Splinter Cell PS2 vs Xbox - Side by Side Comparison

[@liverush24]

I saw a TV ad for this game on the XBox & went out & bought an XBox with the Splinter Cell bundle, on my next day off work. A couple of years later, a work colleague told me that Splinter Cell isn't as good as I was claiming, as he had it on his PS2 & thought that it was merely okay. So I showed him the XBox version and he was blown away by the difference.

[@ALX_MT]

when i saw this game running on xbox in 2003 it blew my mind, I couldn't believe what I was seeing

[@jollygrapefruit786]

It's crazy how, during that era, the same game could look completely different on different consoles.

[@starstarstar4643]

You won't say that the xbox version looks better? lol are you that biased towards playstation?? 😂....the xbox is more powerful than the PS2 and no amount of fanboy you have for Sony can stop that.....

[@captainw0w]

​@@starstarstar4643what the hell are you talking about?

[@PSXHistorian]

I would agree. It’s crazy how much different the art direction is for both. In some cases I like the Xbox lighting better and sometimes the PS2. Neither is a bad experience though the games still good to this day.

[@zakixbox]

It's simply because every console had its own architecture so no simple and lazy portage like they do nowadays. Today, all platformes are powered by x86 CPUs

[@ragechok9932]

xbox best version

[@aviatingfear2328]

Xbox is clear winner, but it is almost charming how much they actually got running on PS2's older hardware (at the time..as they are all ancient now) I'm sure it was a massive headache to get the shadows to move around with light sources on ps2.

[@badchowchow]

Good lord it looks like when you compare a ds game to psp lol

[@baguete02]

In the PS2 version, there are real-time reflections on surfaces and a hazy heat effect that radiates out from hot spots--these effects are not included in the Xbox game.

[@MoonOvIce]

Only now I have played the PS2 version and there's a lot of trade-offs. Not everything is worse, some things are changed for the better or improved, mostly because it had more development time and back then consoles didn't have online updates, so the Xbox version never got these updates (but did get dlc).

[@baguete02]

@@MoonOvIce Yes there were some quality of life improvement either, actually this port was handled by Ubisoft Shanghai in only six months , to this day this game was their fastest shipped project, they had a lot of problems and cultural barriers , because people in this studio spoke Chinese, French and Italian and not all of them were actually fluent in English, the director had to separate the teams, each one was making some missions at the same time, it's impressive some SFX artists squeeze then time to add these alpha and transparent effects, also the curtains had physics of sorts and their shadows projections was indeed really good for the PS2.

[@MoonOvIce]

@@baguete02 Yeah, with proper work it might've been closer to Xbox graphically. Still the Xbox was considerably more powerful and also was the main platform (together with PC because similar hardware and software/driver features present in PC GPUs of the time). But still, it would've been even better than it was (except maybe for shadows and lighting). Also, the Gamecube version could have been closer to the Xbox, except maybe for storage size, though many Gamecube games came in two disks anyway, so it could've been done that way as well.

[@baguete02]

@@MoonOvIce Sure the GC could have been even closer , just look at on foot sections of Star Wars Rogue Squadron 3 had incredible lighting, advanced shaders and shadows, not much behind SC on Xbox.

[@starstarstar4643]

The xbox version is better because it has more powerful hardware than the PS2....its ok to admit it

[@Camdavis11]

It's ALL about the shadows

[@officegossip]

I kinda like the color grading of the ps2 version in specific places. The xbox version looks miles better in terms of graphical fidelity and resolution.

[@silenthill146]

Russia mission is not included in the Xbox version.

[@ahmad1080p]

The xbox version was very close to pc back in 2002, thats why I switched to xbox

[@MoonOvIce]

The Xbox version is the first one though, it came out for PC in 2003, same year it came out on PS2 and Gamecube.

[@rangershot]

the detail on the xbox is better but doesn't mean the ps2 is bad, ps2 is good too just more darker, the only complain I see is the night vision on ps2 is useless

[@officegossip]

Now I wanna dust off my xbox that I never really used. Need to cherish it while I still can.

