GCN SC pics

[cybamerc]

Teasy:

>The GameCube version is being developed by the same people who
> developed the XBox version. The PS2 version is being handled by a
> different dev team in a different country.

Did you just decide to jump in on the conversation at some random point without reading what has been said so far? Forget everything you've heard about Splinter Cell for the Cube so far. The game is being developed by Ubi Soft Shanghai, THE SAME STUDIO DOING THE PS2 VERSION. The PRESS RELEASE FROM UBI SOFT clearly states so.

Christ... I'd have better luck talking some sense into the retards on the IGN GBs.

> It might not look as good, but at this point we don't actually know do
> we?

Yes we do because the screens released by Ubi Soft don't look like the Xbox and PC versions plus IGN, which has played the Cube version, says it looks more like the PS2 version.

It's a fucking port... what the hell did you expect? Stop being so defensive.



DeathKnight:

> Yes, along with about 8-9 other exclusive missions that will be released
> periodically

Which you will have to pay for.



Qroach:

> Obviously eveyrone sees what they want to see.

Yep... per-pixel lighting for example.

 

[Glonk]

I remember seeing impressions of games (or screenshots/vids of games) over the years that are said to not be of the finished game as little as around 2-3 months before release.

Right, because the game's not finished yet. A couple months before release, most software becomes feature-complete and the existing features are just bug-tested and optimized. It makes bugtesting hellish when you add new features mid-testing cycle.

Optimization tools would simply optimize the game to make it run as well on that system as possible. It would not make any game automatically use all of XBox's memory space or bandwidth. Do you think that when they made, say, Blinx for XBox that game also used 100% of the system's bandwidth and memory.. simply because they used optimization tools?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Blinx would use 100% of the system's bandwidth and memory also. Why wouldn't it? Just because it's not the most gorgeous game out there doesn't mean it's not using all of the resources out there, no one uses it as efficiently as possible.

All I am saying is lets not do this "XBox is this fast, GC is this fast so this GC port of this XBox game will need this much cut out".

Well, okay, you don't have to believe it. Why don't you port a game designed to use 64MB onto a system with 32MB and see if you can get away without cutting anything, let me know how that goes for you.

Notice that I am not claiming that the GC version will be just as good looking as the XBox version or better?

No, Teasy, I realize you're not saying that. You've always had this really weird debate tactic where you heavily imply things, but never say it, then wonder why everyone always gets on your case about saying things.

 

[Teasy]

Cybamerc

Where exactly did you see anything in my post that warrants the response you just posted? Its always the same with you, you can't discuss anything without acting like a total arse.

If you have contradictory information to mine then just tell me in a civil manor.

I read on IGN (from Matt I think) that the GC version is being handled by Ubi-Soft Montreal while the PS2 version is being handled by Ubi-Soft Shanghai. I'll have to look at the press release to see if it says otherwise.

Yes of course the GC version is a port, I'm not disputing that. I am saying that, according to what I've heard, it is a port of the XBox version not a port of the PS2 version.

 

[Glonk]

Is that post directed at cyba or me? :?

 

[Teasy]

Sorry Glonk, I accidentally left out Cyba's name at the top of that post. It definitely wasn't directed at you.

 

[jvd]

 

[chaperone]

PeerIGN:

Actually, according to some Ubi folks I talked with, Microsoft was heavily involved with Splinter Cell, constantly sending new support material, libraries and tech help to make sure that the lighting effects were as sweet as can be.

I saw the GCN version yesterday -- we switched back and forth with the Xbox one -- and there's simply no comparison. But then again, the GCN version isn't complete and some of the areas looked like they had placeholder textures. Also, the contrast setting didn't look like they were done. The game's got the sweet character shadowing, but the contrast is so light at this point that it's hard to see. So I'll reserve judgment until I see the final build, but so far the Xbox version's lighting looks tough to beat


I think GC version looks fine. Not as graphiiX intensive as Xboxen but much cleaner than PStool version.

