View Full Version : Is PS2 more powerfull than GCN?
Logan Leonhart
08-Nov-2002, 20:41
Right now I have this idea that PS2 is actually more powerfull than GCN, that it just has a bunch of bottlenecks and design flaws (like kinda poor IQ), and that GCN is just a lot more balanced and has texture compression. I´ve been having this impression since I saw titles like ZOE2, SH3 and Network Biohazard.
Am I right? Or should I be slapped in the face? Left to die in the desert perhaps?
iscariot
08-Nov-2002, 20:44
it sure seems that way jk
marconelly!
08-Nov-2002, 21:16
If nothing, I think it's much closer to GC than people often give it credit for.
If nothing, I think it's much closer to GC than people often give it credit for.
It's much closer to anything than people give it credit for.
Steve Dave Part Deux
08-Nov-2002, 23:58
I'd say that most developers probably put a lot more time into PS2 development than they do into GC. The squecky wheel gets the grease.
They both have their strenghts and weaknesses.
It's much closer to anything than people give it credit for
The same can be said for gamecube vs xbox, its not like any consoles are in a generation apart.
PS2 is definitely underrated if you consider some opinions. (including mine) The fact of the matter is.. if you put PS2 and GCN development kits into talented hands, you're going to get fantastic games. The question is.. given an even amount of time for development (say, 3 years) which console would house the more impressive game? I'd wager GCN.. given its specs.
Well considering alot of the 3rd party games on both platforms are PS2 ports to the GCN, and the PS2 game most all of the time still comes out the ugly duckling i'd say the GCN is clearly more powerful. But I'm impressed with how the PS2 has hung in there with the Gamecube and Xbox. I agree the three are alo closer than previously thought.
marconelly!
09-Nov-2002, 05:53
Well considering alot of the 3rd party games on both platforms are PS2 ports to the GCN, and the PS2 game most all of the time still comes out the ugly duckling i'd say the GCN is clearly more powerful.
Actually, more often than not, multiplatform games look very simillar on both and have a simillar framerate. There are also examples where the GC version came out as an 'ugly duckling'.
Btw, I said: "PS2 is closer than most give it credit for", nothing more.
Again, I say give Konami or Square 3 years with an XDK (and the appropriate budget), and see what comes out.
cybamerc
09-Nov-2002, 09:14
Had the GS been more feature rich there would be little justification for the existance of both the Xbox and Cube from a hardware perspective. But it isn't.
Pretty much everything has been said right.
Money is what you need to do a great game. Looking at 2-men-rushed ports will not give you a good estimate of the GC power.
Moreover GC strength lies in its TEV texturing ability, which is not something you can use with a switch in your program. It requires extra effort (and money and artists ?).
I'm pretty happy with my two consoles and the fact that not one looks bad comparing to the other.
PC-Engine
09-Nov-2002, 09:38
PS2 development has pretty much matured while GCN development has not.
well it took about 2 years to see games on the ps2 that were better than the dreamcast (and i still think that if they were making dreamcast games the current gen would look close to the current gen ps2 games) I think soon we will start seeing games that are better on the gamecube than on the ps2. multiplatform games were most likely started on a ps2 (since that was out first) which just goes to show how powerfull the gamecube is. Give sega a year with the gamecube and you'll be saying re0 who ? They are just the gods of consoles and its such a same the sony was able to kill off the dreamcast with nothing but empty hype. The dreamcast gets more play than any system I own( and i own many from the intellivison all the way up to the xbox)
Ozymandis
09-Nov-2002, 12:40
PS2 development has pretty much matured while GCN development has not.
Agreed. From what I've seen, the height of technical acheievement on the Cube was a launch title; nothing since then or even announced can match up to Rogue Leader. In my opinion, of course.
Ozy I would agree with that statement if it were'nt for a little known title from Retro coming out in about a week. Good gracious MP looks incredible.
As I stated earlier, PS2 has done well by hanging in there. And to the casual player he can't tell the differences between Red Faction 2 and Metroid Prime. But as far as pure image quality and texture clarity and detail..I have'nt seen anything on the PS2 that can compete with Metroid and Rogue Leader.
In fact I think it's alot closer between all three systems rather than just PS2 and GCN. In my eyes, I'm seeing the gap between the GCN and XB ALOT closer than PS2's underpowered gap from GCN.
PS2 development has pretty much matured
I will take a wild guess and say that developmentwise GT4 will be the peak.
After that the changes will be small and more subtle.
Among current games Burnout 2 is a good example of how good a PS2 game can look today.
It's somewhat interesting that some of the things that make the PS2 games look better than the games in it's early years, are "features" that the X-Box and Cube has shown from the start, while the X-Box and the Cube hasn't shown any of their other strong points very clear.
Ohh and when we talk about what if's, what if the PS2 only had one VU, it's just as interesting to go the other way :)
Heheh well according to sone Sony slides at Gamasutra, VU0 remains idle 95% of the time, so..... :P ( basically its only use is a bit of macro code atm)
marconelly!
09-Nov-2002, 16:17
well it took about 2 years to see games on the ps2 that were better than the dreamcast Nonsense. The launch Tekken Tag game was technically more advanced in just about every way than the best looking DC fighers at the time.
Why do you keep on mentioning TTT?
I have T4 and it do not look very good. The fighters look low poly, lower than even DOA2, the backgrounds look empty most of the time.
I guessed the AA, vibrant texturing and progressive scan took out some of the polygon pushing power of PS2.
Is the older TTT better? Why did Namco downgrade the graphics?
CaptainHowdy
09-Nov-2002, 16:45
PS2 isnt even more powerful than the DC..
its not under-rated its over-rated.
and GC eats it up in just about every way.
stupid design, lack of texture compression, anti-aliasing
and Anisotropic filtering leave a PSX like experience, just with more polys.
sure it can push almost as many polys as the GC, but when you have to wrap them in textures that look like they were drawn with crayons, doesnt do you a lot of good.
Talking fighting games when it comes to graphics power is stupid, thats a small area, they have to use very few textures, and have to show very little view distance, the only thing you can fairly compare to a fighting game is Resident Evil, its practically the same thing, does TTT look as good as RE? think now.. for that Matter, someone else implied it could also compare to the XBox? lol, I highly doubt they have ANY fighters up to DOA3's graphical level.
Isnt it the same with most game?
You can only view that big of an area onscreen. Fighting games allows the developers to deeply optimise the graphics of that particular screen.
LogisticX
09-Nov-2002, 16:51
Sorry chap, you're on crack. I've seen none of the low poly complaints yuou talk about in Tekken 4. The models don't look low poly int he least and comparing them to DOA2 is insane. DOA2's characters don't show nearly the detail that Tekken 4's does.
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/playstation2/tekken4/tekken_screen005.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/playstation2/tekken4/tekken_screen008.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/playstation2/tekken4/tekken_screen002.jpg
Not much going on in the background? .....sure?
Play the game dude.
T4 models are lower polyed than DOA2, very evident when in motion.
The airport stage, the carpark stage, the street stage and most stages are empty looking.
This
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/playstation2/tekken4/tekken_screen002.jpg
and the final battle with that old man are the only interesting looking stage.
CaptainHowdy
09-Nov-2002, 17:15
those screens dont even look as good as the terrible Bloody Road PF for gamecube.
I see low quality textures, Poly clipping, in fact, the first screen could have been done on the N64.
There is some serious ps2 hate here :lol:
marconelly!
09-Nov-2002, 17:39
Chap, I think you are as funny as you are delusional. :lol:
Maybe you should play those old DC games sometimes again and don't let the nostalgia take the best of you.
This is how TTT looks like:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/ps2/tekkentag/tekkentag_screen012.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/ps2/tekkentag/tekkentag_screen024.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/ps2/tekkentag/tekkentag_screen013.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/ps2/tekkentag/tekkentag_screen010.jpg
And this is how DOA2 looks like
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/6/197066/doa2_screen003.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/6/197066/doa2_screen021.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/6/197066/doa2_screen059.jpg
sorry marc, i am no DC fanboy fan.
i actually felt the DC was quite over rated due to how 'heroic' it died.
But T4 does indeed have low polygons models.
Play it for your self. :oops:
Logan Leonhart
09-Nov-2002, 21:22
T4 looks awesome, it´s the 2nd best looking fighting game on current consoles. The character models look quite nice (for some reason in the presentation and you win/lose sequences, there´s no lightning applied on the characters), although they´re a bit lower poly than TTT. However, the environments are a lot more complex than TTT´s, and have a bunch of nice graphical touches and very nice textures in general.
As for DC being more powerfull than PS2, LOL. :lol: I´d like to see the DC handle MGS2 or FFX.
CaptainHowdy
09-Nov-2002, 22:47
DC could easily handle it, the problem with DC's graphics were not the system itself, it was generational, the system died before people could fully use the hardware, it was at a time when people were making games for PSX and N64, so naturally the games only mildly outdid those.
as far as image quality goes, DC left PS2 in the dust.
if you think DC cant handle that, you need to go back and play Shenmue..
I'm sorry Tekken 4 is very underwhelming, the arenes are very small, and in the screenshots you can see the static background is placed not even 30 feet behind the characters, in DOA3, every bit of the environment is fully renderedin realtime, its not a few 3d buildings in front of a still picture, it looks like crap.
Right now I have this idea that PS2 is actually more powerfull than GCN, that it just has a bunch of bottlenecks and design flaws (like kinda poor IQ), and that GCN is just a lot more balanced and has texture compression.
A system is only as powerful as its worst bottleneck ;)
In short, no PS2 isn't more powerful, its quite a bit weaker. As can be seen from PS2's best looking games vs GameCube's best.. even at this stage when devs have had allot longer to get used to the PS2 then the GameCube.
I´ve been having this impression since I saw titles like ZOE2, SH3 and Network Biohazard.
