 did.

Avatar image for nameless12345
nameless12345

15125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#152 nameless12345
Member since 2010 • 15125 Posts

[QUOTE="StryderK"]

Again, no just no.

Like i said, MK II on the SNES was ALMOST an arcade perfect translation.Of course it can't do a perfect arcade translation simply because the horsepower wasn't there. But otherwise, it's as close to being arcade perfect as you can get under the circumstances in those days, and it beats the pants off the poor ass of an excuse of a Genesis version. And that's your whole entire kitten kapoddle right there. SNES may have been weaker in the CPU department, but as so many said, CPU performance in a console is secondary to what the GPU, RAM and sound chip do. SNES can manage Star Fox with the Super FX chip. Genesis? Don't make me laugh! You add all the chips you want, if Genesis wants to do something similar to Star Fox, it would come out looking like a mess instead! Again, near the tail end, Genesis versions of the same game usually look, and performed like crap compared to the SNES version. Again, why did Sega came out with the 32X? It's because they are getting more and more lagging behind by the end during that time and they needed something to hold the fort while they were working on the Saturn.

Suffering from mediocre PS2 is not something to use when it came to discussing power. Just like this gen, everyone with a half a brain (sans maybe diehard lems) knows that PS3 is a smidget more powerful than the X360. But you won't notice it from multiplats. Why? Simple, developers make the X360 a priority, then simply port them over, make sure the game works for the PS3...And that's about it. Which is why you see PS3 version of the same game suffering from framerate, graphic tear, texture jaggies etc. Same with the PS2 vs. NGC, and Xbox...Why? I can tell you 150 million reasons why. This is why Xbox version of the same game, sans some minor improvements, usually look about like a PS2 version. NGC got it even worse simply beause of Nintendo being an ass during that gen, causing lazy ports after lazy ports. But however, those developers that took their time can really show the power difference. Again, Soul Cal 2, NGC is about as clos the Xbox version as possible while the PS2 lagged way behind. That's your differences right there while RE4 really really showed the differences between the two consoles near the end. Simply put, PS2 power wise just can't keep up in the end.

tormentos

compare RE4 to God Of war 2 and tell me RE4 look better

If you mean the GC version that would be a yes...

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#153 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"]I think Sony. They will likely release last. And I think they wanted to make the most powerful console this gen. They just kind of blew it with the cell and all that.tormentos

For it's time, CELL has a high GFLOPs, but it's GFLOPs is not GpGPU type.

You can't expect IBM to beat ATI when it comes to designing graphics processor. ATI has been in high performance mass produced 3D GPU business far longer than IBM. Sony didn't pay enough for customised cutting edge NVIDIA GpGPU.

That is like saying ATI could not beat IBM CPU wise,maybe you should stop comparing Cell to Ati GPU,Cell is a CPU with GPU capabilities,but is not a GPU per say and you know it. Cell was so good that it actually help a crappy GPU beat a more powerful one,while the 360 CPU barely could do anything.. Xenos >>> RSX Cell + RSX >>> Xenos + Xenon Is the reason why nothing on 360 touch uncharted 3...

You should stop rewriting history

You are forgeting

1. Real world SPE's workload types deals with GPU type workloads i.e. fixing RSX's issues e.g. vertex shading, early culling, pixel shader patching, image based post-processing, shader branch and etc. On the shader branch issue, GPUs like AMD Xenos and AMD GCN includes scalar units which shields the SIMD units from handling scalar type workloads. In the end of the day, a GPU is still a processor, but designed for graphics processing.

PS; older Radeon HD VLIW designs doesn't have this seperate scalar unit feature i.e. it relies on sheer number of stream processor clusters. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4455/amds-graphics-core-next-preview-amd-architects-for-compute/4

NVIDIA RSX doesn't have the luxury to waste SIMD units like Radeon HD 2900/3800/4600(64 VLIW5 units).

On the scalar unit issue, AMD GCN improve upon AMD Xenos since AMD GCN CU's scalar operates independently from the SIMD units i.e. it has it's own register file. On the AMD Xenos, it's co-issued as 1 scalar + 1 SIMD.

