GCN SC pics

[Sonic]

It's not NiGHTS. I would know about that one.

 

[Ozymandis]

It's not NiGHTS. I would know about that one.

As long as it's something new and not another port, I'll be happy

 

[Ali-G]

Qroach

Nobody said every part of the game is cut down

Glonk was the one that assumed that everything, or pretty much anyway, would have to be cut down in the GC version because XBox has a higher spec then GC. But you seemed to back up his argument. Are you saying that you don't agree with Glonk there?

This discussion is nothing more than one group of people trying to convince another group of people that somehting has been confirmed already.

But which group is trying to do the convincing one way or the other? It seems that the XBox fans want to convince people that it is already confirmed that the GC version will have:

A: Worse lighting
B: Poorer textures
C: Smaller levels

The logic behind that is its an XBox game being ported to GC and XBox has more ram and stuff. But as others have said that's dodgy logic.

Nobody here is defending the Xbox. A few of the hardcore gamecube fans around here just can't take something as a fact despite having evidence to suggest otherwise right in front of them.

People are defending both GC and XBox. XBox fans are defending XBox by assuming that a XBox game will have to be downgraded in varies area's when it comes to GC. By doing that they're putting XBox up on a pedestal. The GameCube fans are defending GC by not believing that an XBox to GC port will have to be downgraded accross the board until its proven. In other words they're saying wait and see rather then assume the worst. That does seem like the most reasonable argument.

I actually don't think I've seen anybody here say that they think the GC version is identical to the XBox one. Not even teasy, in fact I remember that he said that it definitely had worse lighting then the XBox version.

Looking at this thread, I'm beggining to wish I hadn't gotten involved. I've sat and watched this forum for months and this was the wrong thread to start off in

 

[Blade]

Meh, outside of the lighting.. SC is nothing special.

I have yet to see the GCN videos, but I'm a firm believer than SC can easily be done on GCN without the accurate (Xbox) lighting; albeit, until proven otherwise.. I'd think a near-perfect port would be possible.. complete with said lighting.

Hey, they did it in Luigi's Mansion and Resident Evil (bad examples) and will probably do it in RE4 at 30fps.

I don't see why SC can't be done with that splendid lighting on the GCN.. or at least a form of it..

 

[Qroach]

I don't know, you do seem to be arguing pretty fiercly.

Actually look again from the start of this thread. You'll see I actually wasn't arguing about the topic. All I did was point out some certain "trends" that I've noticed from some posters, and that all the information we need to confirm what's been said is right infront of us.

Glonk was the one that assumed that everything would have to be cut down in the GC version because XBox has a higher spec then GC. But you seemed to back up his argument.

Well, he was making an assumption and not stating it as fact. There's a difference... it was a fair assumtion, however not nearly everything was cut back, but wasn't far off.

But which group is trying to do the convincing one way or the other? It seems that the XBox fans want to convince people that it is already confirmed that the GC version will have:

A: Worse lighting
B: Poorer textures
C: Smaller levels

Now hold on a second, is Peer one of those xbox fans? Are the editors from IGN that have been playing the gamecube version all xbox fans? THEY are the ones that have confirmed the items above. All of those minus perhaps the textures have been confirmed to be true. The GC version doesn't have the same quality of lighting, the game uses the same levels as the PS2 version, the GC version is developed by the same group as the PS2 version.

Now since we've had confirmation on the majority of these points thus far from the editors at IGN, which group was it again that's trying to convince people that none of the above are true?

The logic behind that is its an XBox game being ported to GC and XBox has more ram and stuff. But as others have said that's dodgy logic.

Actually that logic isn't flawed at all. it's a legitimate assumption without having proper evidence to supoport it, and in this case it appears to be correct to some extent. Anyway, most of what people have been saying about thedifference between the xbox and gamecube version is true.