I haven't seen ZOE2. SH3 doesn't look that great at all, yeah the cut scene's everyone shows look nice (although they were low res vids so I can't tell for sure) but the ingame stuff looks ordinary. Netword Biohazard?.. never heard of it, I'll have a look at IGN and see if I can find it, but I very much doubt it looks better then RE or RE0.
marconelly!
Were those pictures of TTT you were showing actually from the PS2 version? Because the first one has "please insert coin".. seems like an arcade shot. Or does the PS2 version say that too?, I don't know because I've never played the game on PS2.
Ozymandis
10-Nov-2002, 00:02
Ozy I would agree with that statement if it were'nt for a little known title from Retro coming out in about a week. Good gracious MP looks incredible.
Yeah, I played the Metroid Prime demo last week. It looks incredible... but from fantastic art mostly. I don't think it's doing the same poly counts or texture effects that Rogue Leader did... although the painfully smooth framerate made me salivate :oops:
marconelly!
10-Nov-2002, 01:01
I'm sorry Tekken 4 is very underwhelming, the arenes are very small, and in the screenshots you can see the static background is placed not even 30 feet behind the characters, in DOA3, every bit of the environment is fully renderedin realtime, its not a few 3d buildings in front of a still picture, it looks like crap.
Do you even know what you are talking about here? Tekken 4 has fully modelled backgrounds.
I haven't seen ZOE2. SH3 doesn't look that great at all, yeah the cut scene's everyone shows look nice (although they were low res vids so I can't tell for sure) but the ingame stuff looks ordinary.
Ingame, it uses the same graphics as in the cut scenes. i.e. self shadowing, stencil shadow volumes with global shadow casting and lighting, etc. I have a gamplay video and it looks every bit as impressive as those cut scenes.
Were those pictures of TTT you were showing actually from the PS2 version? Because the first one has "please insert coin".. seems like an arcade shot. Or does the PS2 version say that too?
I took them from Gamespot, from their review of PS2 version. Arcade version was running on the PS2 hardware (System 246) anyways, just like Tekken 4.
LogisticX
10-Nov-2002, 01:08
:o Captain Howdy, you're just too much :lol:
As for Teasy, if the screenshots are from the arcade... think of it this way, the PS2 version is far and wide known to be superior graphically to its arcade counterpart... so either way, it doesn't matter.
I wouldn't say which console pushes the most power, frankly, I don't see that much of a difference on any of them in general. The differences lie only in single titles, where the DEVELOPERS made the difference.
Ingame, it uses the same graphics as in the cut scenes. i.e. self shadowing, stencil shadow volumes with global shadow casting and lighting, etc. I have a gamplay video and it looks every bit as impressive as those cut scenes.
I had a video that showed one of the cut scene's, the shadowing looked really nice and the model was very high poly.. or looked it anyway. However the actual game was just a typical looking game, nothing special that caught my attention. There is no way that the ingame parts of that game are up to the standard of the cutscene I saw AFAICS.
As for Teasy, if the screenshots are from the arcade... think of it this way, the PS2 version is far and wide known to be superior graphically to its arcade counterpart... so either way, it doesn't matter.
I didn't even say anything about that. I was just enquiring on wether the screens were actually from the PS2 version simply because I noticed the insert coin message, there was no hidden agenda.
Weird, I always thought console fighters put "Press Start". Seems like they should have changed that for the PS2 version considering some dumbass would actually try to insert a coin in their PS2.
Tekken 4 does seem to look worse than TTT for some reason. Is it the interactive backgrounds maybe?
But yeah, either CaptainHowdy's trolling, or he's just seriously misguided. If XBox can't even handle MGS2, how could Dreamcast? :D
PC-Engine
10-Nov-2002, 03:07
will take a wild guess and say that developmentwise GT4 will be the peak.
Probably, but my guess is that it won't look much better than GT3. If GT4 turns out to be technically superior in a big way, it would probably be running at 30 fps IMO.
Regarding SH3, in game it's only running at 30 fps.
CaptainHowdy
10-Nov-2002, 04:28
[quote]I'm sorry Tekken 4 is very underwhelming, the arenes are very small, and in the screenshots you can see the static background is placed not even 30 feet behind the characters, in DOA3, every bit of the environment is fully renderedin realtime, its not a few 3d buildings in front of a still picture, it looks like crap.
Do you even know what you are talking about here? Tekken 4 has fully modelled backgrounds.
yes I do, obviously you dont, you can even tell where the 3d polys end and the static background begins, prime picture example.
you can see it plain as day there
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/playstation2/tekken4/tekken_screen005.jpg
and the arm meeting the chest, along with the head have mad blockiness that makes the PSX say "Dayum, get yourself some polys man"
LogisticX
10-Nov-2002, 04:32
There's no way PD would let their racing game sink to 30 fps......it'll be a locked 60 fps no doubt about it. I remember rumours of PD apparently targeting double the polygon per second onscreen for GT4. GT3 ran at around 10 mpps at 60 fps. I'm not sure where DOUBLE the polygons, if achieved, would go to...
Fafalada
10-Nov-2002, 04:44
Probably, but my guess is that it won't look much better than GT3. If GT4 turns out to be technically superior in a big way, it would probably be running at 30 fps IMO.
Depends on your definition of 'big way' I suppose, but IMO there has already been more then one racing game on the platform that is both technically better and runs at constant 60.
marconelly!
10-Nov-2002, 05:32
Captain Howdy, I find it curious that you now jumped on to compare Tekken 4 to DOA3 when your initial claim was that PS2 isn't even more powerful than Dreamcast.
Regarding SH3, in game it's only running at 30 fps.
Well, I guess that automatically makes Halo, RE:Remake, RE:0, etc etc unimpressive looking. And yeah, Shenmue too.
Logan Leonhart
10-Nov-2002, 05:38
Probably, but my guess is that it won't look much better than GT3. If GT4 turns out to be technically superior in a big way, it would probably be running at 30 fps IMO.
Depends on your definition of 'big way' I suppose, but IMO there has already been more then one racing game on the platform that is both technically better and runs at constant 60.
Yours? :D
Personally, I don´t see what´s the big graphics fuzz about Shenmue on DC. It has PS2-like textures, severe fade-in problems, shimmering, everything had a low poly count except Ryo´s face, and yes, jaggies.
Even the Xbox version with FSAA and a slightly higher poly count doesn´t look quite on par with graphically intensive PS2 games.
PS/2 is many times more powerful than GCN. I trained my PS/2 to carry my groceries whereas my GCN struggles carrying just my shoes!
iscariot
10-Nov-2002, 06:00
Depends on your definition of 'big way' I suppose, but IMO there has already been more then one racing game on the platform that is both technically better and runs at constant 60
sounds like Burnout2 to me :oops:
PC-Engine
10-Nov-2002, 08:12
Well, I guess that automatically makes Halo, RE:Remake, RE:0, etc etc unimpressive looking. And yeah, Shenmue too.
The point is that Xbox and GCN games development are still in its infancy with lots of room to grow while games like SH3 are struggling to maintain 30 fps even when benefiting from a much more mature development process.
Steve Dave Part Deux
10-Nov-2002, 08:23
GT3=6 million polys/sec at best.
archie4oz
10-Nov-2002, 10:17
The point is that Xbox and GCN games development are still in its infancy with lots of room to grow while games like SH3 are struggling to maintain 30 fps even when benefiting from a much more mature development process.
The thing is though, the tools (e.g. compilers) are far more mature on the GCN and Xbox than they are of the PS2. In other words, they're operating far closer to their potential out of the box than the PS2 was. Also the GCN and Xbox are not only more straight forward designs, but they're not nearly as intensive in terms of managing data flow, and maximizing execution resources. It's like learning to drive with an automatic vs. a manual tranny (a fussy one with a bad clutch)...
Rodéric
10-Nov-2002, 11:06
makes me think of the kind of childish conversation : "My car is faster than yours".
Who cares anyway a car is just a transportation vehicle...
Exactly the same for consoles, noone cares (or should be) which is the most powerfull, all that counts is that you enjoy playing games on it.
Why do you want to know what the fastest, more powerfull ?
What's the point in knowing that ?
I really don't get it.
I´ve been having this impression since I saw titles like ZOE2, SH3 and Network Biohazard.
I haven't seen ZOE2. SH3 doesn't look that great at all, yeah the cut scene's everyone shows look nice (although they were low res vids so I can't tell for sure) but the ingame stuff looks ordinary. Netword Biohazard?.. never heard of it, I'll have a look at IGN and see if I can find it, but I very much doubt it looks better then RE or RE0.
SH3 looks great, even if I find the environments empty (I'm just playing ED at the current time, so I'm biaised) and Network Re is fully 3d, so difficult to compare with Rebirth. This is not the same team, which make the comparison pointless too.
DOA2 looks alot better on the DC than PS2. No comparison!
Ozy, yeah Metroid is gonna rock but besides the great artistry and design one can't deny the technology behind it all. For one thing the Metroid engine is probably one of the smoothest motherfu$%ers I've ever seen and played. It appears that Retro went for texture detail and visual clarity over alot of multitexturing with 6 or 7 layers like Rogue Leader did.
Still one can't help but wonder what Retro could have done if they were'nt framerate whores. Metroid is smooth as a baby's butt in the fps dept. If they would have aimed at 35 to 40 fps instead of the constant 60 fps that it is now, there's no telling what the lil ole GCN could achieve.
BTW, It appears that FSAA is going on in Metroid. As well as some type of filter that just makes the scene jump out and scream movie like qualities.
CaptainHowdy
10-Nov-2002, 12:39
Not to mention Soul Calibur, one of the greatest fighters ever..
I am curious as to just what you guys are comparing to on GC, being there really is no fighters on the system yet.
I do know just about every port from PS2 , with some sloppy exceptions, turns out better on the GC, then even better than that on Xbox.
faster framerates, sharper textures.. because, oh yea, GC is more powerful, there is no question or arguments about it.
