Gamecube hardware

[Bohdy]

There are few rooms that take a little while. Most notably the temple above the pit. That can take an age!

But otherwise, its undisruptive. I believe that the Pal version loads slower however, maybe to make it more stable.

I also wonder about X-types and their almost totemic worhip of "Hard-drive caching". You want to see some nice HD caching? Check out Tuork 2 on the PC

 

[Phil]

]Do you really think PS2 could replicate anything XBox can do in realtime though?

Because it wasn't required, his point was clear without it IMO. His point was even PS2 could replicate XBox given enough processing time.

Teasy, if it hadn't been required, I wouldn't have added it.

Meaning while GC would be slower with some of the effects it could at least do them all in game conditions.

That's just being ignorant. Me thinks you're just trying to give credit to Julian's comment about replicating [Xbox] effects on GameCube hardware, but discredit the fact that the very same vague statement could apply to PS2 and be as accurate at the same time.

 

[Rodéric]

If this 'loading while a door opens' was done on xbox game, it would be called 'streaming', but if it is used in GCN or PS2 it is called 'waiting to load' :?

Good streaming should be almost unnoticeable... here it's clearly a loading time, since you have to wait for a few seconds.
On the other hand it's not a true loading, since you can still move around...

Oh well not fast enough streaming then.

 

[zidane1strife]

My point was I think there's a considerable difference in what it would take for PS2 and GC to replicate the nicest XBox effect. Meaning while GC would be slower with some of the effects it could at least do them all in game conditions.

Well, the ps2 should be able to do them in-game too... It'll cost them though.... Suppose an engine capable of 500k textured-lit polys at 60fps for the ps2, now suppose we reduced the poly-texture to psone levels, and run at 30fps.... under those circumstances you'd be able to replicate most any current gen. effects in a few objects/chars.(That's my conjecture, but I'm sure it's viable...)

Actually I'm amazed something similar hasn't been done yet... I've played many a psx rpg recently, and some of the battles' scenery might actually pass for next-gen content, that is to say that under the right lighting/shadowing(even cheap one.), distance, and angle you could actually fool the eye.

Even under the most simplistic scenery, if the chars. or a few objects are of high detail, and are focused, most casual will mistake the game's gphx level for a higher one.

 

[Teasy]

Teasy, if it hadn't been required, I wouldn't have added it.

Yes it was required for your post, to reafirm what you were saying, but it wasn't required in my reply. I didn't mean to suggest that you believed PS2 could replicate any XBox effect in realtime (so that last comment wouldn't have changed my reply), I just asked the question to make a point. That point being that yes PS2 possibly could replicate any Xbox effect in an otherwise extremely poor looking game, or at an extremely bad framerate, but I don't believe that's what Julian meant with regard to GC.

To be honest, looking back at my post, I think my comment may have been taken the wrong way due to the word "really" in there, I don't know why I used the word "really" in that sentence. It would have been much clearer as:

"Do you think PS2 could replicate anything XBox can do in realtime though?"

Me thinks you're just trying to give credit to Julian's comment about replicating [Xbox] effects on GameCube hardware, but discredit the fact that the very same vague statement could apply to PS2 and be as accurate at the same time.

I'm saying that I believe GC has a very good chance of replicating any effect XBox can do at a reasonable speed drop while PS2 could not. Mainly because GC, at least, has a programmable colour conbiner to replicate XBox's pixel shader effects, PS2 does not (if only that was all PS2 doesn't have). I mean PS2 can barely do a very limited amount of real bump mapping in a game, what would use to try to replicate a complex pixel shader effect?

 

[Phil]

Teasy,

Yes it was required for your post, to reafirm what you were saying, but it wasn't required in my reply. Your suggestion was basically that Julian was saying GC could replicate it because anything can be replicated with enough time to do it. As in PSX could replicate any XBox effect ok if it did it in 2 hours instead of a fraction of a second. My point was simply to say I don't believe Julian meant that, he meant it could relicate the effects in realtime in games, and there is some justification for that opinion given what we know of TEV.

What you think Julian ment and what Julian actually said are two different things.

