PS2 vs PC at launch [Necro-Tech]


It says in the article that the fast methods aren't not supported by all hardware. Copying the backbuffer back to system memory or software rendering were probably not realistic options.

The gamespot review of NFS Underground states that all the console versions have equal amount of blur effect, thats gamecube too.

It's possible, it's just less efficient on Gamecube because there are separate memories for framebuffer and textures so the data has to be copied around. It also limits how much memory you can use for other textures.
 
Motion blur and other effects werent at all possible on pc hardware in that time? IVe read about GF2s register that there were things possible there, anything special there?
What would you say is more capable PS2 or GF2 in a decent system? With that i mean the total picture.
 
Motion blur and other effects werent at all possible on pc hardware in that time? IVe read about GF2s register that there were things possible there, anything special there?
What would you say is more capable PS2 or GF2 in a decent system? With that i mean the total picture.

Not saying it's not possible per se, just not on all DirectX 7 hardware, or at least probably not at an acceptable speed. But I don't know what hardware support was actually like.

I don't think I could really make that kind of comparison, it depends on so many factors...
 
Not saying it's not possible per se, just not on all DirectX 7 hardware, or at least probably not at an acceptable speed. But I don't know what hardware support was actually like.

I don't think I could really make that kind of comparison, it depends on so many factors...

Ok, you said a while ago that a 733mhz p3 is more capable then PS2 CPU (EE+VU0).
Is it possible for you to say about what was more capable for gaming GF2 vs GS/VU1 in the PS2 with its subsystems (main ram, edram)

Also what does Geforce 2's register combiner have to offer? Was it any good?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Motion blur and other effects werent at all possible on pc hardware in that time? IVe read about GF2s register that there were things possible there, anything special there?
What would you say is more capable PS2 or GF2 in a decent system? With that i mean the total picture.
By and large, the method of motion blur that was used on PS2 wasn't viable on PC at the time. There are other ways to get motion blur, but it was cheaper and easier on PS2 at the time.
 
By and large, the method of motion blur that was used on PS2 wasn't viable on PC at the time. There are other ways to get motion blur, but it was cheaper and easier on PS2 at the time.
Are you talking about the motion blur that existed in games like in Metal Gear Solid 2?
That motion blur implementation was unimpressive. It wasnt much different from the one we got on Metal Gear Solid 1.
The Shadow of the Colossus MB though was a totally different case though. Had all the proper elements of a next gen version of the time although the method used was very inventive
 
Having read all the IGN head to head articles from the 6th gen consoles, its allways the PC coming on top regarding graphics and sound, with the Xbox being the best of the consoles (GC/PS2).
On some games like prince of persia the PS2 had additional heat wave effect the other consoles didnt have, yet the conclusion was that the Xbox and GC versions (and PC) where having much better graphics thanks to higher resolutions, higher res textures, more stable framerates, filtering etc. Often PS2 versions of games had problems with 'shimmering', lower fps and things like lighting etc. Load times where longest on PS2 aswell.
All of this was for all of the head to head from IGN, all titles i could find, same conclusions from gamespot and other review sites. PS2 was allways the worst of the bunch, pc getting better versions. This is including reviews with Geforce 2 cards (dont know what model).
What suprised me was that PS2 often had so much worse audio quality compared to xbox and sometimes even GC.
As a side note, for most games the PS2 was the lead platform according to reviewers.

Myself having xbox, ps2, obviously pc (and GC), with the games i could do comparisons against pc versions of the time, pc was quit ahead. PS2 certainly had some additional effects but as a whole the pc would output the better looking picture, guess higher res, filtering and higher res textures do their job.

Offcourse then we have exclusives and games that were maxing the PS2 more. For those games its harder to compare to the PC since there wasnt many games on that platform that where optimized for a GF2 and P3. What i do know is that Black is one of the most taxing PS2 games using its hardware, ran both the xbox and PS2 version, xbox seems to be 60fps vs PS2 30fps, at higher resolution, colors, filtering and again sounds so much better?
Black is having a motion blur when reloading, how good this MB is i dont know, but theres youtube videos on it, im no expert, just seeing the irritating blur :p
Now i do know xbox has a GF3 with extra vertex shader, so how it would look on a GF2 64MB, athlon 1ghz with 256mb ram, dont know, but certainly better then PS2 in most regards if optimized, since xbox's only advantage over that pc would be GPU, the 2000 pc having a much faster CPU, much more ram, and dedicated ram to the GPU certainly makes up for some things.

BF1942/vietnam with its 64 player maps certainly wouldnt run in its original form on PS2 is my thought....

Also, seeing as the GC almost always came ahead in multiplatform games, and having in most peoples eyes the better looking exclusives then PS2 (rouge squadron), with the GC having a <500mhz cpu and gpu comparable to something DX7 level, i guess that pc would be more capable.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top