 

[Glonk]

Sorry Glonk, I accidentally left out Cyba's name at the top of that post. It definitely wasn't directed at you.

Ah, cool, no worries.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

PeerIGN:

Actually, according to some Ubi folks I talked with, Microsoft was heavily involved with Splinter Cell, constantly sending new support material, libraries and tech help to make sure that the lighting effects were as sweet as can be.

I saw the GCN version yesterday -- we switched back and forth with the Xbox one -- and there's simply no comparison. But then again, the GCN version isn't complete and some of the areas looked like they had placeholder textures. Also, the contrast setting didn't look like they were done. The game's got the sweet character shadowing, but the contrast is so light at this point that it's hard to see. So I'll reserve judgment until I see the final build, but so far the Xbox version's lighting looks tough to beat


I think GC version looks fine. Not as graphiiX intensive as Xboxen but much cleaner than PStool version.

Uhm, exactly whats been said over and over here and on IGN, is that the GC version is identicle to the Xbox version except for one thing, the lighting, they say it looks great on GC, just not as good as on the XBox.

 

[Teasy]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Blinx would use 100% of the system's bandwidth and memory also. Why wouldn't it? Just because it's not the most gorgeous game out there doesn't mean it's not using all of the resources out there, no one uses it as efficiently as possible.

Why would Blinx use all the memory XBox has? Why would Blinx use 6.4gb of bandwidth.. what exactly could it use that for, its below average textures? A game is not a tech demo were they try to see how far they can push a system for the sake of it. A game is designed and then produced in the most timely cost efficient manor that allows them to get, from the system, what they require for the game. You don't start out making a Mickey Mouse game with a small budget and end up with some utra realistic awesome looking game with 20 million pps, per pixel lighting and bump mapped textures at costing £20 million You just make a Mickey Mouse game and then sell it

What you seem to be suggesting is that if a dev has a game that doesn't need 64mb of ram, they just write it in such a lazy way that it fills 64mb of ram on XBox just for the sake of it (not sure that's even possible anyway). If so then it would then be possible to optimize that engine to run with less ram, so.....

Well, okay, you don't have to believe it. Why don't you port a game designed to use 64MB onto a system with 32MB and see if you can get away without cutting anything, let me know how that goes for you.

Yep, I bet when Ubi-Soft were first thinking up Splinter Cell there first concern was "how can we make sure we use all of the 64mb of ram.. any idea's?" A dev simply makes the game they want within the limits of the system or within the limits of talent/money/time ect whichever comes first. Again this is not a tech demo its a game. Just because a game is designed for a console with 64mb of ram that does not mean the game would use the full 64mb of ram.

No, Teasy, I realize you're not saying that. You've always had this really weird debate tactic where you heavily imply things, but never say it, then wonder why everyone always gets on your case about saying things.

No Glonk you and a few others have always had this wierd debate tactic where you read things into people's comments that aren't actually there You say I am implying that the GC version looks as good as the XBox version despite me clearing saying more then once that I realise its lighting is less impressive them the XBox version. Its sort of like you read what you expect me to say rather then what I actually do say. Like when you refused to believe that I wasn't saying GC was as powerful as XBox a while ago, it took three posts with bolded sentences before you finally believed me I'm actually documentiong this strange new condition and plan to write a paper on it .. I might get published

In all seriousness though its probably a little bit of both. Occasionally I say one thing but say it in a way that sounds almost like I said something else, if no read carefully (I'm not alone in doing that). While you sometimes read stuff into my posts that you'd expect me to say rather then what I actually said (again your not alone in that and I've done it more then once). When both come together its a bad combination

Back to the game. I suppose in the end we'll see what its like when its out. BTW you never answered my question. Do you want any of these video's? I now have full 640x480 vids of the GC version.

 

[cybamerc]

Teasy:

> Where exactly did you see anything in my post that warrants the
> response you just posted?

The fact that you're just repeating the same rumors as Misfit and state them as facts as Misfit did eventhough I've already explained why Misfit is wrong warrants the kind of response I gave.