I'm saying that I believe GC has a very good chance of replicating any effect XBox can do at a reasonable speed drop while PS2 could not. Mainly because GC, at least, has a programmable colour conbiner to replicate XBox's pixel shader effects, PS2 does not (if only that was all PS2 doesn't have). I mean PS2 can barely do a very limited amount of real bump mapping in a game, what would use to try to replicate a complex pixel shader effect?

I see you believe many things... I'm sure GameCube replicates many things better, but does that make GameCube any more powerful than it is? While there are things that are done better on GameCube, there are things doen better on the other side too. I'm afraid, your opinion and belief doesn't hold much weight in reality and it certainly doesn't make Julian's vague statement any more valid.

 

[Teasy]

What you think Julian ment and what Julian actually said are two different things

Man what are you talking about, this is all down to interpretation, not just on my side of the argument. Your saying that you think Julian means that GC could replicate any XBox effect in the same way as PS2 could replicate any XBox effect. I'm saying that I don't think he means that. As I said where both interpreting what he said and coming up with different opinions.

I see you believe many things

What exactly does that mean then?, because for someone talking about vague comments that one takes the biscuit.

I'm sure GameCube replicates many things better, but does that make GameCube any more powerful than it is?

You've lost me, I don't think I've mentioned how powerful GC might be have I?.. and of course it can't be more powerful then it is, that goes without saying. GC doesn't even have to be more powerful then PS2 to be better suited to replicating XBox's best effects.. it only needs to be better equipped for that particular task.

I'm afraid, your opinion and belief doesn't hold much weight in reality and it certainly doesn't make Julian's vague statement any more valid.

In all honesty Phil, given some of your recent comments, I'm unsure that you even know what my opinion is. Also I don't care about proving Julian right, its not an issue.

 

[Phil]

Teasy:

Man what are you talking about, this is all down to interpretation, not just on my side of the argument. Your saying that you think Julian means that GC could replicate any XBox effect in the same way as PS2 could replicate any XBox effect. I'm saying that I don't think he means that. As I said where both interpreting what he said and coming up with different opinions.. so what is the point of what you just said?

You should re-read my comments. It seemed to be clear to everyone else... Reminds me of a thing Cybermerc said in the discussion about PSP and "pixel shading". So true.

What exactly does that mean then, because for someone talking about vague comments that one takes the biscuit.

Nothing vague about that, really. Basically, someone comes into this thread mentioning the comment Julian made about being able to "replicate anything Xbox can do on GameCube". If you had followed closely, it is clear that I did not speculate on what exactly Julian ment, but pointed out that the statement is so vague, that it can hardly be used as evidence to form a conclusion as to how the two platforms compare to eachother. My PS2 example was merely an example to emphasize on the point how vague Julian's statement is and that taking it by word, any console could replicate anything. This was clear to everyone, but you as it seems.

My point was simply to say I don't believe Julian meant that, he meant it could relicate the effects in realtime in games, and there is some justification for that opinion given what we know of TEV."

This is the quote that I replied to (you edited your post, which is causing some confusion on your side as it seems). Like I said in my reply to this quote already: this, however, is not what Julian said. I think you're looking too far into that quote. Julian's a smart guy. He said that, knowing no one can hang him on that, simply because it's so vague.

In all honesty Phil, given some of your recent comments, I'm not to sure that you currently have a full grasp on reality let along have opinions based in it.

Why thank you. I won't take that too serious though, as I'll take the history of this thread as confidence that my original point seemed to be clear to everyone else. It does puzzle me however how you managed to partly turn this into a PS2 discussion merely because I brought it up at one point purely for emphasis sake. Good job.

EDIT: Seems you like editing your posts. Make sure to read the QUOTES, as I don't want it to get any more confusing than it already is. Thanks.

 

[Bohdy]

I might just but in here for a sec... 8)

Teasy, you did misinterpret Phil's original point about Julian's point being too vague to take as proof (not that anyone would have anyway even if it was specific, the way you people talk about him ).

However,

I see you believe many things... I'm sure GameCube replicates many things better, but does that make GameCube any more powerful than it is? While there are things that are done better on GameCube, there are things doen better on the other side too. I'm afraid, your opinion and belief doesn't hold much weight in reality and it certainly doesn't make Julian's vague statement any more valid.

this statement way out there.

