GT4 in Game Cube, how it could be this version?

[Almasy]

I´m amazed at how defensive and ridiculous some of you people are. PS2 is not the most advanced machine out there, that much is true. However, judging by games such as MGS2 on Xbox, it is clear that PS2 must have some sort of advantage SOMEWHERE in that underpowered chipset that guys such as Polyphony might, just might be able to exploit to have a bit of a leg up on competition, somewhere.

Just ask yourselves, if GT4 is doing nothing fantastic, then why aren´t there 10 games that look better than GT on Xbox already? Shrugg it off on art, but come on, these are cars that we are talking about.

 

[jvd]

However, judging by games such as MGS2 on Xbox, it is clear that PS2 must have some sort of advantage SOMEWHERE in that underpowered chipset that guys such as Polyphony might, just might be able to exploit to have a bit of a leg up on competition, somewhere.

Well , how much time was spent on mgs 2 on xbox vs the ps2 version ? How many devs ? Was it a strait rewrite or was it just ported ?

I'm sure if the same time and money was spent on both versions and they were both made to play to the strengths of both systems the xbox version would be technicly more impressive .

Just ask yourselves, if GT4 is doing nothing fantastic, then why aren´t there 10 games that look better than GT on Xbox already? Shrugg it off on art, but come on, these are cars that we are talking about.

If the 60-80 million dollar budget is true please show me a racing game on the xbox that costs that much , let alone ten ... Hell show me 10 racing games on the xbox that costs half of that

 

[Fox5]

I´m amazed at how defensive and ridiculous some of you people are. PS2 is not the most advanced machine out there, that much is true. However, judging by games such as MGS2 on Xbox, it is clear that PS2 must have some sort of advantage SOMEWHERE in that underpowered chipset that guys such as Polyphony might, just might be able to exploit to have a bit of a leg up on competition, somewhere.

Just ask yourselves, if GT4 is doing nothing fantastic, then why aren´t there 10 games that look better than GT on Xbox already? Shrugg it off on art, but come on, these are cars that we are talking about.

Better looking games than MGS2 have existed on xbox, the problems in the MGS2 port were just because it was a straight port from ps2 to xbox, if it was recoded for the xbox's strengths it could probably look even better and run better.

BTW, I can believe the 60-80 million dollar budget for gt4, wasn't final fantasy 7 last gen like a $30 million game?

 

[Almasy]

Well , how much time was spent on mgs 2 on xbox vs the ps2 version ? How many devs ? Was it a strait rewrite or was it just ported ?

I'm sure if the same time and money was spent on both versions and they were both made to play to the strengths of both systems the xbox version would be technicly more impressive .

Not this again...Konami gave the port enough time and care. However, Xbox had problems handling the EXACT SAME look. Yeah, make the Xbox version with bump mapping and seriously tone down the particle effects, but the fact still remains that Xbox handling MGS2 exactly as it is on PS2 was problematic.

If the 60-80 million dollar budget is true please show me a racing game on the xbox that costs that much , let alone ten ... Hell show me 10 racing games on the xbox that costs half of that

Money doesn´t magically upgrade a machine, it´s extremely unlikely the bulk of the budget was spent on the programming side...and it isn´t like PGR1/2, Forza and the other racers had pityfull budgets either. Anyway, is there a figure confirming GT4´s budget? Seems like a gross exageration.

 

[Almasy]

Better looking games than MGS2 have existed on xbox, the problems in the MGS2 port were just because it was a straight port from ps2 to xbox, if it was recoded for the xbox's strengths it could probably look even better and run better.

If the game had been recoded and made it play to the Xbox´s strenghts, then it wouldn´t be the same MGS2 on PS2. As I said before, it´s a fact that Xbox couldn´t run MGS2 as is. Why is it so hard to get that over with?

BTW, I can believe the 60-80 million dollar budget for gt4, wasn't final fantasy 7 last gen like a $30 million game?

Doubt it, Archie4oz has the final word, but AFAIK, the FF with the biggest budget was X, at around $24 million.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Not this again...Konami gave the port enough time and care. However, Xbox had problems handling the EXACT SAME look. Yeah, make the Xbox version with bump mapping and seriously tone down the particle effects, but the fact still remains that Xbox handling MGS2 exactly as it is on PS2 was problematic.

