Ikusagami Screenshots
- Thread starter Slay
- Start date
That video is bloddy aweful quality - I'm not sure how you'd be able to judge anything off that. Surely anyone who's watched that trailer can see that.
What I do see though suggests quite an alright framerate for the most part. It does seem to stall on a few occasions (maybe it's the video), but if they can iron it out, this looks quite fun to play.
What I do see though suggests quite an alright framerate for the most part. It does seem to stall on a few occasions (maybe it's the video), but if they can iron it out, this looks quite fun to play.
Mefisutoferesu
Regular
It's like mowing the lawn!! Seriously, though I think the lighting is kinda nice. Anyway, it'll EASILY be the tedious game in existance if that's all there is to it. There nededs to be some moves that kill 1000s. Did you see the counter in the lower right? By the end the player had about 2000 out of 65, 000. No way that's gonna be fun, especially with the mindless AI. NNN is probably a better choice.
TGS gameplay cam
http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=7874&type=wmv
It even has a counter with 65535 as the max value
http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=7874&type=wmv
It even has a counter with 65535 as the max value
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
PS2 underestimated
PS2 is most powerful current generation console in vertex shader power due to two programmable vector units at 300mhz but much optimization needed since unusual architecture. Highest polygon count in a game is 20M/s, which at 60fps is 333,000 polygons/frame, at 30fps is 666,000 polygons/frame.
To give you idea of how much polygons it is, highest polygon scene in Far Cry PC version = 500,000 polygon/frame on maximum detail! If more optimized PS2 can perform even better and because fully programmable, more effects can be done to vertices than normal vertex shaders. Also now developers learning to do normal-mapping, a type of spherical harminic lighting, sub-surface scattering, HDR, etc... all on PS2! Only problem is it might be too late for a lot of PS2 games with all these effects since next-gen already coming up.
ultragpu said:
PS2 is most powerful current generation console in vertex shader power due to two programmable vector units at 300mhz but much optimization needed since unusual architecture. Highest polygon count in a game is 20M/s, which at 60fps is 333,000 polygons/frame, at 30fps is 666,000 polygons/frame.
To give you idea of how much polygons it is, highest polygon scene in Far Cry PC version = 500,000 polygon/frame on maximum detail! If more optimized PS2 can perform even better and because fully programmable, more effects can be done to vertices than normal vertex shaders. Also now developers learning to do normal-mapping, a type of spherical harminic lighting, sub-surface scattering, HDR, etc... all on PS2! Only problem is it might be too late for a lot of PS2 games with all these effects since next-gen already coming up.
ihamoitc2005 said:
Uhmmm... Err.... Sorry... Say that again?ihamoitc2005
Veteran
typo
Sorry I mean harmonic, not harminic.
london-boy said:
Sorry I mean harmonic, not harminic.
ihamoitc2005 said:
That's the least of your problems.
HDR, subsurface scattering and all that crap you said will never happen on PS2.
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
Odd comment.
Go check on Gamasutra. Developers are presenting technique to do precisely this.
london-boy said:
Go check on Gamasutra. Developers are presenting technique to do precisely this.
ihamoitc2005 said:
Right.
The day i see 20M polygons, HDR, subsurface scattering, harmonic lighting, all that jazz u said on a game, it will be the day i cut my balls off.
Please, get a grip.
I have to say I'm rather impressed by the sheer number of critters in this Ikusagami movie. Gameplay wise it looked exactly like N3 on XB360 - surrounded by insane numbers of critters and mindless super-big glowing sword-swings until they're all dead. Extremely dull, but certainly there was as much scale to the army on this as N3. Quote a feat in it's own right when considering it's on PS2. Imagine what people would have thought if they'd seen this movie as a prelude to PS2's release!
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
Dont hurt yourself
I never said 20M polygon game had all these tricks. I said 20M/s polygon game has been done.
As for HDR, subsurface scattering, spherical harmonic lighting, etc, tools have been presented to implement these techniques. You dont have to believe me, and obviously you dont, look for yourself. They even showed real-time demos.
I made memory mistake in previous post, it was not Gamasutra, but Game Developer's Conference 2005.
london-boy said:
I never said 20M polygon game had all these tricks. I said 20M/s polygon game has been done.
As for HDR, subsurface scattering, spherical harmonic lighting, etc, tools have been presented to implement these techniques. You dont have to believe me, and obviously you dont, look for yourself. They even showed real-time demos.
I made memory mistake in previous post, it was not Gamasutra, but Game Developer's Conference 2005.
ihamoitc2005 said:
We still have to see bump mapping being implemented in games, do you expect games to come out with HDR and subsurface scattering?!