XBox fans are defending XBox by assuming that a XBox game will have to be downgraded in varies area's when it comes to GC.By doing that they're putting XBox up on a pedestal. The GameCube fans are defending GC by not believing that an XBox to GC port will have to be downgraded accross the board until its proven. But the second stance seems like the more reasonable argument.

hold on a sec, the so called "xbox fans" you're referring to are making assumption based off screen shots, and movies. They noticed that certain things were different, like the lighting wasn't as good, or that textures don't look as crisp, or that sections of levels are missing. The gamecube fans look at the same pictures and information saying that's not true until it's been proved. Well I'm sorry to say but the first set of assumptions are the much more reasonable argument until they are proven wrong. you hav ea bunch of people tha thave played and or own the xbo versions and can see the differences right away. Peer from IGN has confirmed what the so called "xbox fans" have already said. I'm not even arguing that 'everything has to be downgraded across the board. All i'm arguing is that the differences people have said to notice, for the most part are true.

I actually don't think I've seen anybody here say that they think the GC version is identical to the XBox one. Not even teasy, in fact I remember that he said that it definitely had worse lighting then the XBox version.

Well we've heard some GC fans say the following.

1. The lighting is the same as the xbox version.
2. The GC version is a port from Xbox
3. The GC version was created at Ubisoft Montreal
4. The levels are the same and not cut down
5. The textures are the same as the xbox version

All of the above, with the exception of #5 have been confirmed by people working for IGN. So I don't really know what we're even arguing about anymore. like I said before, we hav epeople here arguing about things we already know are true... not much point in that.

yeah this was probably a bad thread to start posting in... it's a mess...

 

[DeathKnight]

All of the above, with the exception of #5 have been confirmed by people working for IGN.

You mean confirmed to be false

 

[Supasso]

Why is the fact that the cube version being developted by the same studio as the PS2 version necessary means that it's a PS2 port?

Since when IGN employee's opinion is a fact?

 

[Goldni]

I pretty much agree with Ozy's last post. I dont think the GCN SC's textures should neccassarily look any worse than XB's textures did. Maybe the lighting and effects in some areas but afa as texture clarity maybe no.

On the subject of "cut down levels" well it's pretty much a confusing issue. Since SC was made for PC and XB, both of which for HD development, And with GCN there is no HD and half the amount of memory than I could easily see the levels in SC being "divided up" or "cut down" for GCN if you will. But as far as "from the ground up" GCN developed games go it's a non issue. For example Metroid Prime. That's one of several GCN games that has enormous levels that stream straight off the Cube disk. With virtually no load times (or hardly any disk drive noises either). Mario Sunshine, SFA and Zelda WW large levels come to mind as well. The GCN has no problem with very large areas without a HD. And Naughty Dog seems to have figured out putting large areas in to PS2 games as well. What I'm getting at is there are ways around alot of problems with cross platform development. But when you have a game like SC being done with a HD in mind, "cut down" levels are something that is probably feasible with time and money constraints of ports. I'm just impressed that Ubi is putting a few extra levels into the PS2 version and GBA/ exclusive secret stuff into GCN SC. I know one thing...Ubi Soft has a new found respect from me with how SC and Rayman3 GBA/GCN connectivity turned out.

 

[Ozymandis]

I pretty much agree with Ozy's last post. I dont think the GCN SC's textures should neccassarily look any worse than XB's textures did. Maybe the lighting and effects in some areas but afa as texture clarity maybe no.

I think you mean Blade's last post

Watching the videos I agree with the two of you. It looks basically identical as far as textures go to the Xbox version. Furthermore, the game really wasn't that impressive to begin with the aforementioned exception of the lighting.

I also think that it's a great thing that they managed to get the framerate up on the Cube version. The fps on the Xbox version suck. I'm not sure why no one else notices that, but they seem pretty low to me.

 

[Blade]

Ozy: Yeah, the framerate was lower than I expected given what the Xbox can do. Not ever low enough to hurt gameplay though, IMHO. Maybe once or twice, but slowdown is pretty much acceptable in such a game as Splinter Cell.

I'd have to say (after playing some SC today; still love it..) that there is a good amount of polygons being thrown around.. but in general I still think the only thing that truly stands out is the nearly unrivaled lighting model.