View Full Version : Anything to share on the Lord of the Rings:2Towers PS2 game?
randycat99
05-Dec-2002, 03:20
Technical comments on the engine? What about that MASSIVE implementation? I hear the game is yet another example of quite impressive accomplishments on the PS2 hardware. I look forward to renting.
DeathKnight
05-Dec-2002, 03:46
There was a pretty good, in-depth preview for the Xbox version in the latest OXM. Sounds like a winner for sure. Can't wait to see the improvements ;)
What about that MASSIVE implementation?
MASSIVE is a system designed by WETA that's used in the actual offline rendering of LOTR:TT. It's just a bit beyond what we can do today in RT, maybe next generation :)
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,390918-1,00.html
But, the game itself is suppose to be great.
marconelly!
05-Dec-2002, 04:05
I am waiting to see if the Xbox version is going to have co-op 2 player mode. Pictures from the Xbox version that I've seen, look pretty much the same as the PS2 version, they might even end up screwing up the framerate which, from what I've heard, is perfectly smooth on PS2 (I think different team is working on XB and GC ports).
randycat99
05-Dec-2002, 04:23
There was a little blurb about the game on the LOTR DVD extras area. They were saying how MASSIVE is somehow used in the game (in part, perhaps) to orchestrate the AI of large groups of combatants. The illustration showed how a group could swarm in a natural manner, yet each combatant also displayed a bit of individuality in movement/action (so as to not look like a completely canned/robotic swarm). So all of that tied into the premise that great, epic battles could truly unfold in the game. It certainly looked cool.
If it actually is involved as a rendering engine (obviously at a smaller scale than the movie rendering), that sounds rather intriguing. Guess I should go visit the website to learn more, perhaps...
I would love to see a GF1 handle a game like TT. :P
I would love to see a GF1 handle a game like TT. :P
I guess you'll see when they port it to GameCube's Flipper... :oops:
(sorry, had to pour kerosine on the fire)
CaptainHowdy
05-Dec-2002, 17:38
I am waiting to see if the Xbox version is going to have co-op 2 player mode. Pictures from the Xbox version that I've seen, look pretty much the same as the PS2 version, they might even end up screwing up the framerate which, from what I've heard, is perfectly smooth on PS2 (I think different team is working on XB and GC ports).
I am scared of how that will turn out myself, being the XBox/GC versions are coming out so soon after the PS2's release, that seems like a fast port
maskrider
05-Dec-2002, 17:58
I am waiting to see if the Xbox version is going to have co-op 2 player mode. Pictures from the Xbox version that I've seen, look pretty much the same as the PS2 version, they might even end up screwing up the framerate which, from what I've heard, is perfectly smooth on PS2 (I think different team is working on XB and GC ports).
I am scared of how that will turn out myself, being the XBox/GC versions are coming out so soon after the PS2's release, that seems like a fast port
I bought the PS2 Chinese edition of this game, I bought it because I think it is looking ridiculously good during the fighting scenes during the time I saw it on the demo TVs, but after buying it I think it leaves a lot to be desired.
Yes, the game is dark and dim, may be that's why it looked good. But it indeed contains a lot of objects moving here and there. The fighting part is indeed pretty simple comparing to other beat them up games.
And anyway, I am not interested in the story of LOTR anyway (I got very bored half way through the first episode of the movie).
PC-Engine
06-Dec-2002, 01:38
I am scared of how that will turn out myself, being the XBox/GC versions are coming out so soon after the PS2's release, that seems like a fast port
Let's hop EA repeats the magic they did with the GCN version of 007 Nightfire which destroyed the PS2 version. 8)
marconelly!
06-Dec-2002, 02:16
I thought Nightfire was pretty much the same looking on all three, with framerate being most stable on the Xbox...
PC-Engine
06-Dec-2002, 02:19
I thought Nightfire was pretty much the same looking on all three, with framerate being most stable on the Xbox...
In multiplayer the GCN version keeps the 60 fps while the PS2 version bogs down.
DeathKnight
06-Dec-2002, 02:21
I rented Nightfire for my Xbox and it runs silky smooth with maybe a blip or two every now and then. I haven't seen the PS2 or Cube versions, but the devs did something right. I wonder what EA house handled the games...
marconelly!
06-Dec-2002, 02:40
In multiplayer the GCN version keeps the 60 fps while the PS2 version bogs down.