PS2 has great games going for it, but on a hardware level, it was poorly thought out
I asked myself, why nobody (from the anti-PS2-camp) gives Konami/Square/Namco some credit for their achievements on the PS2 platform?
Here are my assumptions, a bias is usually based on a reason. What could be the reason to compare the games of the PS2 to games on the DC/X-Box/GC in order to point out how badly the platform is? Even the design of the casing was criticised.
I guess everything started a long time ago, the Saturn was beaten by the PSOne, N64 was beaten by PSOne, DC was killed by PSOne/PS2. Still havin some great games on all beaten or killed platforms, Sony made it as market leader. Note: Sony was most the time the underdog visual-wise (PSOne VS N64, PSOne VS DC, PS2 VS GC/XBOX).
Realizing all this shows pretty clear: Nintendo/Sega fans having enough reason for some serious bias against the PS-brand. Now given the situation that Nintendo and MS released their platforms 18+ month later and gaining technical superiority, results into the situation at the moment: GC and X-Box(in fullforce/MS-enterprise-sponsored/Sega-powered) ... the AVENGERS ready to bring new hope to those who would love to see the PS brand fail. Pointing out weaknesses at every occasion, seems to be the only way to reinsure this hope. Superior sales of the PS2 are not helping to open those minds to the achievements games like WRC2, SH3, ZOE2, Burnout2, ViceCity or SlyCooper display.
This are just my 2 cents, I hope I am wrong and there is a better explication, otherwise it would be very sad.
(excuse my spelling/grammar mistakes, my native language is not english)
ChryZ
You admit yourself that XBox and GameCube are supperior to PS2 technologically and then go on to accuse anyone who criticizes the PS2 of being jealous of its success. That doesn't make sense.
The PS2 is a weaker platform technologically, even PS2 developers readily say that all the time, just live with it ok and stop making excuses.
I think ChryZ is just pointing out that in some places on the net, some people seem to harbor some very serious grudges against Sony and its platforms - to the point of pooh-poohing its best games (without giving them a fair shake) and discrediting or ignoring the achievements of talented PS2 developers.
I've seen it, and I think it sucks. Some people are letting their bias cause them to miss out on some great gaming.
Kolgar
Well spoken Kolgar, I completely agree...
I must try harder to make my point clear. My posting was no excuse. Yes, GC and X-Box having a technologically edge feature-wise. And yes, I could live with it. Why? Because I am open minded enough to acknowledge it. On the PSOne it was great to see how every generation of software excelled the previous one. Just compare RidgeRacer1 with RidgeRacer4. Now compare Burnout1 and Burnout2 ... one of many examples. Many new features (some previously presumed impossible) were implemented, progressive scan support (Burnout2,Tekken4), DTS ingame sound (ViceCity,SSX2). Sure its great to have those features right-out-of-the-box, but having them added later on is better then never.
To get good performance/IQ out of a good chipset set is not hard, to achieve something like SH3/ZOE2 with a chipset that was not bought-of-the-self is a different story.
I wish some people on this board would give more credit to the achievements on the PS2.
Superior sales of the PS2 are not helping to open those minds to the achievements games like WRC2, SH3, ZOE2, Burnout2, ViceCity or SlyCooper display.
I have big problems to see VC as a technical achievement of any sort.
maskrider
10-Nov-2002, 15:28
I wish some people on this board would give more credit to the achievements on the PS2.
People hate something tend to speak up more than people who like something.
I saw Lord of the Ring on PS2 today and I am very impressed by its appearance and performance. The games speak for the platform that they are on.
alexsok
10-Nov-2002, 15:31
I have big problems to see VC as a technical achievement of any sort
Would you mind showing me any game on GC/XBOX/DC that has this "living city" feeling while playing? Sure, the graphics are a bit outdated, but the overall polish of the title is much more than you recognize. Without a doubt, Vice City is an achievement, from many standpoints, ranging from graphics, art, sound, music, gameplay and so on...
PS2 is a wonderful machine, but if you want to get the most out of it (which apparently, not many developer houses succeed in doing), you need to invest a large sum of money and have a very talented group of programmers, which brings me to the one major minus of the PS2: the overall complexty of the machine, the way programmers need to write assembly code to get the most out of the system as the compilers pretty much suck ass (one aspect where XBOX/GC suprass it). As I noted previously, the hardware is great, we just need more developer houses investing large money in their games and a talented group of programmers who can tap the real power of the PS2 (which according to certain papers, hasn't been tapped yet).
The GC/Xbox is like starting a fire with Napalm, the PS2 is like starting a fire with a box of Strike-Anywheres in the Arctic. While the former may look more impressive, it takes a lot more time and effort for the latter, and given the circumstances, it's usually more appreciated too :D
Thanks Alexsok. I was about to give almost the same answer (^_^ ;)
zidane1strife
10-Nov-2002, 16:20
PS2 isnt even more powerful than the DC..
Bwhahahahahaha, yeah right!!! PS2 has games with ingame models(some enemies, most likely) up to 20K polys at solid 60fps with two players at da same time.... yes that's what i've heard the beloved SoulCalibur used for the whole game....
If we go into an IQ contest sure many of the ps2 games have bad IQ... but if u go for the top SRII, BG:DA, etc... u get to see that.... the shimmaton and aliasing and massive pop-up of some DC games, goes even lower than most ps2 stuff, and when we get to the top the ps2 just wins.... games like Burnout2, Two towers, etc... DC just doesn't stand a chance....
Even the design of the casing was criticised.
if i didn't know the specs, and hadn't seen games on all three consoles... just basing the power of the console on the looks of the casing.... i'd say the most powerful console(based on looks) is the ps2.... i mean the xbox looks big and clunky like something from the 90s... the cube looks like a toy... but the ps2 looks like something from this decade... it has a very techie like look.
The PS2 is a weaker platform technologically, even PS2 developers readily say that all the time, just live with it ok and stop making excuses.
Yeah, but many dev. are not using ps2 properly they get 1-2million polys and bad IQ/texturing and go Oh this might not even be better than the DC
The dev. that do know how to use it still admit it's weaker, but say the gap is not as big, and say it still has some good things going.
I wouldn't say either GC or PS2 is clearly more technologically advanced then the other because they can both do things that the other cannot. When it comes to GFLOPS, which equates to raw poly output, physics, custom effects (FFX) etc, the PS2 has the advantage. That's undeniable. 6.2 vs 1.9. Now how much of that 6.2 developers will eventually be able to tap into, I'm not sure. But it does seem that the technology to vectorize data is improving every year. So my guess is that we probably haven't seen what the PS2 can really do.
When it comes to texturing and T&L, the GC appears to be well beyond the PS2. Rogue leader and SFA, exactly the way they are, would simply not be possible on PS2.
IMO, I think it's still too early to make an informed comparison. When it comes to ease of development, they're both at the opposite end of the spectrum. GC is probably one of the easiest system to program for ever and the PS2 one of the toughest so I think it will only be at the end of their lifecycles that we'll be able to determine that.
I remember when the GC was unveiled at E3 2001, somebody over at Rare said that you could tap into 90% of the system's power with very little effort. I thought to myself, if that's the case then it doesn't leave a whole lot of room for improvement. And the GC's first year kinda reflects that. Some would say that Rogue leader is still the best looking game on the system. I think 4-5 years from now games will look better but dramatically better? I doubt it.
For the PS2 on the other hand, the difference between the launch titles and games like ZOE2 and SH3 is like night and day. And I think we still haven't seen the best of what the console can offer.
Would you mind showing me any game on GC/XBOX/DC that has this "living city" feeling while playing?
How does this have anything to do with the platforms? You surely don't want to argue that GTA3 or VC couldn't be ported to GC or XBox, do you? Please keep soft- and hardware seperated from each other in this argument, as you should know there's hardly anything unique to the PS2 hardware that makes games like VC possible, its marketing departments that take care of this exclusiveness of titles.
Sure, the graphics are a bit outdated, but the overall polish of the title is much more than you recognize. Without a doubt, Vice City is an achievement, from many standpoints, ranging from graphics, art, sound, music, gameplay and so on...
True, but wouldn't you agree that GTA3 would deserve the "technical achievement" award more than VC? VC for itself would be an outstanding achievement, but as it is its "just" more of what was already done before, polished and improved.
PS2 is a wonderful machine, but if you want to get the most out of it (which apparently, not many developer houses succeed in doing), you need to invest a large sum of money and have a very talented group of programmers, which brings me to the one major minus of the PS2: the overall complexty of the machine, the way programmers need to write assembly code to get the most out of the system as the compilers pretty much suck ass (one aspect where XBOX/GC suprass it).
Its a question of efficiency, PS2 hardware is powerfull but as you said complicated to fully take advantage off. "Great" hardware shouldn't be complicated and hard to exploit, especially if the end result isn't technically "better" than the competition. Since when are increased development cost, more complicated coding and limitations for artists great? It complicates things and takes up financial and human resources that could very well be used otherwise (e.g. making other games or producing more content). Look at your yearly tax declaration and tell me it would be "great" if you would need to fill out 10 forms instead of 6 to produce the same end result? In the end its the huge PS2 userbase which makes it possible that the increased development costs are worth it. IMHO PS2 hardware is "powerfull and good enough", it's the games and userbase that make it a geat console though.
As I noted previously, the hardware is great, we just need more developer houses investing large money in their games and a talented group of programmers who can tap the real power of the PS2 (which according to certain papers, hasn't been tapped yet).
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Money is limited, human resources are limited and there's no guarantee for a retun of your investment (unless you're Squaresoft maybe)! But even if that were the case, I have my doubts that the "real power of PS2" that supposedly "hasn't been tapped hyet" is going to offer it any breathtaking suprtiority over the other systems. There are other consoles out there that have these powers right there, ready to use, even for medium and small development houses, so how the heck can it be a good thing that PS2 is such a hard beast to tame?