[@Jabjabs]

It is hard to understate how much this game sold the tech potential of the Xbox. It was E3 2002 (?) and you could see Doom 3 with all its dynamic unified lighting running on a top end PC and then a few booths over here was something that looked almost the same running on a box already available for 1/10th the cost of the PC running Doom 3. Not a 1:1 comparison in that sense but it highlighted the Microsoft had at least backed a decent technology stack. Also made those that worked in the industry suddenly realized we had to up our game!

[@loboneiner1034]

Xbox was the better version but I liked the cutscenes and extra level in the ps2 version

[@killcount6534]

Training area looks way better on PS2, but the Xbox shadows are a nice touch

[@MoonOvIce]

It looks too drab on PS2 though, and textures are simpler.

[@killcount6534]

@@MoonOvIce Yeah after the tutorial level the improvements to the visuals on Xbox become very apparent.

[@pineapplesand556ers]

I remember thinking the fire effects on my PS2 version looked bad way back then. Good lord they were terrible.

[@VergilHiltsLT]

Of course, PS2 and GC weren't developed by the same team and given the same treatment as Xbox. MGS3 kicks this game in the balls though.

[@MoonOvIce]

​@@VergilHiltsLTYeah, but not only that. A lot of lightning and shadow effects the PS2 and Gamecube simply couldn't handle. mainly because the game was done from the ground-up with the Xbox (and later PC) in mind and Nvidia GPUs. The Gamecube used a gpu done by ATI that, although more powerful than the one on the PS2, was weaker than the one on Xbox and didn't support exactly all the same graphical features. The PS2 was a whole 'nother thing all-together and was notoriously hard to develop for, and so developers rarely cared to optimize specifically for it unless it was an exclusive game (like MGS3 as you mentioned).

[@VergilHiltsLT]

@@MoonOvIce I can't say I agree as this was never measured, nor could it be. PS2 had completely custom architecture meaning it wasn't directly comparable to Xbox or Gamecube. Having PC parts (ATi GPU) doesn't necessarily give an advantage. The PS2 was far more complex in its programming and had more impressive graphics than its Xbox counterparts most of the time, I have tested this with countless games on PCSX2, XEMU and real hardware. It could not only simulate shaders but come up with better solutions, blowing even shader model 3.0 out of the water. I've been playing PC games since 1999 and even games from 2005 looked very flat due to lack of PS2-level lighting and post-processing. Exclusives like MGS3 have textures and lighting quality better than many PS3 titles even, this is only visible playing at 4K on PCSX2. HD Collection had many downgrades too. Final Fantasy X already had incredible particle effects, lighting, post-processing in 2001.

[@not_vinicius1]

Nice video

[@hellraiser_642]

Thanks man :)

[@robertbell1804]

Splinter Cell games may look better on Xbox but they had terrible screen tearing problems on Xbox

[@pablikenemi]

That's not true. I have the game on Xbox and i have no problem with tearing or anything else. Just like this video! This game on Xbox is a masterpiece.

[@robertbell1804]

@@pablikenemi I have all the old games on original Xbox I get constant screen tearing

[@VergilHiltsLT]

It's true, also PS2 and GC are ports developed by a different smaller team! Unfair comparison.

[@codezero7981]

Chaos Theory has a lot of screen tearing on GameCube, this does not happen on Xbox

[@starstarstar4643]

But everyone wanted a PS2 simply because it was playstation lol....back then the internet was primitive, youtube didnt exist etc so the culture was "whats popular is better"...ppl really didnt know which console had better hardware etc unless you read gaming magazines...... Part of the PS2's complete dominance was built off of ignorance of knowledge

[@speedking7224]

Also back then playstation also had a much more diverse library of games...... gta also was a timed ps2 exclusive....

[@speedking7224]

As compared to now, where they just make movie games now

[@loboneiner1034]

PS2 has a bigger game selection is why it dominated. All the consoles had their own unique strengths back then and it was worth owning all of them unlike now.

[@starstarstar4643]

@@speedking7224 and the only reason why it had a bigger selection is because developers and publishers knew which console was going to make more money.....which brings it back to my initial comment.....

[@CintaurSA]

How shitty was ps2!