> Its always the same with you, you can't discuss anything without acting
> like a total arse.

Now now... name calling isn't allowed according to the board rules. If name calling was allowed I would have called Misfit a fucking moron but I didn't.

> If you have contradictory information to mine then just tell me in a civil
> manor.

The contradictory information has already been posted several times in this thread. How about getting your facts straight before telling everyone that they're wrong?

> I read on IGN (from Matt I think) that the GC version is being handled
> by Ubi-Soft Montreal while the PS2 version is being handled by Ubi-Soft
> Shanghai.

And he might've been told that but unfortunately it's not true.

> I'll have to look at the press release to say if it says otherwise.

If you had done that right away we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Teasy]

Cybamerc

Clearly it was obvious by my posts that I did not see the info your refering to in this thread. So then its safe to assume I was only trying to give you some info I heard that I thought may be useful. That doesn't deserve the sort of response you gave.

BTW, I said you act like a total arse, I didn't directly call you a total arse Much like when you infered that I was a retard rather then actually saying it. But then what do you expect when you reply, in such a needlessly abnoctious and aggressive way, to a perfectly civil post?

 

[Glonk]

Teasy:

Do you want any of these video's? I now have full 640x480 vids of the GC version.

I'm an IGN Insider, I've already seen them.

Thanks anyway though.

 

[Qroach]

cyber,

Yep... per-pixel lighting for example.

Sorry, but that's the only thing you're not correct about in this thread. The Xbox game uses perpixel lighting. Not per vertex like the gamecube version. I'm not talking about the shadows either since that's totally seperate. That's part of the difference between the gamecube and xbox version imo.

 

[Qroach]

Quincy, do you ever stop wandering into threads with off topic flamebait?

I'm not posting off topic, I'm talking specifically about this thread. Also don't tell me about wandering into threads, when you decided to wander into this one.

Do you ever stop defending XBox or attacking GC? Glass houses and stones spring to mind.

Who is posting flamebait, I can help but say something when you're talking complete nonesense. I'm not directly attacking you teasy but some of your statments in this thread are completly off the wall.

But you haven't even seen the GC version yet. Apparently the XBox version will look best. But I don't see how you can judge that personally without playing the other versions.

I've seen video and screen shots. i've seen the reports of people tha thave played it and they state the same thing. This isn't hard to understand.

I say I don't accept automatically that SC has to have lower quality textures in the GC version. You see that as me saying Splinter Cell for GC is definitely as good looking as the XBox version.

Actually, that's not what I'm "seeing". You wouldn't accept it even if it's clearly evident. You've done the same thing in the past on other topics. You've even done this a number of times in this thread.

You argue against something someone says while at the same time telling them you don't doubt it. if you don't doubt it for any specific reason mentioned, then why bother arguing? Basically for me to sum up what you're saying on many occasions is like this = I don't agree with you, but I think you could be right.

I say "So XBox still has a very good ram space/bandwidth advantage, but that advantage is not nearly as big as the raw specs would suggest." and rather then seeing that as being fair towards GC you see that as defending GC.

No, actually I'd say that as more fair towards both platforms if you said that.

You know it's That's interesting, becuase I do recall you arguing the complete opposite regarding the above mentioned ram/space badwidth months back when you thought the Edram in gamecube gave it an advantage since it had more bandwidth that Xbox. If I recall correctly ERP explained things regarding this. Similar to when you tried to explain how the Sram in gamecube could be used for streaming textures and should be added to the ram total. Even though that was clearly not the case.

 

[Qroach]

Extremely unlikely based on the fact that much more is expected from XBox then Splinter Cell provides, technically. Or are you saying that Splinter Cell is as much as we can expect visually from XBox?