Its a crappy situation for a small developer you know - you see the huge PS2 userbase and you'd love to make that kick ass idea of yours into a game for the system. Yet, although you have a good art team and decent coders, there are simply no resources to pull of the micro-coding required to achieve the kinds of effects people are used to seeing from Square games (and its not only a question of money, there are probably only a couple coders on this world that know how to really take advantage of PS2 hardware). Well, you could make the game on budget and with all the visuals you have in mind for XBox instead, but then you only have 1/5th or so the potential market.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that what you are trying to sell as a minor hardware weakness, is driving development houses all over workd nuts! Not every developer and/or publisher on this planet has the kinds of resources houses like EA, SEGA or Konami have, yet PS2's hardware approach basically limits the number of developers that can really push the system to a selected few. Which basically sucks IMHO...
LogisticX
10-Nov-2002, 17:53
I thought it was common sense as to why the PS2 is the way it is.... why are people trashing a system that's architectural design was completed almost 2 full years before the competition even RELEASED their console?
Think of it this way....the brute power behind the PS2 comes for a reason, the difficulty to program, and the supposed "bottlenecks" of the system are all methods to achieve high power performance with as little cost as possible. One would question why Sony took the route that they did in designing their hardware....well look no further than your PC. How long, given the standard architecture, does it take for a brand spanking new, top of the line computer to become outdated? Almost as soon as you pull it out of the box I'd wager.
Now think about buying a top of the line computer 2 years ago, and how it compares to the computers today....well the difference is quite apparent is it not?
With Sony's decision to create the PS2, they knew the console needed to be designed with staying power in mind. Everything has its pros and cons, and the design used for the PS2 clearly demonstrates this. The high horsepower and yet hard to master architecture are all means to creating a console that was able to be released years ahead of the competition and yet still be able to keep up far down the road. Why people choose to neglect this is far beyond my comprehension.
One could easily say that because GC and Xbox are "newer" releases, their power is unquestionably better.....and yet that really isn't the case when looking at games themselves. I'm not going to say that PS2 is more powerful, but the fact that it can keep up today is a testament to what I've said above.
Good post, LogisticX. That may be the most sense I've heard anyone make in some time. :)
Kolgar
CaptainHowdy
10-Nov-2002, 18:24
where is all this ANTI PS2 , ANTI SONY crap coming from?
if you cant see things the way it is, your just ANTI TRUTH!!!
PS2 is not a fine machine, it was lazy, sloppy, and poorly designed.
they put no thought into the gamer, they thought of only one thing..
lets kill the dreamcast.
Two controller ports? the only console since the PSX to be this stupid
Poor Image quality- the only console since the PSX to be this stupid
Lack of just about every 3d graphics feature to come out since the voodoo 2.
when it all comes down to it, the PS2 is basically the equal to a Voodoo 2 that can push 3 million polys. this is not ANTI sony, this is just speaking from actually having eyes, PS2's graphics are piss poor in comparison to GC and Xbox, its not even a subtle difference. I guess if all you are looking at are the ports of PS2 games on the other consoles, sure it holds its own(but even then the other two always look and run better)
marconelly!
10-Nov-2002, 18:27
they put no thought into the gamer, they thought of only one thing..
lets kill the dreamcast
o... k...
:|
Laa-Yosh
10-Nov-2002, 18:28
If the PS2 wouldn't own the console market, I doubt we'd see any games on it. No sane publisher would found the development costs if they could not count on the large user base...
Logan Leonhart
10-Nov-2002, 18:30
Anti-Sony thinking at it´s finest:
they put no thought into the gamer, they thought of only one thing..
lets kill the dreamcast.
LOL, so this is the place where all this Sony hate comes from...
Oh, and I doubt that anyone builds a console thinking about the gamers, they´re done with the competition and generating userbase in mind.
marconelly!
10-Nov-2002, 18:45
If the PS2 wouldn't own the console market, I doubt we'd see any games on it. No sane publisher would found the development costs if they could not count on the large user base...
And that is different from any other hardware, how? If the hardware is not selling, why would anyone publish software for it, not matter how good the hardware is? Sure you would have enthusists making stuff for it just for fun, but somehow, I don't think that's what you had in mind :)
where is all this ANTI PS2 , ANTI SONY crap coming from?
if you cant see things the way it is, your just ANTI TRUTH!!!
PS2 is not a fine machine, it was lazy, sloppy, and poorly designed.
they put no thought into the gamer, they thought of only one thing..
lets kill the dreamcast.
Assumption confirmed. Thanx!
Laa-Yosh
10-Nov-2002, 19:12
And that is different from any other hardware, how? If the hardware is not selling, why would anyone publish software for it, not matter how good the hardware is? Sure you would have enthusists making stuff for it just for fun, but somehow, I don't think that's what you had in mind :)
Note that I was talking about PS2's dominance. If the market would be 33-33-33 between the 3 machines, PS2 games would be hard to find around... Though you're right that it'd then hold back hardware sales, which in turn would decrease the number of games even more. Anyway, what I was trying to point out has been explained quite a few time shere before so I'll just stop ;)
megadrive0088
10-Nov-2002, 19:27
without reading the entire thread, to answer the poster's question, in some aspects the PS2 is indeed more powerful than the Gamecube, and even the XBox. In other aspecs, the Gamecube is more powerful than the PS2. Gamecube's main advantages is that it has many features the PS2 does not, and Gamecube is overall much more efficient than PS2.
Each one of the three consoles has certain strengths over the other two.
Some examples: Gamecube's CPU has more cache (256k) than either XBox or PS2's CPUs. Gamecube also has the largest effective texture cache on its GPU. (FLipper has 1MB texture cache, but it's 6MB effective with 6:1 compression) The PS2 has the widest graphics memory bus and most raw graphics bandwidth (48 GB/sec on GS to eDRAM) of the three. the XBox has the most memory, the fastest main memory bandwidth (but its shared with graphics+audio) and the most advanced pixel effects.
Logan Leonhart
10-Nov-2002, 19:59
Thanks. So...can I assume from that that RL is actually very close to GCN´s maximum capacity? Since it´s still the best looking GCN title around (Metroid is much more about the art direction than anything).
Well from some early talk i've heard of factor5's next gamecube project, it should put rogue leader to shame. Julian has said in the past that what they've used of flipper's combiner were just the basics, not much about its programmability was used. I've heard of a 3rd person shooter with graphics ala halo2. Julian even posted in a message board after the halo2 trailer was released saying something similar to "wait till you see what we've been doing"
PC-Engine
10-Nov-2002, 20:35
Well from some early talk i've heard of factor5's next gamecube project, it should put rogue leader to shame. Julian has said in the past that what they've used of flipper's combiner were just the basics, not much about its programmability was used. I've heard of a 3rd person shooter with graphics ala halo2. Julian even posted in a message board after the halo2 trailer was released saying something similar to "wait till you see what we've been doing"
8)
Johnny Awesome
10-Nov-2002, 22:51
Shenmue 2 simulates a city better than Vice City, but Vice City does alright in that regard too.
sergio_r
10-Nov-2002, 23:13
I'm not going to say that PS2 is more powerful, but the fact that it can keep up today is a testament to what I've said above.
Yeah, maybe today, but what about in 3 years?
Its an incredable amount of time. Youve probably spent too much time looking at ports Id wager. Im sure when people really start to code FOR the xbox and GC, the difference will be apparent.
btw, I saw the getaway running today. I was shocked, it looked terrible. Nasty nasty psone style visuals, using photo-realistc textures does not make for good graphics. The framerate was piss poor too. Am I anti ps2? No, I just want the best.
See you in 3 years!
<snip>lets kill the dreamcast.
Eh? The Dreamcast was DOA when it shipped. Heck, it might have been dead before it shipped. Sega stopped being a serious competitor in the hardware market long before the DC came out.
Well from some early talk i've heard of factor5's next gamecube project, it should put rogue leader to shame. Julian has said in the past that what they've used of flipper's combiner were just the basics, not much about its programmability was used. I've heard of a 3rd person shooter with graphics ala halo2. Julian even posted in a message board after the halo2 trailer was released saying something similar to "wait till you see what we've been doing"
:D
BTW, it's taking awfully long for Factor5 to show anything from their new game. RL was released almost a year ago, you think they would have showed something by now.
CaptainHowdy
11-Nov-2002, 03:09
Nintendo has made it set that all 2002 events will only show games that are coming in either 2002, or within the first quarter of 2003. my only guess is that they are still afraid of overhyping too soon, making too long of a wait and people just forgetting it(this happens with PC gaming, they announce it too soon, everyone rags the game for taking so long, and it becomes a bomb because people write it off)
zidane1strife
11-Nov-2002, 14:25
Its a crappy situation for a small developer you know - you see the huge PS2 userbase and you'd love to make that kick ass idea of yours into a game for the system. Yet, although you have a good art team and decent coders, there are simply no resources to pull of the micro-coding required to achieve the kinds of effects people are used to seeing from Square games (and its not only a question of money, there are probably only a couple coders on this world that know how to really take advantage of PS2 hardware). Well, you could make the game on budget and with all the visuals you have in mind for XBox instead, but then you only have 1/5th or so the potential market.
This is what i like about the ps2... i certainly don't think that a low budget title from a small dev. should look as good as the game i'll buy with hollywood esque budget.... I dunno if u like that, but what i expect from a high budget title is to visually kill the low budget...
i'd be really dissapointed if i go and rent cr@ppy game from x dev.... and later went home with my recently bought AAA killa app... and instead of " WoW this looks far better than any other game on the system!!!" i went " Ahh, looks just like the piece of sh$t i was playing the other day..."
when it all comes down to it, the PS2 is basically the equal to a Voodoo 2 that can push 3 million polys.