It was due primarily to the architectural shift Almasy, nothing more. There was no bumpmapping, but it clearly wasn't fully optimized either. (as most ports aren't that are initially built-up around a single architecture's strengths) Splinter Cell XBX vs. the PS2 version for example. The main difference was on the tanker in the rain, (particle implementation, as you noted) other than that difference the EXACT same look was attained.

 

[Phil]

It was due primarily to the architectural shift Almasy, nothing more. There was no bumpmapping, but it clearly wasn't fully optimized either. (as most ports aren't that are initially built-up around a single architecture's strengths) Splinter Cell XBX vs. the PS2 version for example. The main difference was on the tanker in the rain, (particle implementation, as you noted) other than that difference the EXACT same look was attained.

...and yet, "better optimized"/more resources/longer devtime wouldn't up the fillrate magically and other shortcomings on Xbox either. Is it that hard to understand that there are games that do take advantage of a specific platform and that these strengths (regardless if looking good or bad) may be hard to replicate on another platform that has other distinct advantages (many fixed pixelfunctions compared to high fillrate, but very simplistic).

Sure we can always put it down to "architectural shift" - but this also includes taking into account that each different platform has different strengths. Anyone with a grain of programming skills should be aware of this.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

...and yet, "better optimized"/more resources/longer devtime wouldn't up the fillrate magically and other shortcomings on Xbox either. Is it that hard to understand that there are games that do take advantage of a specific platform and that these strengths (regardless if looking good or bad) may be hard to replicate on another platform that has other distinct advantages (many fixed pixelfunctions compared to high fillrate, but very simplistic).

Phil, what other shortcomings exactly are you referring to? Longer devtime? You mean shorter. (a year vs nigh 2.5 on SOL) I know that the PS2 has a fillrate advantage even over the XBX, but I was primarily arguing replicating the game's "look." I feel that the differences between the two have been overexaggerated. Read my comments in the RE4 impressions thread regarding the forthcoming PS2 port. Each console does indeed have it's advantages, but when they are all pushed there is no parity. XBX>GC>PS2

 

[Phil]

Phil, what other shortcomings exactly are you referring to? Longer devtime? You mean shorter. (a year vs nigh 2.5 on SOL) I know that the PS2 has a fillrate advantage even over the XBX, but I was primarily arguing replicating the game's "look."

No, the point is longer devtime [on Xbox], more resources [for Xbox] for a better optimized Xbox version of Metal Gear Solid 2 (or any other game playing out distinct PS2 strengths) will not make up for its architectural shortcomings (Fillrate to name one, but there are others). I really don't desire getting into specifics, but if you really believe fillrate is one of the PS2s only differences, then there's no need taking this any further. I'll leave it at that. (some differences go beyond spec-sheet comparasments)

I feel that the differences between the two have been overexaggerated. Read my comments in the RE4 impressions thread regarding the forthcoming PS2 port.

I'm not sure I'm up to date yet with those comments, but those that I did read about Resident Evil and it being ported to PS2 - well, all that applies as well. Any game developed for a specific platform won't be replicated without drawbacks when the porting-platform has architectural differences (in other words short comings) it has to make up for. That applies for Xbox, Dreamcast, PS2 and GameCube - no matter in which order you perceive them to be.

Each console does indeed have it's advantages, but when they are all pushed there is no parity. XBX>GC>PS2

Pushed doing what? Making coffee? Yeah sure.

Yeah, oranges are better than apples. No wait, apples are better. Or was it rather Oranges > Apples > Mangos? Yeah, I think that's it.

With all due respect but your personal hierarchy is meaningless to developers involved in the porting process when the platform in mind is lacking certain differences it has to make up for. Have a nice day.

 

[pahcman]

I think its unfair to call people(with more console experience) defensive and rediculousy.

Until we have hard numbers, it anyone guess about MGS2 port. Cos i have seen Xbox games with as impressive as MGS2 rain. It is very true, Konami is a lazy Xporter. Have u play their latest WE8 International port? Its blaspermos that there is no 480p, neverminding the graphics are no better than PS2! Surely a game like WE8 far from using PS2 fillrates. Thus stop hanging on to that one game/port that Xbox have a tiny problem to run.

BTW back to the future, what are the numbers for PS2 and Xbox fillrates in games? And what are the other tangible strenghts of PS2?

