Burnout2 is the most beautiful racer on GC

[rabidrabbit]

Most reviewers do have a tendency to assume that conversions from PS2 games to other (newer)platforms automatically have to look at least a little better.
Even though they have not bothered to do a side by side comparison, they just see those differences because they subconsiously expect them to be present.

 

[PC-Engine]

BTW; I don't know where you get those funny ideas of console X being superior to console Y. They all have some sort of advantage or disadvantage over one another, so it's pretty pointless to put everything down to 'sloppy' programming. Even during the N64 days did the PSX have some games that arguably looked better over games on the 'superior' competition. Getting down to it, it just looked different much like many games in this generation on the various different platforms...

Actually the GCN is superior to PS2 when it comes to graphics. The only thing the PS2 has over the GCN is particle effects and since MGS isn't out on GCN yet that assumption might turn out incorrect too

Some PS2 supporters need to stop being delusional and stop trying to make a case for it. Just accept the fact and move on...

Regarding B2, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[zidane1strife]

The only thing the PS2 has over the GCN is particle effects and since MGS isn't out on GCN yet that assumption might turn out incorrect too

That assumption is most likely correct... Ps2 excels in particles not only due to the insane fillrate, but also due to the 300Mhz vector units... I don't see how it'd be possible to surpass it...

 

[marconelly!]

Regarding B2, we'll just have to wait and see.

No need to wait - get it today for $40
http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categories/products/product.asp?pf_id=233721

Actually the GCN is superior to PS2 when it comes to graphics. The only thing the PS2 has over the GCN is particle effects

Yeah, particles were what I was thinking about, but another thing came to mind - Question for techies - would a game like R&C or Jak 2 that relies heavily on repeating geometry blocks that are kept in VRAM for maximum fillrate efficiency and uses gouraud shading for distant objects(basically plays as much as possible to PS2's fillrate usage) be transferrable to GC intact?

 

[Phil]

PC-Engine:

Actually the GCN is superior to PS2 when it comes to graphics. The only thing the PS2 has over the GCN is particle effects and since MGS isn't out on GCN yet that assumption might turn out incorrect too

Congratulations to PC-Engine for contradicting himself, yet at the same time proving my point quite nicely: The GCN is superior to PS2 when it comes to graphics in distinct areas and only that. Graphical superior would imply in all areas, yet as you later say yourself, GCN underlies PS2 in particles (, fillrate) clearly, so that proves again that each and every hardware in this generation has given strengths and weaknesses among each other.

There's nothing delusional about that, except you who took my remark as an attack directed at GameCube when in fact it clearly was not. Just a simple fact that some delusional people like to overlook.

 

[Fafalada]

I wouldn't go around generalizing about "particle effects" so much. It's a considerably more involved topic then talking about peak triangle rate or texel fillrate. :?
If we did have to generalize particle systems, I'd say they are most often limited by either fillrate, or dynamics calculations. Rarely, if ever, it'll be primitive transform/setup bottlenecking (which is the number people like to quote for PS2 particle stuff).
Though granted, it's pretty clear which of the two systems has the advantage if it's fill limited situation.

 

[PC-Engine]

PC-Engine:

Actually the GCN is superior to PS2 when it comes to graphics. The only thing the PS2 has over the GCN is particle effects and since MGS isn't out on GCN yet that assumption might turn out incorrect too

Congratulations to PC-Engine for contradicting himself, yet at the same time proving my point quite nicely: The GCN is superior to PS2 when it comes to graphics in distinct areas and only that. Graphical superior would imply in all areas, yet as you later say yourself, GCN underlies PS2 in particles (, fillrate) clearly, so that proves again that each and every hardware in this generation has given strengths and weaknesses among each other.

There's nothing delusional about that, except you who took my remark as an attack directed at GameCube when in fact it clearly was not. Just a simple fact that some delusional people like to overlook.

Please...I think everyone knows who is delusional and who is not. GCN is superior to PS2...get over it...

Getting into semantics isn't really supporting your point either dude and you know it. Give it up.

And Falalada's post makes your point even more shakey than it already was. If you like we can say PS2 is superior to GCN with respect to one graphical feature and only some of the time. Or we can say GCN is superior to PS2 in all graphics departments except one almost all of the time. Take your pick

 

[Phil]

PC-Engine:

Please...I think everyone knows who is delusional and who is not. GCN is superior to PS2...get over it...

Getting into semantics isn't really supporting your point either dude and you know it. Give it up.

And Falalada's post makes your point even more shakey than it already was. If you like we can say PS2 is superior to GCN with respect to one graphical feature and only some of the time. Or we can say GCN is superior to PS2 in all graphics departments except one almost all of the time. Take your pick

Why should I give up? Nothing that I said is untrue, neither did I ever say that GameCube is not better given distinct or most areas. My reply was directed at the monkey guy (I'm too lazy to go back copy/paste his username) who implied that every port on GameCube should look "superior" given the technical advantage.