Looks at recent and upcoming ps2 games... u do know the old game jak and daxter pushed about 10M polys right?
this is not ANTI sony, this is just speaking from actually having eyes, PS2's graphics are piss poor in comparison to GC and Xbox, its not even a subtle difference.
That's the difference between console and pc gamers... pc gamers look at games like doom 3 and go... nice looks better than any other title, but i'm dissapointed it just doesn't look that more advanced to what we have(some of em, just having played games at counterstrike gphx level...).... While many console gamers see games like Morrowind and go... this blows away anything I've EVER SEEN it looks photorealistic.....
I mean whe we went from abysmal textures, and blocks as char.s to nice textures and round char.s(most of the time.) i was really impressed, i wasn't as impressed by slight jump with sharper textures, and effects.... Until i see software that makes this gen look as bad as this gen made the previous one look, i'll certainly like the better gphx but won't be blown away.
No, I just want the best.
See you in 3 years!
In one year and a few months, the grim reaper will come and give it's scythe to a certain player in the console wars... after that things will be very different....
Thanks. So...can I assume from that that RL is actually very close to GCN´s maximum capacity?
Rogur Leader, for the most part, ran at 60fps. I'm sure if they'd had more then 9 months to do the game they could have ironed out any slowdown and had it running at a totally solid 60fps. In which case you have your answer right there. A 60fps game isn't going to be at the consoles visual capacity simply because you can move to 30fps and double the geometry, textures ect and make the game look loads better. But then I'd bet its still very possible to improve on Rogue Leader visually and still keep 60fps with GameCube.
Since it´s still the best looking GCN title around (Metroid is much more about the art direction than anything).
I'm not really sure about that actually, I've only seen Metroid Prime on compressed video's. I know some here have played the one level demo at stores in the U.S, but remember that was an E3 demo.. which is quie a while ago, so the final game should be improved.
There's no doubt that the game has great art design, but the game may also be extremely impressive technically. Also remember that Metroid Prime's framerate is an absolutely solid 60fps so it might yet be the best technically.. I suppose we'll have to wait and see though.
This is what i like about the ps2... i certainly don't think renting a low budget title from a small dev. should look as good as the game i'll buy with hollywood esque budget.... I dunno if u like that, but what i expect from a high budget title is to visually kill the low budget...
i'd be really dissapointed if i go and rent cr@ppy game from x dev.... and later went home with my recently bought AAA killa app... and instead of " WoW this looks far better than any other game on the system!!!" i went " Ahh, looks just like the piece of sh$t i was playing the other day..."
So basically you're telling me that small/medium sized or independent developers can't produce good games anyway and thus its cool that PS2's architecture prevents them from producing the type of game they envision in a reasonable budget? I'm sure lots of people on these boards love to hear stuff like that.
That AAA vs. crap argument of yours still doesn't make sense though, these big budget games you talk about will usually look better than independent or smaller titles no matter what, there's simply more human and financial resources going into them and they will always be "bigger and badder" somehow than a game from a small dev house. You don't need hardware to make things even more difficult for smaller developers, they're struggling enough to keep up in the other departments already. I don't see how is this even an argument, any person with at least a little bit of common sense should see that this is not a "good" thing! For what its worth it's not a "bad" thing either, its just annoying and not exactly helping to keep the diversity of the industry alive...
Maybe its just me but I happen to think that there are a load of kick-ass developers out there in small companies. Where would innovation come from in this industry without them? EA's yearly sports titles ("last year's controls were too good, lets just screw them up and make thing more sloppy again, that way we can fix it next year and get better reviews") and FF XVIII Bonus Edition 5 ("play the same game yet again, but from the perspective of two previously totally unimportant characters and their pet dog JoJoBa, yay") are not really the only games I'm looking forward to play in the future, I like diversity, innovation and choice, thank you very much...
marconelly!
11-Nov-2002, 16:31
If the market would be 33-33-33 between the 3 machines, PS2 games would be hard to find around...
So you think someone would ignore 1/3 of the market just because it's somewhat harder to program for the console owned by it? Especially, considering the several middleware solutions available? I don't think so.
zidane1strife
11-Nov-2002, 17:08
So basically you're telling me that small/medium sized or independent developers can't produce good games anyway and thus its cool that PS2's architecture prevents them from producing the type of game they envision in a reasonable budget? I'm sure lots of people on these boards love to hear stuff like that.
That AAA vs. crap argument of yours still doesn't make sense though, these big budget games you talk about will usually look better than independent or smaller titles no matter what, there's simply more human and financial resources going into them and they will always be "bigger and badder" somehow than a game from a small dev house.
I know a game with a bigger budget will have better presentation, etc... but i just don't like low budget titles(sure they're cool in gameplay, etc...), to look nearly or just as good... i mean yeah, they'd probably recycle textures and models more, have less flash etc... but they shouldn't approach top budget games.... it's like indie films blowing away top hollywood studios in cg etc... it's WRONG!!!!
That's the horrors of computer advancements... there might come a time when low indie movies could craft cg actors as good looking or better looking than most actors.... with skilled people behind them, making them act even better than the real deal... and with better voice actors.....
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! IT MUST NEVER BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@!!!!
BUT SADLY IT WILL BE!!!!! i must enjoy the short time that i have where cheap movies/games usually look cheap....
LogisticX
11-Nov-2002, 19:17
Rogur Leader, for the most part, ran at 60fps. I'm sure if they'd had more then 9 months to do the game they could have ironed out any slowdown and had it running at a totally solid 60fps. In which case you have your answer right there. A 60fps game isn't going to be at the consoles visual capacity simply because you can move to 30fps and double the geometry, textures ect and make the game look loads better. But then I'd bet its still very possible to improve on Rogue Leader visually and still keep 60fps with GameCube.
This actually makes me wonder... the majority of Xbox and GC titles run at 30 fps I'd say, maybe not the majority with respect to ALL games, but at least in those that look incredibly impressive.
Now, I'm not going to kid anyone and say I don't take preference to the PS2... but a good deal of titles on the system are pushing a solid state of 60 fps. Whether this is purely a developer optimization issue, I don't know, but the fact remains that even though people tend to rag on the PS2 for its visuals, there are a good deal of great looking games that are running at 60 fps without much slowdown at all.
I know this isn't a strong point to make, so those who disagree have a lot that they can pick off from what I've said, but I just find it interesting to see these things.
One thing I don't understand is how people can claim that PS2 looks "piss poor" in comparison to the Xbox and Gamecube. I haven't seen a single title that completely blows PS2's finest away...what I mean is, Rogue Leader or SFA looks amazing, DOA3, Enclave etc. looks amazing as well, but in retrospect, so does Burnout 2, Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance and Metal Gear Solid 2.
Regardless if RL and DOA3 look BETTER isn't an issue...what I see are a lot of statements that try and say that PS2 titles aren't beautiful themselves.
I mean, if you found one girl attractive and saw another that you found to be MORE attractive, would you assume that the former is now, therefore, ugly? That doesn't make much sense does it?
BoddoZerg
11-Nov-2002, 20:27
It's simple. The PS2 has been around for 2 years, while the GC and XBOX have only been here for one. Developers have had 2 years to push the limits of what is possible with PS2. I doubt we'll see much better than Silent Hill 3 level graphics. Why do people doubt that the XBOX and GC games will continue advancing in graphics similar to PS2? Of course they will.
Comparing consoles on a game-by-game basis is stupid. You could compare "ToeJam and Earl III" to "Shenmue" and conclude that Xbox is weaker than Dreamcast. Citing the graphical quality of a single game isn't representative of a console's power, it only reflects that single game. Now, if one console had consistently uglier games than the others, then you could draw a conclusion - but right now, no single console is vastly worse-looking than the others. PS2 has quite a lot of games with extremely low polygon count, but some games have very high polycount... Xbox has a handful of impressive looking games, but it has a crapload of games that could've been rendered on Dreamcast. (or N64 in the case of TJ&E3) Same with the 'Cube.
Right now there is no clear graphical superiority, but I'd be willing to bet that the rate of advance of PS2 graphics is soon to max out, while XBOX and GC still have plenty of room to grow.
PC-Engine
11-Nov-2002, 21:00
So you think someone would ignore 1/3 of the market just because it's somewhat harder to program for the console owned by it? Especially, considering the several middleware solutions available? I don't think so
The only reason why the middleware solutions became widely available was because of complaints from developers to begin with. If development was easy from the start, there wouldn't be a need for loads of middleware.
This actually makes me wonder... the majority of Xbox and GC titles run at 30 fps I'd say, maybe not the majority with respect to ALL games, but at least in those that look incredibly impressive.
Now, I'm not going to kid anyone and say I don't take preference to the PS2... but a good deal of titles on the system are pushing a solid state of 60 fps.
But are any of the best looking PS2 games running at 60fps? I think the majority of games on a console run at 30fps. I don't really see how PS2 has a noticably better ratio of 60fps games then GC or XBox.
Comparing consoles on a game-by-game basis is stupid. You could compare "ToeJam and Earl III" to "Shenmue" and conclude that Xbox is weaker than Dreamcast. Citing the graphical quality of a single game isn't representative of a console's power, it only reflects that single game. Now, if one console had consistently uglier games than the others, then you could draw a conclusion - but right now, no single console is vastly worse-looking than the others. PS2 has quite a lot of games with extremely low polygon count, but some games have very high polycount... Xbox has a handful of impressive looking games, but it has a crapload of games that could've been rendered on Dreamcast. (or N64 in the case of TJ&E3) Same with the 'Cube.
Well comparing the best looking game on one console with one of the worst looking games on another consoles is obviously stupid. But its also silly to say that for one console to be worse graphically it must have consistently worse looking games. The only way to judge this by looking at the games is to look at the best looking games on each console. Rate one consoles best again anothers best. Of course this won't tell you which consoles is best in all cases, because it depends on how good the devs are who have so far released games on each system. But its the only way to judge different consoles when looking at the games.
marconelly!