As for GT4, RSC2 cars have 2x polygons, damages, better textures, real time reflections, pixel ligthings, yet many give GT4 cars looks realer. So yes, it IS down to "art"(imo "modelling" sound better) and resources. GT4 phyics as good as it is, hard to call since other sim racers like TOCA GTR have own strengths. But come background graphics, AI and damage modelling, GT not really strongest.

 

[London Geezer]

WHAT!? 60-80 MILLION DOLLARS?? Where did u get that number from? They would need to sell about 15-20 million copies of GT4 alone to break even!!!

I don't know about you, but most software companies I've seen seem to sell their games for more than 3 or 4 dollars. Could you perhaps link to some online prices?

sorry!! It did seem a bit off... errr

 

[PC-Engine]

The natural pecking order is as follows: XBX>GC>PS2...

I love it when certain individuals start grasping at imaginary things like GT3/4's super duper advanced AI and physics that Xbox and GCN could never replicate without dropping the framerate to 30 even though GT1/2 had the same AI and physics running on a PS1.

Kinda reminds me of those claims about DC not being able to do the infamous motion blur when even PS1 could do it...lovely. Oh and one last thing...PS2 can do.......(drum roll).......bump mapping!!!

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Phil, I know that you're a PS2 afficionado par extraodinaire, but in terms of technical prowess & available feature-sets you would disagree with my hierarchy order? I have no problems admitting that the XBX>GC, despite my affinity for Gamecube & the system's architecture. The PS2 in many aspects simply isn't as capable as the other two, I'm not trying to discount it due to dislike or some fanboyism.

No, the point is longer devtime [on Xbox], more resources [for Xbox] for a better optimized Xbox version of Metal Gear Solid 2 (or any other game playing out distinct PS2 strengths) will not make up for its architectural shortcomings (Fillrate to name one, but there are others). I really don't desire getting into specifics, but if you really believe fillrate is one of the PS2s only differences, then there's no need taking this any further. I'll leave it at that. (some differences go beyond spec-sheet comparasments)

I was genuinely asking what the others were, you know the PS2's architecture better than I, there was no intended sarcasm there. I am aware also some advantageous aspects aren't reflected on the spec-sheet. As this is true of every console. Platform-centric engines will always pose problems with ports, due to their inherit design.

Pushed doing what? Making coffee? Yeah sure.

Yeah, oranges are better than apples. No wait, apples are better. Or was it rather Oranges > Apples > Mangos? Yeah, I think that's it.

With all due respect but your personal hierarchy is meaningless to developers involved in the porting process when the platform in mind is lacking certain differences it has to make up for. Have a nice day.

Pushing the technical boundaries of the system, perhaps even exceeding the spec-sheet imposed system limitations. This isn't my "personal heirarchy" but what's been reflected in the software on the cusp of these boundaries. You sound defensive, why is that?

 

[Phil]

Li Mu Bai:

Phil, I know that you're a PS2 afficionado par extraodinaire, but in terms of technical prowess & available feature-sets you would disagree with my hierarchy order? I have no problems admitting that the XBX>GC, despite my affinity for Gamecube & the system's architecture. The PS2 in many aspects simply isn't as capable as the other two, I'm not trying to discount it due to dislike or some fanboyism.

Pushing the technical boundaries of the system, perhaps even exceeding the spec-sheet imposed system limitations. This isn't my "personal heirarchy" but what's been reflected in the software on the cusp of these boundaries. You sound defensive, why is that?

All bias aside, it's difficult to remotely agree with any hierarchy without knowing on what basis - that's why my sarcastic comment on apples vs oranges (which applies, regardless how you choose to look at things). Does the hierarchy XBX > GC > PS2 apply on total transistor counts? Or FLOP performance figures? On case dimensions? Without defining what YOUR hierarchy is comparing, it's as useless as a single graph comparing two different things using different metrics.

In a very broadsense, yeah, Xbox does have *many* advantages in many different areas - that doesn't negate some of its shortcomings though, which are present due to architectural differences. Really depends how you choose to quantify two things that are quite different. Really, like comparing apples to oranges. One undoubtedly has a superior energy level over the other, yet that doesn't take into account that the other may have more of something else that is equally/more/less important. In the end, if its Apples > Oranges or Oranges > Apples is ultimately in the eye of the beholder --> the developer that writes a piece of software to the platforms strength(s).