2. The initial PS3 design was for a pure CELL solution. CELL wasn't strong enough as a raster/Z-buffer based GPU.

3. ATI was assimulated within AMD i.e. a CPU vendor. AMD GCN already includes some X86-64 CPU IP.

4. Dave Shippy has stated PPE X3 + Xenos is roughly similar to CELL + RSX combo. Your CELL+RSX>>> PPE X3 + Xenos is BS.

5. AMD Xenos is one the first GPU with very wide vector processor mode i.e. micro-code mode. Treat the GPU as a very wide vector processor instead of the old school GPU.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33793

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#154 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33793 Posts
If you mean the GC version that would be a yes...nameless12345
Neither look better than God of war 2,not only GOW 2 look just as good,it has more enemies at once and a far bigger scale than RE4.
Avatar image for nameless12345
nameless12345

15125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#155 nameless12345
Member since 2010 • 15125 Posts

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]If you mean the GC version that would be a yes...tormentos
Neither look better than God of war 2,not only GOW 2 look just as good,it has more enemies at once and a far bigger scale than RE4.

So?

RE4 on GC has better lighting and pixel-shaded water and fire effects.

PS2 can't do that.

Poly-counts in RE4 GC are also better.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33793

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#156 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33793 Posts
You should stop rewriting history

You are forgeting

1. Real world SPE's workload types deals with GPU type workloads i.e. fixing RSX's issues e.g. vertex shading, early culling, pixel shader patching, image based post-processing, shader branch and etc. On shader branch issue, GPUs like AMD Xenos and AMD GCN includes scalar units which shields the SIMD units from handling scalar type workloads. In the end of the day, a GPU is still a processor, but designed for graphics processing.

2. The initial PS3 design was for a pure CELL solution. CELL wasn't strong enough as raster/Z-buffer based GPU.

3. ATI was assimulated within AMD i.e. a CPU vendor.

4. Dave Shippy has stated PPE X3 + Xenos is roughly similar to CELL + RSX combo. Your CELL+RSX>>> PPE X3 + Xenos is BS.

5. AMD Xenos is one the first GPU with very wide vector processor mode i.e. micro-code mode. Treat the GPU as a very wide vector processor instead of the old school GPU.

ronvalencia
I am not rewriting it. Cell is classified as a CPU no matter how many crappy arguments you pull or shader arguments,is a CPU with GPU capabilities nothing more nothing less. Saying IBM can't compete with Ati is a joke considering Ati was a GPU company before the merge dude,you may brag all you want about the Xenos,fact Cell is better as a GPU than the Xenos will ever be at running an OS like Linux,see this is the real difference Cell can handle GPU taks while still been a CPU,can the Xenos on the 360 run CPU task.? No.? Yeah that is my point. I know what Cell was and what would be use to,in fact another thing you are wrong is on the fact that you think that sony did not wanted to spend allot on the GPU,when sony payed more for the RSX than MS did for the Xenos,thanks to Nvidia over priced GPU,it was the reason MS drop Nvidia,because price wise Nvidia just wasn't cutting it. You can say all the crap you want and try to spin everything with quote from the internet,the fact is not a single game on 360 actually has the Physics Uncharted 3 has no game on 360 period,that is not BS that is right down the truth. You should drop the whole AMD hyping and sucking up that you have is down right silly,true is Cell is so good that it did what no other CPU has done on PC actually help a weaker GPU beat one that is more powerful.
Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33793

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#157 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33793 Posts
So?

RE4 on GC has better lighting and pixel-shaded water and fire effects.

PS2 can't do that.

Poly-counts in RE4 GC are also better.

nameless12345
Maybe you should replay GOW 2 dude GOD 1 and 2 have some impressive water effects,and incredible lighting and fire effects to,i can't believe you say that..lol
Avatar image for nameless12345
nameless12345

15125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#158 nameless12345
Member since 2010 • 15125 Posts

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]So?

RE4 on GC has better lighting and pixel-shaded water and fire effects.

PS2 can't do that.

Poly-counts in RE4 GC are also better.

tormentos

Maybe you should replay GOW 2 dude GOD 1 and 2 have some impressive water effects,and incredible lighting and fire effects to,i can't believe you say that..lol

Not as good as RE4 GC.

PS2 can't do pixel-shading and it shows.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#159 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]You should stop rewriting history

You are forgeting

1. Real world SPE's workload types deals with GPU type workloads i.e. fixing RSX's issues e.g. vertex shading, early culling, pixel shader patching, image based post-processing, shader branch and etc. On shader branch issue, GPUs like AMD Xenos and AMD GCN includes scalar units which shields the SIMD units from handling scalar type workloads. In the end of the day, a GPU is still a processor, but designed for graphics processing.