11-Nov-2002, 21:27
The only reason why the middleware solutions became widely available was because of complaints from developers to begin with. If development was easy from the start, there wouldn't be a need for loads of middleware.
Oh, I'm sure being able to share the code, art assets and significantly speed up the development across completely different hardware architectures, has nothing to with it.
Middleware exists solely becaue PS2 is hard to program for, yes. :roll:
But are any of the best looking PS2 games running at 60fps?
Well, truth is, almost every best looking PS2 game runs at 60FPS.
MGS2, BG: DA, GT3, Burnout 2, J&D, AC4, DMC, Ratchet & Clank, Onimusha 1 & 2, ZoE, ZoE2 (isn't out yet, but it's confirmed to be 60FPS)
There's few that run at 30FPS, most notably SH2 (and probably SH3), FFX, ICO.
The only reason why the middleware solutions became widely available was because of complaints from developers to begin with. If development was easy from the start, there wouldn't be a need for loads of middleware.
Isn't the reason for the ease of development on the X-Box a middleware called DirectX?
where is all this ANTI PS2 , ANTI SONY crap coming from?
if you cant see things the way it is, your just ANTI TRUTH!!!
And then:
PS2 is not a fine machine, it was lazy, sloppy, and poorly designed.
they put no thought into the gamer, they thought of only one thing..
lets kill the dreamcast.
Are you were calling other people "Moron's" in another thread? Pot. Kettle. Black.
Graphic Synthesizer was first shown in 1999. It has over 40M transistors on a 0.25um process, 16X the onboard memory that the NV2A is commonly said to have, can draw 75M traingles a second, and over 3X the raw pixel pushing power of the NV2A (or 1200MPisel/sec with 1 texture) at 1/8th the transistor count devoted to raster and 48GB/sec of framebuffer bandwith.
In the mean time, nVidia's mainstream 3D processor was the TNT2U. around 10-15M transistors @ 0.22um, well under the NV2A in onboard RAM/cache, can draw around 5M triangles/sec, and around 600MPixel/sec fillrate with 1 texture. It had around 3GB/sec of bandwith to it's framebuffer.
Poorly designed? I think not.
Two controller ports? the only console since the PSX to be this stupid
Poor Image quality- the only console since the PSX to be this stupid
Lack of just about every 3d graphics feature to come out since the voodoo 2.
Stupid? Alrighty then, good technical answer. Make us proud. Stupid is as Stupid does.
when it all comes down to it, the PS2 is basically the equal to a Voodoo 2 that can push 3 million polys.
Did you ever have a Voodoo2? I did, aswell as a Voodoo: Banshee and a Voodoo3. I saw nothing on any of those cards that could even come near what I can on the PS2.
You Sir, are an idiot.
Actually, why did I even respond? Where's Johnny? He's good kicking ass lately... heh :lol:
But are any of the best looking PS2 games running at 60fps? I think the majority of games on a console run at 30fps. I don't really see how PS2 has a noticably better ratio of 60fps games then GC or XBox.
Maybe, because they have to. If you want to use a half frame/full frame buffer combo to save VRAM you need to lock on 60fps, otherwise you get the RRV syndrome.
CaptainHowdy
11-Nov-2002, 22:49
VInce, I keep hearing this - "it was first shown in 1999", "its almost 2 years older".
what I am saying is not Anti anything, it is just fact.
fact- PS2's hardware sucks, there is more to graphics than raw polygons, like for instance, wrapping them in highres textures makes a world of difference, being you have obviously limited yourself to PS2 games, I guess you have never seen one.
fact- time has nothing to do with it, even Dreamcast took image quality to heart, and its image quality killed PS2's
Fact- PS2 does not even touch GC in power, it almost matches it in pushing polys, but the end results, the GC version will always look better, and if you like some people want to bring XBox into it, trying to compare the PS2 to the Xbox is like comparing a Scooter to a Harley Davidson. Sp I will just leave it out of the equation.
Does PS2 have a large library of amazing games, yes
do I think its a must own system now, oh hell yes.
is it a good piece of hardware? god no, like the games all you want, but just because the geometry is hanging with the big boys, doesnt mean the muddy ugly textures, and pixelized scenes cut the mustard.
randycat99
11-Nov-2002, 23:14
...just because the geometry is hanging with the big boys, doesnt mean the muddy ugly textures, and pixelized scenes cut the mustard.
By this statement it seems you feel that all PS2 titles invariably look horrid due to muddy, ugly textures and pixelized scenes. Clearly, this is a meaningless generalization because certainly there are numerous PS2 games that contain very impressive images. Being able to wrap pretty textures is no more a "fact" than having many polys. ARTWORK is the true fact that trumps either one of those, and that "fact" is accessible on any of the big 3 consoles. The "muddy ugly textures and pixelized scenes" seems to be a mantra for anyone who disapproves of anything that is not Xbox. Someone who has a truly objective viewpoint would simply note that each console has something good to offer, despite their radically different architectures. That's about as far as you can go with these things, because as soon as you see things as being so black-and-white to make such statements, you've really compromised your objectivity on the topic.
marconelly!
11-Nov-2002, 23:14
Maybe, because they have to. If you want to use a half frame/full frame buffer combo to save VRAM you need to lock on 60fps, otherwise you get the RRV syndrome.
I think that if you are running your game at locked 30FPS you still can have half/full frame buffer combo. Besides, If you are running the game at 30FPS you need lees texture updates per frame, therefore you are, again, saving the VRAM.
Still many of the games I counted above actually have full/full frame buffer. You can tell that by either them having a progressive scan support (Burnout 2, Tekken 4) or not losing the scan sync when the game starts skipping frames/slowing down.
fact- time has nothing to do with it, even Dreamcast took image quality to heart, and its image quality killed PS2's
Not that these 'facts' deserve an answer in the first place, but I'll just just say that pretty much every best looking game I counted in the previous post have the same or better image quality than the best of Dreamcast.
is it a good piece of hardware? god no,
Is Genesis a good piece of hardware GOD NO! Look at those simplistic two dimensional games! Listen to those terrible sound bleeps!
What you need to ask yourself, is: Was PS2 a good hardware for the time when it launched? Does it have better looking games than anything available on the hardware of it's time. I think the answer is yes, but I'm sure you will somehow disagree. :\
LogisticX
11-Nov-2002, 23:17
Does PS2 have a large library of amazing games, yes
do I think its a must own system now, oh hell yes.
is it a good piece of hardware? god no, like the games all you want, but just because the geometry is hanging with the big boys, doesnt mean the muddy ugly textures, and pixelized scenes cut the mustard.
Burnout 2.
VInce, I keep hearing this - "it was first shown in 1999", "its almost 2 years older".
what I am saying is not Anti anything, it is just fact.
fact- PS2's hardware sucks, there is more to graphics than raw polygons, like for instance, wrapping them in highres textures makes a world of difference, being you have obviously limited yourself to PS2 games, I guess you have never seen one.
Instead of meagerly throwing words around, why don't you take the time to actually READ what Vince is saying? He clearly states why the hardware, given its time of release, is not the "sucky hardware" idea that you keep trying to pound into everyones heads.
Ps2 has a bigger library than Xbox and Gamecube combined....oh wait, what? It's not fair to compare a system's library to one that had over a year headstart on the competition?
Then how is it fair to harshly criticise hardware that was released long before GCN and Xbox? I've already stated why Sony designed the PS2 as they did for the time in another post, so I'm not going to bother wasting my time.
As for saying DC has better image quality? That's being completely dilusional.... aside from the native VGA support, there is nothing DC has over PS2. I'm an avid supporter and owner of the Dreamcast, and I've not seen a single title that even comes close to MGS2's technical prowess. [/code]
CaptainHowdy
11-Nov-2002, 23:26
so let me get it straight, now we are "explaining why PS2 has inferiour hardware", good, glad we got that straight, now go back and read the title of the thread, and my point is made.
LogisticX
11-Nov-2002, 23:55
No, I'm merely stating that the hardware isn't as badly designed as you want to believe. I'm not in the position to say any of the hardwares are any stronger than another...I do believe though that PS2's exclusives are keeping up well graphically to Xbox's and GCN's.
JF_Aidan_Pryde
11-Nov-2002, 23:59
CaptainHowdy:
If the PS2 was designed using a traditional approach with good hardwired features for texturing and T/L, it would most likely be DEMOLISHED today by the GC and XBOX. Sony had the forsight to design something that would LAST but this made the machine more complicated and some people simply fail to grasp this decision and decides that the design is "lazy and sloppy".
I think what CaptainHowdy wants to see is a "conventionally designed" PS2 so he can claim full Sony defeat as it will obviously be superceded by its compeditors in a years time.
Dear Captain, the only reason why the PS2 is still hanging in there with the GC and XBOX in the hardware department is because it's architecture was designed to LAST, which to you is quite simply: "lazy, sloppy and poorly designed. The PS2 is a bitch to program on. But the harder the work, the more comes out of it. This is more true for the PS2 than any other console. This is not stupid, but rather it is at the heart of its longivity.
Logan Leonhart
12-Nov-2002, 00:02
There´s a difference between inferior and "piss-poor compared to the competition" PS2 has games DC would never be able to touch, and talking in terms of IQ they´re about the same. Most important of all, the hardware has proven powerfull enough to hang out with the competition quite nicely (Man, I can´t wait to see how FFXII looks like)...and you really are blowing out of proportions the "muddy, painted with crayons" textures.
FFX alone has great looking textures in the majority of places. Take your Sony hate elsewhere.
randycat99
12-Nov-2002, 00:10
CaptainHowdy:
If the PS2 was designed using a traditional approach with good hardwired features for texturing and T/L, it would most likely be DEMOLISHED today by the GC and XBOX. Sony had the forsight to design something that would LAST but this made the machine more complicated and some people simply fail to grasp this decision and decides that the design is "lazy and sloppy".