Oh please what load of BS. Who or what tells you that your expectations from xbox are realistic to begin with. I wasn't expecting "much more". The game clearly delivered on great graphics and cool game play. Those were my only expectations. No I'm not saying that it's as much as we can expect. Obviously there's things that can be done to improve the game, as is the case with any game on the market. however you're statement about the game not using "all" of the xbox's ram/resources is clearly not based on any fact whatsoever. If it's a lead paltforma game is designed on, then you aim to use as much as the resources as possible to get the best game. The game uses a modified unreal engine. It's a resource hog, we all know that.

If you have developed a game yourself on any paltform at all, (with the expection being PC) you'd know that due to time constraints, money, and many other factors, game code/art is not always as optimal as it could be. There's always better ways to improve performance and resource management if you have time to do so. That's why console games seem to get better each generation. In other words, just because a game maxes out the resources right now, this doesn't mean that it's not possible to use those resources in a better fashion in the next version. even crappy games max out resources, usually in a horrible way.

btw, would you stop bringin up factor 5 and the game they made for the cube as a prime example? all they did was basically overhall the graphics Imo. that game was based off a rpevious game, it wasn't completely new, and besides we all know how Julian and those guys exagerate when talking about everything to the public.

Tell me which stuff you can't believe and what you can't believe about it and we'd have a discussion in the making. BTW to be absolutely blunt, your opinion isn't worth much to me when your acting like this.

Teasy, you've never respected my opinion on anything in this forum since I rarely agree with you. So why start now? When it specifically revovles around game development, It doesn't matter to me if you think my opinion is worth anything at all.

What can't I believe?

1. I can't believe you are arguing with people while also agreeing with them in teh same paragraph.

2. I can't believe you're comments about game resources not beig used to it's fullest, without anything to base that on. Sorry, but you're expectations for xbox games is totally unrealistc imo if that's what you really based your comment on. oh, and YES the last two months of a game project are usually spent testing and optimzing/fixing bugs. Depengin on the company in question, art is also sometimes added. however not usualy major art changes.

3. I can't belived you argued where the game was developed, even though we already established it was developed in the same studio as the PS2 version. If you'd read the psots in the thread, you would have gotten in to such a big argument on the wrong foot.

Perhaps a few people in this thread wouldn't be so pissy with you, if you read the posts prior to writting a response.

 

[Sonic]

Teasy, you defend the Gamecube in a fashion that isn't exactly pleasing to read all the time. It just seems like your #1 goal in this forum is to stick up for Nintendo and the GCN whenever someone says something that you find wrong in it. I know you have other sensible posts on the board, but often it is covered up by defending the Gamecube. And before you tell me to just not read your posts like you probably will, just think about how much you defend the Cube for a minute.

Quincy, as much as I hate to say this, you seem to be the one giving fuel to most of Teasy's constant and endless defense of Nintendo and the GCN. Teasy has become so prepared to debate with you that any little thing you say suggesting Nintendo or the GCn lacking in any way gives him reason to argue. I guess it's not your fault.

As for this thread. the GCN version clearly doesn't look as good as the Xbox version. I can see why the devs would have to cut back on textures for the GCN version. Some sacrifices have to be made and if the devs were given enough time I'm sure they could squeeze most of the Xbox version into the GCN version.

Sonic

 

[Lazy8s]

A dev won't get 100% effective use of memory resources on one platform, but it also won't get 100% effective usage on another either. And ported versions don't usually get the same care that the original version got, so a dev effort isn't likely to pick up a significant amount of additional efficiency in memory usage when going to another platform like that.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I can't believe you guys still argue with Teasy. There's no reasoning with the guy. It's like trying to convince Saddam Hussein that killing Kurds is wrong. There's no point trying to argue with the irrational. Teasy probably sleeps with his Gamecube and uses it to carry his lunch to school. He's the only guy in the world who thinks the handle is cool.

Give it up guys. You should ignore him rather than get involved in pointless debates. Everyone knows the real deal here anyway...

 

[StefanS]

Teasy probably sleeps with his Gamecube and uses it to carry his lunch to school. He's the only guy in the world who thinks the handle is cool.

Hey, I thought I was the only one who liked it.