Well, if that constitutes 'destroying' :wink: Anyways, I've heard GC version also has framerate dips, even in the singleplayer mode.
All three versions of nightfire were made simultainously by Eurocom. driving sections were made by EA Canada.
PC-Engine
06-Dec-2002, 03:15
PS2 version which got 8.1 from IGN:
It's a very complete package in this sense, and while the PS2 version doesn't keep up a perfect framerate in four-player split-screen, it's more than playable enough
GCN version which got 8.5 from IGN:
It's a very complete package in this sense and on GameCube the action runs, for the most part, at 60 frames per second in four-player mode with lots going on. There are one or two stages in which the fluidity drops, but overall it's nicely done.
and in single player on GCN:
What makes it all the more magnificent is that on GameCube everything runs at a rock solid 60 frames per second, which is extremely impressive.
marconelly!
06-Dec-2002, 03:27
That's cool. Guy from the GS video review said something different but I can't watch that again to find out exactly what. I remember he said Xbox version has the most steady framerate, and for most part, that was the only difference.
CaptainHowdy
06-Dec-2002, 03:49
What impresses me most about Nightfire, is that it doesnt suck, I was expecting another AUF, but I actually was suprised to find a very intense, very pretty game.
Ooh. I don't know. I enjoyed AUF, but Nightfire? After months of anticipation, I was rather disappointed.
I bought the Xbox version. Poly counts and texturing didn't look like anything the PS2 couldn't do, and the auto-targeting seemed broken.
Ultimately, I returned the game at EB and got Ghost Recon instead.
Now there's a great game! :D
Kolgar
CaptainHowdy
11-Feb-2003, 17:26
I would love to see a GF1 handle a game like TT. :P
I guess you'll see when they port it to GameCube's Flipper... :oops:
(sorry, had to pour kerosine on the fire)
well, the verdict is in IGN Head to head (http://insider.ign.com/articles/385/385570p1.html)
GC is the winner, the only version to maintain a soilid 60 fps
and even though it lacks digital sound, it doesnt have the audio skipping of the Xbox version, or the bad dithering of the PS2 version.
Controls- 3 way tie
Sound- Gamecube
Graphics- Gamecube
Presentation- Xbox
Overal- Gamecube[/url]
Wierd, my buddy and I rented it for Xbox over the weekend, didn't notice any slowdown whatsoever, but the audio skipping was somewhat annoying.
marconelly!
11-Feb-2003, 19:30
That is just stupid... The game runs at 30FPS on all three consoles, and from what I've seen doesn't slow down either on PS2 or the Xbox. Xbox version definitely has that annoying audio skipping problem, and PS2 version definitely runs at 16 bit. If GC version runs at 32 bit and has no audio skipping, I can see how it is the best version overall (but again, I don't see why they think it has the best sound, as PS2 version sounds prety much perfect and has digital audio out...)
I'm currently playing the ps2 version, so I do not care about the others.
Marco, stop bitching. IGN tried all 3 and in their head to head the Gc is not winnnig all the time, so if they think it is the best, they could be right.
I found the ps2 version quite impressive, but the gameplay is very light. I do not think I will try all 3 characters.
Fafalada
11-Feb-2003, 20:34
:? I wonder sometimes why IGN bothers talking about framerate at all, they'd probably get it right about it more often if they just flipped coins for the number...
say... heads = 30fps... tails = 60... if coin falls on the edge = 20 :|
PC-Engine
11-Feb-2003, 21:12
I guess what turned out to be a huge accomplishment on PS2 turned out to be a walk in the park for GCN :oops:
shrug
As usual with multiplatform games, the Xbox will always get my vote simply due to the DD5.1 (which sounds especially awesome in Two Towers). For me, thats enough to look over skippy audio or other strange problems 90% of the time.
And tho it doesn't really mean much, Gamespot has a little "BEST ON" icon next to the Xbox version in their Two Towers review :P
marconelly!
12-Feb-2003, 02:04
Marco, stop bitching. IGN tried all 3 and in their head to head the Gc is not winnnig all the time, so if they think it is the best, they could be right.
Well, isn't that exactly what I've said? I was just correcting some factual things.
I guess what turned out to be a huge accomplishment on PS2 turned out to be a walk in the park for GCN
Yeah, they easily 'doubled' the framerate :lol:
PC-Engine
12-Feb-2003, 02:49
Where did all of those GFLOPS go? :oops:
Oh yeah..physics..right... :lol:
Where did all of those GFLOPS go? :oops:
Shenmue :oops:
marconelly!