The first part has almost nothing to do with anything being discussed here, and the second part is just false. The fact that Flipper has comparable combiner hardware with the Xb chip and has been known to do comparable effects *is* a fairly good basis for Teasy (and anyone else) to believe what he does. It is also a valid basis to credit not Julian's statement(as you think), but Teasy's interpretation of it (as he is doing).

... So, while Teasy misinterpreted Phil's intention with his comment, so did Phil with Teasy's comments.

So aside from the turf war, any other Gamcube hardware conjecture or facts?

 

[Jabjabs]

I have only one thing to say.

When Eggman can run some equal in scal eot Halo 2, PGR2 or even Sudeki then I will beleave him but not yet.

I've seen some down sampled vids of RL3 but I don't trush down sampled video's ever, and never will again. Down sampling video can lead to all kinds of things being filtered out.

So far we have no idea how much LOD is being used compared to xbox titles and probably won't know until the final product is out.

Oh, and bohdy IN TO THE BIN!!! *whoopish!!!*

 

[cthellis42]

The fact that Flipper has comparable combiner hardware with the Xb chip and has been known to do comparable effects *is* a fairly good basis for Teasy (and anyone else) to believe what he does. It is also a valid basis to credit not Julian's statement(as you think), but Teasy's interpretation of it (as he is doing).

Then Julian should have quantified his statement with "at equivalent speeds" or something else to show what he DOES believe, as opposed to making a vague statement subject to much interpretation. Phil was just pointing out the vagueness. If Julian has wanted to make a functional claim, he would have had to say more than he did.

Hence the point, hence Phil's comment, and hence the wry amusement he threw in for flavoring. By itself, that statement meant exactly as much as the reader wants to interpret, and nothing further.

 

[PC-Engine]

Both Xbox and GCN have displayed dot3 BM ingame while PS2 has not...

 

[rabidrabbit]

Both Xbox and GCN have displayed dot3 BM ingame while PS2 has not...

Is that your way of saying that GCN could replicate anything that the xbox can do :?

 

[Sonic]

This thread is not about PS2 vs GCN vs Xbox. Keep it on topic.

 

[notAFanB]

Both Xbox and GCN have displayed dot3 BM ingame while PS2 has not...

really? I had thought that GCN used emboss BM.

 

[Bohdy]

No, there are a few *clear* uses of Dot3 that I can recall in GC games.

The hoth hangar in RL is one, the other is the tiger statue in RE.

They are just the clearest, there are probably more if there were these.

There will be no insulting on the board. This is a warning, do not do it again.

 

[DeathKnight]

DOT3? Heh, my original Radeon was able to do that.

 

[Deepak]

No, there are a few *clear* uses of Dot3 that I can recall in GC games.

The hoth hangar in RL is one, the other is the tiger statue in RE.

They are just the clearest, there are probably more if there were these.

Do you guys play games or looks for BM/Pixels etc?

 

[cybamerc]

Qroach:

> 1. Stop quoting anything Julian says. He hasn't released and XBox title

As has already been pointed out Factor 5 has developed DivX for Xbox. But of course you insist on constantly making a fool of yourself.



zurich:

> the evidence supporting this ended up being greater

Only in the minds of the naysayers.



DeathKnight:

> I'd say a game like Myst 3: Exile looks better than RE: Remake. Hell,
> Syberia looks better

Artistic quality aside (it's quite obvious that a lot more work went into RE: Remake and Zero but you may still prefer the look of the others) the CG in the new REs is of a substantially higher technical quality. As for Syberia, that one looks like plain garbage. Simplistic background, spot shadows and horribly low res character models. You may be biased but you can't be that blind to not recognize REs overwhelming superiority.



megadrive0088:

> the N64 was not very impressive when it was released in 1996.

I would disagree with that. It's rasterizer was quite advanced and unlike other solutions you could actually use these advanced features while maintaining a good framerate.



PC-Engine:

> Both Xbox and GCN have displayed dot3 BM ingame while PS2 has not...

You can actually tell just looking at the end result, in any situation ,whether its EMBM, Dot3 or some other per-pixel technique? Impressive.

 

[PC-Engine]

You can actually tell just looking at the end result, in any situation ,whether its EMBM, Dot3 or some other per-pixel technique? Impressive.

Actually I should've said BM that doesn't use the embossed method.

For example EMBM used for water effects. 8)