That is a superb point you bring up! Hardware/hard-wired features are great, but quickly can become obsolete. The nice thing about software/software-enabled features is that it is indefinitely upgradeable as the times and requirements dictate.
If PS2 will be anything like PSX in its elder years, we can expect to see significant improvements and respectable pacing with current technologies up to the very end (and possibly beyond, after PS3 is introduced), despite the all too frequent claims that "it's just about tapped out, can't expect more from here on out". Riiight. It's like the "experts" who predict that Apple will be out of business every year since the day it was incepted.
CaptainHowdy
12-Nov-2002, 00:15
No, I just want to see them use things that others have been using for years, even N64 had forms of anti-aliasing and Anisotropic filtering.
Even N64/DC had 4 controller ports
It is a an exageration to call it HORRIBLE, but the image quality is.
Logan Leonhart
12-Nov-2002, 00:22
I take it that you´ve never seen DC in action then, if you call PS2´s image quality terrible (take a look at Shenmue, and every graphical flaw you love to list is there and worse, and you should also include low polygon counts in the DC list too).
And what about the 4 controller ports?
randycat99
12-Nov-2002, 00:22
AA has appeared in some PS2 games. Last time I checked, 4 controllers had nothing to do with IQ. So basically all you got left is that anisotropic thingy, which even fewer people are knowlegible enough to appreciate than even FSAA or bumpmapping for that matter. Need 4-controller support, buy the adapter. It's no different than having to buy a DVD remote for an Xbox. There's always options.
JF_Aidan_Pryde
12-Nov-2002, 00:28
To finish a large project it's more about what to leave out than what to include. It's easy to draw up a bullet list of needed things but to include EVERYTHING on the at list, it would NOT ship. You get some, you loose some, live with it. Ultimantly, the PS2 has enough good things (a lot) going for it to live this long and this an't a bad thing.
Four controller ports I agree on.
marconelly!
12-Nov-2002, 00:32
It is a an exageration to call it HORRIBLE, but the image quality is.
I'll just repeat that pretty much every best looking game I counted in one of my previous posts have the same or better image quality than the best of Dreamcast.
PC-Engine
12-Nov-2002, 01:10
The only reason why the middleware solutions became widely available was because of complaints from developers to begin with. If development was easy from the start, there wouldn't be a need for loads of middleware.
Oh, I'm sure being able to share the code, art assets and significantly speed up the development across completely different hardware architectures, has nothing to with it.
Middleware exists solely becaue PS2 is hard to program for, yes. :roll:
But are any of the best looking PS2 games running at 60fps?
Well, truth is, almost every best looking PS2 game runs at 60FPS.
MGS2, BG: DA, GT3, Burnout 2, J&D, AC4, DMC, Ratchet & Clank, Onimusha 1 & 2, ZoE, ZoE2 (isn't out yet, but it's confirmed to be 60FPS)
There's few that run at 30FPS, most notably SH2 (and probably SH3), FFX, ICO.
Xbox and GCN has an easy development curve compared to PS2 that's why it doesn't need as MUCH middleware.
Isn't the reason for the ease of development on the X-Box a middleware called DirectX?
Ummm you mean APIs like OpenGL, GLide, DirectX, PowerSGL?
marconelly!
12-Nov-2002, 01:15
Xbox and GCN has an easy development curve compared to PS2 that's why it doesn't need as MUCH middleware.
Great majority of multi platform releases are developed using some kind of middleware, so I don't see how GC and Xbox don't need it as much?
Of course, games developed exclusively for one console are most of the time developed without any kind of middleware, but again, that goes for all consoles, not just GC and Xbox.
PC-Engine
12-Nov-2002, 01:18
If PS2 will be anything like PSX in its elder years, we can expect to see significant improvements and respectable pacing with current technologies up to the very end
Isn't PSX a traditional architecture? Wasn't it easy to program? :wink:
If the DC didn't die prematurely, we would've seen similar improvements. GCN and Xbox will see similar improvements also. The difference between the majority of improvements on PS2 will be ways to get around problems while on a traditional architecture the improvements revolve around higher performance and quality instead of bandaids.
Tagrineth
12-Nov-2002, 01:38
AA has appeared in some PS2 games. Last time I checked, 4 controllers had nothing to do with IQ. So basically all you got left is that anisotropic thingy, which even fewer people are knowlegible enough to appreciate than even FSAA or bumpmapping for that matter. Need 4-controller support, buy the adapter. It's no different than having to buy a DVD remote for an Xbox. There's always options.
Personally, I still have yet to see a PSX or PS2 multitap at all (of course, I have online, but never IRL)... I've seen a Genesis one once... and I'm the only person I know with one for SNES.
Honestly, multitaps are by NO stretch of the imagination a replacement for four onboard controller ports.
N64 was definitely the first console to really break away in the 'party game' style with 4-player multi in like 40+% of games.
That isn't to say there weren't any on PSX or other previous consoles, but my point is, multitaps don't sell well enough to make them viable replacements for actually having the ports onboard.
Hey, doesn't this sound like the whole add-in versus built-in thing? Add-ins are NEVER successful... the only truly successful add-in hardware to date is definitely the N64 RAM expansion. :P
randycat99
12-Nov-2002, 02:59
Not so, Sony has pretty much broken that precedent. Sony add-ons seem quite accessible for purchase (except that damn modem thingy ;) ). Can't find a multitap??? Get in your car, go to Best Buy, pick up multitap- that simple. I got one right here.
You still have to buy 3 other controllers on the other consoles to support 4-way, anyway. So there goes the cost advantage. The PS2 owner, OTOH, probably already has numerous controllers lying around from the PSX days. So that is already taken care of, really. Don't have any extra PSX/PS2 controllers? Ask a friend- they probably got one for you (an analog one, at that). This is the obiquitous PSX, mind you! Myself, I had a PSX analog controller, a Mad Catz DS knockoff, and a PSX DS controller ready to go when I finally "needed" 4-player action on Gauntlet Legends.
Really, this 4-player readiness issue is highly overrated. Anybody who really cares, does so only to grasp for straws.
Logan Leonhart
12-Nov-2002, 03:07
I don´t see what´s the big deal over 4 player games. The biggest games of 2002, 2001 and 2000(that I can remember) the vast majority of them were either single player experiences or 2 player games. I don´t really see why this is important.
mkillio
12-Nov-2002, 03:22
What add-ons has sony had, besides the modem? Anyone that I know that had a PSX doesn't have it anymore because it either broke or they sold it along with their controllers. Who wants a used controller anyways? The original PSX controllers aren't as good as the PS2 ones either.Also a multi-tap is $35 which is more than the cost of a controller so you'll have to buy 4+ controllers as far as money is concerned.
Maybe this whole 4 player thing is overrated for you guys but I have friends and I need 4 controllers, if only for TS2 and SSB:M.
randycat99
12-Nov-2002, 03:27
The excuses never cease... :roll: Riiight, now all the PSX units out there are defunct and then sold away with the controllers... OoooKay.
If it's got 2 sticks and a rumble, it will work just fine on your PS2. How many 4-player games require analog button control???
The Bouncer, for one ;) (it wont work with DS1)
mkillio
12-Nov-2002, 03:36
The excuses never cease... Riiight, now all the PSX units out there are defunct and then sold away with the controllers... OoooKay.
It's by no means an excuse, it's a fact, at least in my personal experience. Plus I never said that "Every PSX that someone I've known ownes has broken" did I?
I also never said that my friends sold their broken PSX's either. If their PSX's broke they either got a new one or sold the controllers to a store or to someone else.
How many 4-player games require analog button control???
I didn't mean for multi-player games specifically, I meant for games in general.
This is probably just me but I couldn't have a controller that isn't meant for my system, be it color or otherwise because I would consider them sub-par.
randycat99
12-Nov-2002, 03:45
Hey, image is everything, isn't it? :roll: If that is the case, you should have no problem spending as much money as necessary to accomplish that objective.
mkillio
12-Nov-2002, 04:01
That's why I added a "side note" stating my personal opinion and even stated that others probably wouldn't agree.
I bought three extra controllers for GC, and they are all different colours btw, then the Wave Bird came out and I bought that and I plan on buying three more when they have three more colors come out (mainly so I don't get them mixed up though).
We can however agree to disagree on this one though right? We both have different opinions on this subject and neither of us is likely going to change his mind. So let's at the least not get in to a personal argument about this.
randycat99
12-Nov-2002, 04:08
Sorry, just venting. :-?
archie4oz
12-Nov-2002, 05:57
The only reason why the middleware solutions became widely available was because of complaints from developers to begin with. If development was easy from the start, there wouldn't be a need for loads of middleware.
Middleware exists solely becaue PS2 is hard to program for, yes
That would be completely incorrect. Console middleware became heavily popularized since the PSX days (and been around longer). Middleware today plays a big role for many vendors as it provides an abstraction for targetting multiple platforms (e.g. Criterion, Intrinsic). Also the GCN and Xbox exlusives are not immune to middleware, both platforms see extensive use of middleware...
If the DC didn't die prematurely, we would've seen similar improvements.
You did, it was called Shenmue II... Like the DC; Xbox and the GCN are going to peak rather quickly as it's relatively easy to extract high levels of performance within the range they're expected to produce. Halo 2, Doom 3 (for Xbox) and Metroid Prime are likely to be highlight levels of performance you'll see. Beyond that, it's really more of a matter of what the content is (not how it's created) that's going to make more of an impression. That and developer ingenuity at gameplay...
Hey, doesn't this sound like the whole add-in versus built-in thing? Add-ins are NEVER successful... the only truly successful add-in hardware to date is definitely the N64 RAM expansion
Not so, Sony has pretty much broken that precedent.
