The Shrine

<div style='font: 12pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Prince of Persia for the Xbox. Anybody play it? Is it worth it?</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Played it and beat it on the PC, it was worth it IMO. I imagine the visuals look just as good on the X-Box, but don't forget part 2 comes out in Dec. 6 for platforms and the 30th for the PC.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>It's no different n Xbox than on PS2 or Gamecube. Yes, it is a must have game for anyone who has any interest whatsoever in videogames, the game is phenominal, one of the best of the generation. Ubi-soft is an excellent company, much better than Konami, for example.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Good. I'll be sure to buy Part 1 on Dec 6.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Ok.....why?</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>It dropped to $20 US about 4 months ago</div>

<div style='font: bold 9pt ; text-align: left; '>I played it on PS2 and it is one of the best (and by that I mean most fun) game I have ever played. I want to replay it but I'm too much into San Andreas.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Yeah, I picked it up for the GC a few weeks ago, but I haven't started playing it yet.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>I have it (for the 'Box), I played it, I liked it a heck of a lot. Was on the shorter side, and the gameplay was very much platform then combat, platform again then combat, platform again and then commmmmmmmmbbbbbbbaaaaaaaaattttttt, but story/graphics were excellent and most definitely worth it.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>I got mine for the Xbox for $15 Cdn used. I use the Xbox as my port system for graphics alone. They edge out the GC and they both slaughter the PS2</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Why don't they take full advantage of the Xbox capabilties? Halo still only runs on 6M polygons per second there are games on the GC (Rogue Leader and RE0) that run on 20 million per second.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>What do you expect, they both came out a full year after PS2. In fact, thats why they suck, they couldnt even get on the ball about their next-gen systems. Sony owns.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I don't see the point you're trying to get at. It is fact that the PS2 does not have nearly the graphics of GC and Xbox, games generally run at half the frame-rate and half the polygon count.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Yes they do, but they also have the largest line-up, while the others have excellent exclusives and are better for ports. Thus, I own all three</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Polygons aren't the problem, it's the textures that are the bottleneck on the system. There's what, 4MB of texture RAM? That's a fraction of the Xbox (32 if I'm not mistaken) and the embedded texture compression the the 'Cube with the 8MB (I believe) cache are light years ahead</div>

<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>No point, just saying it isnt really fair to say they both slaughter the PS2 in a manner that makes it sounds like Sony underdeveloped their system when in reality it is because Nin. and MS waited a year.</div>

<div style='font: bold 9pt ; text-align: left; '>You make it sound like we're going to hurt the PS2's feelings. :) What Zeus said is true, the reason why is irrelevant. Personally, I think PS2's lack of graphics power is made up for in other areas.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>He did, mine hasnt stopped crying. Zeus better apologize to him soon!</div>