2. The initial PS3 design was for a pure CELL solution. CELL wasn't strong enough as raster/Z-buffer based GPU.

3. ATI was assimulated within AMD i.e. a CPU vendor.

4. Dave Shippy has stated PPE X3 + Xenos is roughly similar to CELL + RSX combo. Your CELL+RSX>>> PPE X3 + Xenos is BS.

5. AMD Xenos is one the first GPU with very wide vector processor mode i.e. micro-code mode. Treat the GPU as a very wide vector processor instead of the old school GPU.

tormentos

I am not rewriting it. Cell is classified as a CPU no matter how many crappy arguments you pull or shader arguments,is a CPU with GPU capabilities nothing more nothing less. Saying IBM can't compete with Ati is a joke considering Ati was a GPU company before the merge dude,you may brag all you want about the Xenos,fact Cell is better as a GPU than the Xenos will ever be at running an OS like Linux,see this is the real difference Cell can handle GPU taks while still been a CPU,can the Xenos on the 360 run CPU task.? No.? Yeah that is my point. I know what Cell was and what would be use to,in fact another thing you are wrong is on the fact that you think that sony did not wanted to spend allot on the GPU,when sony payed more for the RSX than MS did for the Xenos,thanks to Nvidia over priced GPU,it was the reason MS drop Nvidia,because price wise Nvidia just wasn't cutting it. You can say all the crap you want and try to spin everything with quote from the internet,the fact is not a single game on 360 actually has the Physics Uncharted 3 has no game on 360 period,that is not BS that is right down the truth. You should drop the whole AMD hyping and sucking up that you have is down right silly,true is Cell is so good that it did what no other CPU has done on PC actually help a weaker GPU beat one that is more powerful.

Nope. Read http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research.nsf/pages/r.arch.innovation.html

Cell is a heterogeneous chip multiprocessor that consists of an IBM 64-bit Power Architecture core, augmented with eight specialized co-processors based on a novel single-instruction multiple-data (SIMD) architecture called Synergistic Processor Unit (SPU),

-----------------------

Go argue with IBM. I find it strange PS3 fanboys arguing against David Shippy and IBM.

Note that AMD's APU is also known as "Heterogeneous System Architecture" (HSA) that combines AMD CPU and AMD GpGPU (SIMD/VLIW Array) i.e. AMD's CELL like solution. http://developer.amd.com/Resources/hc/heterogeneous-systems-architecture/Pages/default.aspx

Xbox 360 Slim's XCGPU is also HSA type solution i.e. combines IBM PPE (+G1) 3X with AMD GpGPU (48 way 1 scalar + 1 SIMD array).

Wii U has another HSA type solution i.e. combines IBM PowerPC +G3 3X with AMD Radeon HD GpGPU (unknown VLIW5 array) on single chip package.

In a modern GPU, you have ucore parts (fix function 3D) and core parts (processor array).

Note that the targeted workloads are mostly raster graphics not running an OS.

Avatar image for superclocked
superclocked

5864

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#160 superclocked
Member since 2009 • 5864 Posts

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]You should stop rewriting history

You are forgeting

1. Real world SPE's workload types deals with GPU type workloads i.e. fixing RSX's issues e.g. vertex shading, early culling, pixel shader patching, image based post-processing, shader branch and etc. On shader branch issue, GPUs like AMD Xenos and AMD GCN includes scalar units which shields the SIMD units from handling scalar type workloads. In the end of the day, a GPU is still a processor, but designed for graphics processing.

2. The initial PS3 design was for a pure CELL solution. CELL wasn't strong enough as raster/Z-buffer based GPU.

3. ATI was assimulated within AMD i.e. a CPU vendor.

4. Dave Shippy has stated PPE X3 + Xenos is roughly similar to CELL + RSX combo. Your CELL+RSX>>> PPE X3 + Xenos is BS.

5. AMD Xenos is one the first GPU with very wide vector processor mode i.e. micro-code mode. Treat the GPU as a very wide vector processor instead of the old school GPU.

ronvalencia

I am not rewriting it. Cell is classified as a CPU no matter how many crappy arguments you pull or shader arguments,is a CPU with GPU capabilities nothing more nothing less. Saying IBM can't compete with Ati is a joke considering Ati was a GPU company before the merge dude,you may brag all you want about the Xenos,fact Cell is better as a GPU than the Xenos will ever be at running an OS like Linux,see this is the real difference Cell can handle GPU taks while still been a CPU,can the Xenos on the 360 run CPU task.? No.? Yeah that is my point. I know what Cell was and what would be use to,in fact another thing you are wrong is on the fact that you think that sony did not wanted to spend allot on the GPU,when sony payed more for the RSX than MS did for the Xenos,thanks to Nvidia over priced GPU,it was the reason MS drop Nvidia,because price wise Nvidia just wasn't cutting it. You can say all the crap you want and try to spin everything with quote from the internet,the fact is not a single game on 360 actually has the Physics Uncharted 3 has no game on 360 period,that is not BS that is right down the truth. You should drop the whole AMD hyping and sucking up that you have is down right silly,true is Cell is so good that it did what no other CPU has done on PC actually help a weaker GPU beat one that is more powerful.