Actually if we're not considering worldwide availability as a criteria, then the FDS proved that wrong first. Then the PC Engine with it's Super CD-ROM2 add--on (which proved so successful that the Duos became standard). Of course the aformentioned RAM pack for the N64. At the rate of sales of Sony's network adaptor I'd toss that one in as well. Memory cards are a choice so obvious that they're often overlooked. Non-standard game controllers as a category would also count since *most* are not required for gameplay.
Maybe this whole 4 player thing is overrated for you guys but I have friends and I need 4 controllers, if only for TS2 and SSB:M.
It isn't, but one doesn't need 4 ports to do it. On the other hand, while 4-player is great (SSB DX, Mario Party, Virtua and Mario Tennis, Beach Spikers, DOA2/3, Halo, etc), 8-player is a total blast. Many nights were burned away with 8-player soccer and hockey with beer and pizza (football and basketball more common with my American friends). In my university days, 10-player Saturn on a Hi-Vision consumed waaaay more hours than I would have liked to have gone to more "important tasks."
BenSkywalker
12-Nov-2002, 06:03
Halo 2, Doom 3 (for Xbox) and Metroid Prime are likely to be highlight levels of performance you'll see.
In the case of Halo2 and Doom3, the visuals are significantly beyond anything we have seen for either of the other two though(and for that matter, far better then anything we have seen for the XBox to date). For Metroid Prime, do you have the final build of the game(I haven't seen it)? The demo makes it appear comparable to SFA, slightly behind RL in the visual tech department(although the artistry appears most impressive).
marconelly!
12-Nov-2002, 06:59
Middleware exists solely becaue PS2 is hard to program for, yes
That would be completely incorrect.
Archie, I was being ironic. I was basically answering to his comment about middleware and said similar things as you did.
Fafalada
12-Nov-2002, 07:31
Xbox and GCN has an easy development curve compared to PS2 that's why it doesn't need as MUCH middleware.
PC has been the champion of middleware licensing like - forever, and it continues to be so. Do you actually believe it's because PC development curve is so much worse then PS2s that it needs it that much more?
archie4oz
12-Nov-2002, 08:18
In the case of Halo2 and Doom3, the visuals are significantly beyond anything we have seen for either of the other two though(and for that matter, far better then anything we have seen for the XBox to date).
I dunno, I though Wreckless was pretty impressive. Just not an FPS and not made by JC (or Bungie for that matter)...
For Metroid Prime, do you have the final build of the game(I haven't seen it)? The demo makes it appear comparable to SFA, slightly behind RL in the visual tech department(although the artistry appears most impressive).
Just an example of a real title of what I expect with regards to the GCN, probably not the best (ironically another first person game). Probably not quite the level of Doom 3, however I think some of the artistic decisions also prevent some things (I should've mentioned RL, but I think that can be improved as well). I mean look at todays Madden and Live (Fever and SEGA sports titles). Visually they're *very* (especially in modeling, skinning, and animation) impressive, but they're sports games, and there's only so much you can do with the content, to the point you're really just trying to see how much detail you can pack. The monster lighting in Doom 3 (and SH3 to a lesser extent) is one facet that allows one to really play off of light in dramatic ways and emphasis other aspects.
One problem I do have though, is the tendency to equate realism, or realism based effects as *visually stunning* and leading the way, while non-photorealistic presentations are usually dismissed simple, unimpressive, and a scapegoat for hardware limitations. :evil:
Of course I only say that because I spent a rather large sum of time at university and work researching NPR and visual perception and realize the headaches of game implementation :( (and Zelda's animation still causes me to bang my head on the monitor). :evil:
PC has been the champion of middleware licensing like - forever, and it continues to be so.
Heheh, I can think of a few game engines that are the biggest offenders... :wink:
PC-Engine
12-Nov-2002, 08:23
PCs have had middleware for a long time because PCs have existed for a long time. Middleware on PS2 however, didn't become prevailent until developers started complaining only about a year after PS2's launch. Given enough time ANY platform would accumulate a sizeable middleware market which really isn't a mystery.
archie4oz
12-Nov-2002, 08:32
Umm... Middleware (for the PS2) was proliferating months before it was even released. The DC also had plenty of middleware (as did the PSX). Middleware is a big industry for consoles, it doesn't matter what platform it is. Especially for APIs, media formats/codecs, and tools that don't get a lot of mainstream support on PCs...
PC-Engine
12-Nov-2002, 08:38
Umm... Middleware (for the PS2) was proliferating months before it was even released. The DC also had plenty of middleware (as did the PSX). Middleware is a big industry for consoles, it doesn't matter what platform it is. Especially for APIs, media formats/codecs, and tools that don't get a lot of mainstream support on PCs...
Wasn't what I heard back then :wink:
I remember hearing PSX developers that were transitioning to PS2 development making their concerns heard back then.
archie4oz
12-Nov-2002, 08:47
Yeah, because they were in an immature state. Hell, it was rather hard for them to be considering the PS2 SDK was pretty incomplete. Especially if you couldn't read Japanese... :wink:
PC-Engine
12-Nov-2002, 09:05
Yeah, because they were in an immature state. Hell, it was rather hard for them to be considering the PS2 SDK was pretty incomplete. Especially if you couldn't read Japanese... :wink:
So Madden 2001 was developed by a Japanese team?
Fafalada
12-Nov-2002, 09:10
I'm pretty sure Criterion started PS2 Renderware development way back in first half of 99. Unreal and Litech ports were started around fall 99 as well from what I remember.
Heck even OGL port was started before Japanese launch IIRC.
And these are just the most known ones...
You didn't need a Japanese team, but the early PS2 SDKs were mostly documented in Japanese yes, which meant that for instance a lot of sample code (which is already an example of grotesquely nasty coding) was even harder to understand.
At the start, only thing there was in english were somewhat weakly translated hardware manuals... :-?
Ozymandis
12-Nov-2002, 13:32
(and Zelda's animation still causes me to bang my head on the monitor). :evil:
In what way?
Tagrineth
12-Nov-2002, 14:12
Not so, Sony has pretty much broken that precedent. Sony add-ons seem quite accessible for purchase (except that damn modem thingy ;) ). Can't find a multitap??? Get in your car, go to Best Buy, pick up multitap- that simple. I got one right here.
You still have to buy 3 other controllers on the other consoles to support 4-way, anyway. So there goes the cost advantage. The PS2 owner, OTOH, probably already has numerous controllers lying around from the PSX days. So that is already taken care of, really. Don't have any extra PSX/PS2 controllers? Ask a friend- they probably got one for you (an analog one, at that). This is the obiquitous PSX, mind you! Myself, I had a PSX analog controller, a Mad Catz DS knockoff, and a PSX DS controller ready to go when I finally "needed" 4-player action on Gauntlet Legends.
Really, this 4-player readiness issue is highly overrated. Anybody who really cares, does so only to grasp for straws.
What I mean is, even though they aren't that hard to buy, you still do have to buy them seperately (and it's apparently pretty expensive in the end)... this does make devs somewhat wary of including its use.
Most people just don't buy the multitaps, period. Kinda makes it like a catch-22 - devs don't support 4-player because the multitaps don't sell well, people don't buy the multitaps because so few 4-player games are available. Whee.
You did, it was called Shenmue II... Like the DC; Xbox and the GCN are going to peak rather quickly as it's relatively easy to extract high levels of performance within the range they're expected to produce.
As many on this forum have already said, PSX was a traditional easy to program system and its games continued improving and improving 5+ years after its release. You have no way of knowing that Dreamcast wouldn't have done the same, logically it would have. XBox and GameCube are easy to program for compared to PS2 but that does not mean they are easy to get the best visuals from. They're both easy to get a game running well, but that does not mean that its easy to get the best possible performance from either of them. Both consoles will have a hell of allot of improvements over the years as developers start to try more and more complex programing with them. Just one example of this is XBox's pixel shader and GameCube's TEV, both programmable units that will allow for some great effects in the future once devs get used to the tech.
Halo 2, Doom 3 (for Xbox) and Metroid Prime are likely to be highlight levels of performance you'll see. Beyond that, it's really more of a matter of what the content is (not how it's created) that's going to make more of an impression.
You think Metroid Prime is going to be as good as GC games get visually? Not a chance, I bet they could improve that game visually even if they kept the totally solid 60fps. Then of course you have to try to imagine what sort of visuals they could produce if they dropped their framerate to 30fps, twice the textures/texture resolution per frame, twice the geometry per frame ect ect. I really doubt Halo 2 will be as good as it gets for XBox either.
Hi everybody,
IMO you have to be really careful when talking about "image-quality", "better visuals", "more polygons", "texture quality" and comparing console games, or their respective consoles, based on these measurements.
Very often people perceive different things in different ways and name them very different.
Texture crawling (because of lack of MipMapping and/or tri-filtering), lack or poor implementation of flicker-filters (and different usage of frame/field rendering) make lot's of PS2 games look inferior to many people compared to their XBOX/GC counterparts which exhibit in general less of these "artifacts". But even then these "poor looking" games can contain copious amounts of textures or tris which make them "good looking" to many people that are not turned away of the forementioned "artifacts".
I just want to say: Please don't generalize Image quality or your understanding of it, with the performance of the underlying hardware.
The technically best games on every console tend to use the Hardware in a way that gives little room to witness it's shortcomings.
Together with better knowledge of the hardware over time, developers learn to use the given power they have more effective.
A good example is Rogue Leader on GC. It could be using 100% of GC Tnl Power (I'm not saying it is) and the next Rogue Leader would still look considerably better because of better usage of that power in terms of "visual revenue".(better artwork, better LoD, better occlusion culling, better usage of the TEV and tons of other things)
I'm not making a case for any console. Every one has it's strongpoints along with it's weaknesses. Very often the difference between a "good looking" game and an "ugly one" is simply artwork.
I wished everybody could buy all four of them (DC ahoi) and play the strong titles each platform has going for it.
Have fun.
BTW this is a very nice forum with posters like Fafalada, ERP, archie4oz and all the others. :)
Keep up the good work.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.