Besides, i'm not even sure you can even do them technically. Maybe you can get approximations with some different techniques and tricks, but HDR is a whole different beast. Subsurface scattering... Let's not even go there.
Point is, they're "tech demos" in the 5th year of the console. That's very much in the realm of "Oi guys, look what we've been playing around lately!". Nothing to do with games.
old stuff. never seen i game yet.
http://www.gdconf.com/archives/2004/pritchard_matt.ppt
and
http://research.tri-ace.com/
http://www.gdconf.com/archives/2004/pritchard_matt.ppt
and
http://research.tri-ace.com/
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
Are you PS2 developer?
CON 1&2 (obeservation) & Jak3 (developer claim) had bump-mapping. Neo (developer claim) has normal mapping. If developers displayed real-time PS2 demos with HDR etc what evidence have you that they did not?
As for talk of "approximations", you understand that bump-mapping is itself an "approximation" to fake appearance of geometry no?
london-boy said:
CON 1&2 (obeservation) & Jak3 (developer claim) had bump-mapping. Neo (developer claim) has normal mapping. If developers displayed real-time PS2 demos with HDR etc what evidence have you that they did not?
As for talk of "approximations", you understand that bump-mapping is itself an "approximation" to fake appearance of geometry no?
ihamoitc2005 said:
Oh jesus christ.
You can get "something that kinda looks like HDR of subsurface scattering". Is it HDR or subsurface scattering? No. It's the developers' skills in coding techniques that "kinda" look like those.
Your initial claim (the one i was disputing) is that PS2 is apparently this miracle machine that pushes more polygons than any other console, which is not the case apart from very few exceptions, and can miraculously do HDR or subsurface scattering and all that.
It's not PS2's merit. It's the software. It's the coders's merit, not the hardware.
If a developer can find a way to "make something that looks like HDR or SSS" on PS2, he can very well find a way to do that on any other platform, probably more easily too.
I can't stand it when people put their complete faith on bloody inanimate objects, totally ignoring that the hard work really comes from the coders, the people who have to work around the architecture's flaws and limits.
DISCLAIMER: This is in no way a post to diminish PS2's "power" or anything. Just putting things into perpective.
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
Contradiction
No one said "miracle machine" but you. And yes, PS2 can push more polygons than any other same-gen console.
As for other stuff ... you said:
Really? What makes you think this. Any evidence or just conjecture based on pre-conceived notion of PS2 relative capability? As for developer credit, is this not true for all hardware? I do no hear you say directx hardware like Xenos and RSX receive no credit for directx tricks and only developers hardwork should be spoken about.
Faith? What faith? It is you who insult developers by saying they are lying no?
Yet your "passionate" monologue and claims of how it would be easy to duplicate anything on PS2 on any other console despite it being only console with fully programmable floating point processors suggests otherwise.
london-boy said:
No one said "miracle machine" but you. And yes, PS2 can push more polygons than any other same-gen console.
As for other stuff ... you said:
Really? What makes you think this. Any evidence or just conjecture based on pre-conceived notion of PS2 relative capability? As for developer credit, is this not true for all hardware? I do no hear you say directx hardware like Xenos and RSX receive no credit for directx tricks and only developers hardwork should be spoken about.
Faith? What faith? It is you who insult developers by saying they are lying no?
Yet your "passionate" monologue and claims of how it would be easy to duplicate anything on PS2 on any other console despite it being only console with fully programmable floating point processors suggests otherwise.
Aren't all the techniques that try to imitate some natural effect like subsurface scattering just "something that kinda looks like"
Does it matter if it's done one way or the oter as long as it looks like subsurface scattering, because really it can't be subsurface scattering because it all happens inside the computer and... you know... the human skin that looks like it has subsurface scattering isn't really in that screen, like the light sources aren't either. Same with caustics and such... the water isn't really inside the computer, even the water isn't modelled as a whole body of mass, just the "surface" so how can the caustics be simulated other than making it look as close to real caustics as possible.
Bumpmapping itself is such a "hack", imitating not simulating a bumpy surface.
Does it matter if it's done one way or the oter as long as it looks like subsurface scattering, because really it can't be subsurface scattering because it all happens inside the computer and... you know... the human skin that looks like it has subsurface scattering isn't really in that screen, like the light sources aren't either. Same with caustics and such... the water isn't really inside the computer, even the water isn't modelled as a whole body of mass, just the "surface" so how can the caustics be simulated other than making it look as close to real caustics as possible.
Bumpmapping itself is such a "hack", imitating not simulating a bumpy surface.
Similar threads