Also, how does Fafalada's post make my arguement more shakey? Note his last sentence, which in turn underlines again what I've been saying. I think you're deluding yourself into thinking that I am saying something that is untrue, when in fact I am just correcting the use of "superior" and the context in which it was used further up by the guy I replied to.

"PS2 is superior to Dreamcast" is about as subjective as "GCN is superior to PS2".

 

[PC-Engine]

If you like we can say PS2 is superior to GCN with respect to one graphical feature and only some of the time. Or we can say GCN is superior to PS2 in all graphics departments except one almost all of the time. Take your pick

 

[Phil]

I think I'll pass from picking one, as it's really kind of pathetic what you're trying to achieve here. You better learn to read properly before jumping on someones post as result of deluding something that clearly wasn't there.

 

[PC-Engine]

I think I'll pass from picking one, as it's really kind of pathetic what you're trying to achieve here. You better learn to read properly before jumping on someones post as result of deluding something that clearly wasn't there.

Ok fair enough, but in your opinion which console is graphically superior? It's a simple question and it's not a sin to admit one is superior than the other or vice versa.

However I do agree that just because two versions of a game that looks almost identical doesn't necessarily equal sloppy port. OTOH it can be a factor.

 

[Teasy]

Graphical superior would imply in all areas, yet as you later say yourself, GCN underlies PS2 in particles (, fillrate) clearly, so that proves again that each and every hardware in this generation has given strengths and weaknesses among each other.

But superior doesn't actually imply better in all area's. As long as a console is better then another in most area's then it can be described as graphically superior AFAICS.

 

[Phil]

well, if it makes you feel better, I wouldn't call one 'superior' to the other, as IMO, both have games that look quite impressive. I must admit though, Metroid Prime which launched recently here in Europe did impress me and is the best I've seen on Cube this far. I wasn't able to play it though, but I might pick a Cube up just for this game. Getting back to the question you asked, I think it all goes down to personal preference. To me, many games on PS2 impress me as much as what I've seen on other consoles thus far. While IMO MP is the most beautiful game in its genre, ZOE2 is equally impressive IMO, though very different. Put it down to art direction and good use of hardware - as of course, I am well aware that Cube has more than just a few advantages technically - although I still believe that the differences in which this gen consoles outshine each other are too small to proclaim one to be 'superior'. Heh, there are people who still rate the graphics of Shenmue higher than many current games despite the technical flaws it has using todays standards - so, you know, I think it's highly subjective as both have unquestionably beautiful games.

 

[Phil]

But superior doesn't actually imply better in all area's. As long as a console is better then another in most area's then it can be described as graphically superior AFAICS.

You are right Teasy. Given that I replied to the monkey guy (I still failed to look up the exact name ), I implied it differently to the context in which he used it. As you may read in my reply to PC-Engine before this one, you may see why I disaprove of the word "superior" in most cases. IMO, consoles of this generation offer too little advantages over each other to be justified as superior. I'll agree though that it's a pretty vague statement and highly subjective depending on the context in which it is used in...

 

[London Geezer]

OH.............. MY.................... GOD.......................................

I FEEL LIKE...................................

............ I FELL LIKE CRYING...........................


A SYSTEM THAT CAME OUT A WHOLE YEAR AFTER ANOTHER IS MORE POWERFUL.........................

I CANNOT BELIEVE IT................................................





PC-ENGINE.... BIG DEAL....

 

[thundermonkey]

Man you guys stick to everything you don't agree with don't you?

Is it my opinion that games released on later hardware, that has the technical edge in most everyway should look better than the originals? Yes, but I don't really see the point in bitching about it.

It is a valid opinion.

If Burnout 2 on the GCN doesn't look better in some way in regards to the PS2 original then, given the differences between the PS2 and GCN(albeit minor differences), it is imo a sloppy coded game.

I expect the same from Xbox games being ported from the GCN. If the devs ain't doing it then they ain't freaking trying.

That one post ballooned into this?

Hell most "mainstream gamers" can't even tell the differences between most Xbox and PS2 games without being told what to look for.

 

[London Geezer]

STILL IN SHOCK

 

[Tagrineth]

Guys.

A port like Burnout 2 with no graphical enhancements but no detriments is NOT sloppy coding.

A port like Metal Gear Solid 2, with no graphical improvements - but graphical detriments AND slowdown - that is sloppy coding.

 

[Deepak]

Bottom Line.....

Burnout 2 kickc ASS......

 

[thundermonkey]

Guys.

A port like Burnout 2 with no graphical enhancements but no detriments is NOT sloppy coding.

A port like Metal Gear Solid 2, with no graphical improvements - but graphical detriments AND slowdown - that is sloppy coding.

Fine, it still isn't optimized though!

*walks off into the sunset complaining about the bees in underwear*