12-Feb-2003, 03:06
Where did all of those GFLOPS go?
Just play ZoE2 and you'll see where are to GFLOPS going.
I'm still completely stupified after playing that demo. It's a sensory overload, unlike anything else I've ever seen.
Just play ZoE2 and you'll see where are to GFLOPS going.
Nice try. Actually, ZoE2 is running on a cut down Shenmue engine.
PC-Engine
12-Feb-2003, 04:28
I thought the GS had massive fillrate? :?
Too bad ZOE2 isn't a multiplatform game like LOTR :oops:
marconelly!
12-Feb-2003, 05:30
I thought the GS had massive fillrate?
Someting also has to actually calculate positions for all that stuff the game is throwing at the screen, it's not just drawing it.
Too bad ZOE2 isn't a multiplatform game like LOTR
MGS2 was... You wouldn't want such a tragedy to your precious Gamecube, now would you? Ah, I forgot, in that case, the developer would suck ;)
PC-Engine
12-Feb-2003, 05:47
Ah, I forgot, in that case, the developer would suck ;)
Nah Konami makes the best games everyone knows that. They'd never do a lazy port. :wink:
marconelly!
12-Feb-2003, 05:49
Then why do you wish for their lazy ports of ZoE2 ;)
PC-Engine
12-Feb-2003, 06:30
Well to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're the best PS2 developers :wink:
london-boy
12-Feb-2003, 10:52
why oh why :roll: :roll:
iscariot
13-Feb-2003, 02:31
why oh why
PC-Engine = bitter :oops:
PC-Engine
13-Feb-2003, 03:02
why oh why
PC-Engine = bitter :oops:
because the GCN version of LOTR is so good...relatively speaking :lol:
It particularly shines in comparison to the PS2 version; the textures are much more clean, the rough edges are all smoothed out, and the particle lighting effects are even slightly more radiant than before.:oops:
randycat99
14-Feb-2003, 02:36
I finally rented the game (PS2), and found the experience quite thrilling. I found the graphics quite impressive (at the very least, far more than adequate for me to get into the game and have A LOT of fun). In no way, was it an eyesore in the slightest to bother making distinctions between different console versions. Of all games, I would say this would be the least relevant game to worry about "better" versions on other consoles. I'm not saying the differences are negligible (I have no idea), but the graphics are that good to not bother with what other versions look like, unless having the version that looks better than the "next guy" is a sole justification for having the game. As fun as this game is, that is sooo not the point. :)
As it stands on its own, I am absolutely impressed at how much they got the PS2 to do in this game. ...Except they shouldn't have chickened out and de-colored the blood spray. :twisted: I could only wish that all PS2 games here on out look this good and have as much en masse action!
marconelly!
14-Feb-2003, 04:27
Wait till you see the masse action on the last three levels ;)
randycat99
14-Feb-2003, 04:53
Yes, I know what you mean! :wink: Incredible! I think this should dispell the myth that "not enough enemies can appear on-screen on the PS2 due to 'shortcomings' in the hardware". Riiiight. :D
I should have said I rented it recently, rather than "just rented". If there is any shortcoming of the game, it is that it is short. It may be short, but the production quality over that short expanse is outstanding.
marconelly!
14-Feb-2003, 05:18
Anyways, that game is pretty much nothing compared to ZoE2 demo ;) You should get that too. It's simply a sensory overload.
LOTR is confined to arena battles too. :(
LOTR is confined to arena battles too. :(
Better than having your head confined to a place where the sun don't shine. :)
maskrider
14-Feb-2003, 20:45
Anyways, that game is pretty much nothing compared to ZoE2 demo ;) You should get that too. It's simply a sensory overload.
Talking about ZOE2, it was out and I bought it already. I have just finished the VR training part and started to play the game. From the intro (real time fighting scenes), the game has pretty good looking graphics, and the action is really intense and fast.
I sold my copy of LOTR a month or so ago as I think it is pretty boring (to me), the characters are indeed pretty blocky up close and the scene is so dim.
I have just bought Halo (a localized version only on audio, HK$290 only), I think Halo is not a good looking game and I don't like the control with the X controller. May be I am too used to keyboard + mouse with PC FPS.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.