Nope. Read http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research.nsf/pages/r.arch.innovation.html

Cell is a heterogeneous chip multiprocessor that consists of an IBM 64-bit Power Architecture core, augmented with eight specialized co-processors based on a novel single-instruction multiple-data (SIMD) architecture called Synergistic Processor Unit (SPU),

-----------------------

Go argue with IBM. I find it strange PS3 fanboys arguing against David Shippy and IBM.

Note that AMD's APU is also known as "Heterogeneous System Architecture" (HSA) that combines AMD CPU and AMD GpGPU (SIMD/VLIW Array) i.e. AMD's CELL like solution. http://developer.amd.com/Resources/hc/heterogeneous-systems-architecture/Pages/default.aspx

Xbox 360 Slim's XCGPU is also HSA type solution i.e. combines IBM PPE (+G1) 3X with AMD GpGPU (48 way 1 scalar + 1 SIMD array).

Wii U has another HSA type solution i.e. combines IBM PowerPC +G3 3X with AMD Radeon HD GpGPU (unknown VLIW5 array) on single chip package.

In a modern GPU, you have ucore parts (fix function 3D) and core parts (processor array).

Note that the targeted workloads are mostly raster graphics not running an OS.

I'm curious, what do you do for a living? Is computer hardware just a hobby for you? You're the most knowledgleable poster on Gamespot when it comes to computer hardware design...
Avatar image for superclocked
superclocked

5864

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#161 superclocked
Member since 2009 • 5864 Posts
[QUOTE="tormentos"]Saying IBM can't compete with Ati is a joke considering Ati was a GPU company before the merge dude It's AMD now, not ATI. But on topic, how is IBM supposed to compete with a chip manufacturer like AMD in the GPU arena? The license fees for using patents combined with the cost of development of their own GPU technologies would just be too much. Why do you think it has taken Intel so long to make even just mediocre GPU's? You may brag all you want about the Xenos, fact Cell is better as a GPU than the Xenos Then why did Sony scrap the idea of using a second Cell processor as a GPU in the PS3? AMD was given nearly unlimited freedom in the Xenos's design. They did not have to conform to an API, instead MS designed the API around the Xenos. AMD pioneered several improvements in GPU design for the Xenos that have been used in every DirectX compatible videocard since, including those from nVidia. I know what Cell was and what would be use to,in fact another thing you are wrong is on the fact that you think that sony did not wanted to spend allot on the GPU,when sony payed more for the RSX than MS did for the Xenos,thanks to Nvidia over priced GPU,it was the reason MS drop Nvidia,because price wise Nvidia just wasn't cutting it. Sony originally planned on using 2 Cell processors, one as a dedicated GPU, but they realized that a GPU designed specifically as a GPU, like something from nVidia, would work much better in conjunction with the Cell as a CPU. Also, it wasn't just that nVidia wasn't cutting it price wise with the XBox's GPU, nVidia would not drop the price at all. This is one of the main reasons that the XBox was discontinued so early, something that MS took the heat for. You can say all the crap you want and try to spin everything with quote from the internet,the fact is not a single game on 360 actually has the Physics Uncharted 3 has no game on 360 period,that is not BS that is right down the truth. The Cell is indeed a much better CPU than the Xenon. I for one love the idea of programmable cache. Instead of using hardware logic to predict what should probably be stored in the cache, which adds to the transistor count anyway, the programmers get to decide what should stored there. Programmers may look at it as a pain in the ass, but this setup just makes so much more sense than the traditional cache approach. You should drop the whole AMD hyping and sucking up that you have is down right silly,true is Cell is so good that it did what no other CPU has done on PC actually help a weaker GPU beat one that is more powerful. The reason that no other CPU has done it is because it's not what general purpose CPU's are designed to do. The Cell was designed from the start to handle GPU tasks, which is one reason it took so long for it to be properly utilized. Programmers had to use FP code for tasks that would normally be handled by integer units. Also, the RSX does not lack raw power, it is just very inefficient. And it's not very malleable when it comes to shader diversity.

Avatar image for Mystery_Writer
Mystery_Writer

8351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#162 Mystery_Writer
Member since 2004 • 8351 Posts

@tormentos

ronvalencia put up a professional & intellectual argument backed up by references.

You put up a very interesting argument about MKII SNES and Genesis comparison that I really enjoyed, but truth to be told, you've started to sound (to me at least) far less confident and out of your league on the Xenos argument (coming off somewhat a bit like a stereotypical PS3 fan).