Even ease-of-programming or a well-balanced design is an advantage (I take it one of GameCubes advantages) - something that can not be quantified by looking at any performance figures. Same applies to all other consoles as well... even a console as old as the Dreamcast has its fair strengths and I'm sure there is a handful of ways of doing things you can do on it that would cripple all current consoles. How do you quantify those strengths and still put it into an hypothetical hierarchie "when all is pushed" and walk away with a realistic picture of which produces the best results for a specific problem? And after all that, "best" still remains a relative term, something each developer perceives differently and varies on WHAT is being performed on the machine.


And after all this, which should be regarded as common sense on a technical board such as this, you claim I sound defensive - when in fact, you were the one to bring this into a meaningless "platform x > platform y" comparasment that has no relevance what so ever on the porting process of a game that took advantages of its platforms distinct strengths AND weaknesses? Just because Xbox is regarded as the most powerful doesn't mean it can magically make up for all the areas in which it underlies to the other platform(s) - especially when the title in question makes use of exactly those strengths. There's really no other way to put it, appologies.

 

[pahcman]

so any one have mgs2 numbers? may be play the pc version and hack hex edit something?? not indicative of ps2 but at least get a gauge.

but i agree for developers best is relative. each gen of consoles to them are just challenge to exploit. like past 16bits to present ps2/xbox/gc and future ps3/xenon/gc, each will have something fun for them and really not much different no matter how much hype is sold.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

All bias aside, it's difficult to remotely agree with any hierarchy without knowing on what basis - that's why my sarcastic comment on apples vs oranges (which applies, regardless how you choose to look at things). Does the hierarchy XBX > GC > PS2 apply on total transistor counts? Or FLOP performance figures? On case dimensions? Without defining what YOUR hierarchy is comparing, it's as useless as a single graph comparing two different things using different metrics.

Understood. Then by comparison not even a comprehensive spec. analysis would be viable, not even if the raw numbers are summarily subtracted to simulate a real-world gaming environment, as all engines are exploiting different platform aspects & strengths by different means with varying levels of proficiency. I'm following your logic, but the ultimate indicator would be the feature set? Lighting? IQ? Central processor/GPU capability? Texture throughput? RAM latency? Geometry complexity? There is no clear winner in every single category, & as you mentioned the features that aren't reflected upon the spec. sheet. There must be a clear comparison, benchmarks that allow for this.

Even ease-of-programming or a well-balanced design is an advantage (I take it one of GameCubes advantages) - something that can not be quantified by looking at any performance figures. Same applies to all other consoles as well... even a console as old as the Dreamcast has its fair strengths and I'm sure there is a handful of ways of doing things you can do on it that would cripple all current consoles. How do you quantify those strengths and still put it into an hypothetical hierarchie "when all is pushed" and walk away with a realistic picture of which produces the best results for a specific problem? And after all that, "best" still remains a relative term, something each developer perceives differently and varies on WHAT is being performed on the machine.


And after all this, which should be regarded as common sense on a technical board such as this, you claim I sound defensive - when in fact, you were the one to bring this into a meaningless "platform x > platform y" comparasment that has no relevance what so ever on the porting process of a game that took advantages of its platforms distinct strengths AND weaknesses? Just because Xbox is regarded as the most powerful doesn't mean it can magically make up for all the areas in which it underlies to the other platform(s) - especially when the title in question makes use of exactly those strengths. There's really no other way to put it, appologies.

Yes, I got off-topic. We can speculate on the porting process going by what devs. have quoted, spec sheet analysis, & what aspects of for instance that GT4 is exploiting?

 

[Phil]

There is no clear winner in every single category, & as you mentioned the features that aren't reflected upon the spec. sheet.

Exactly, which then forms the question, how do you quantify that one category in which platform x is a clear winner as more important than the other category in which platform y pulls ahead? IMO the answer to this question is answered by what developers achieve on the hardware and where they place priorities and where the right drawbacks are made to form a good balance.

I think a game like Metal Gear Solid 2 or even as a better example Zone of the Enders 2 got the balance right: Effects utilizing high fillrate and a very distinct color pattern (greenish/blueish in MGS2) making lacking texture detail less obvious. A game that used the platforms strengths to make some wonderful effects such as underwater particle effects or the rain/wind effects while still being amazingly interactive with the player. Given both platforms differences, I'd say a two games each playing to their platforms strengths would look very different, while not necessarely worse or better (in the end, coming down to the individuals taste). I think the clear benchmark you're searching for is ultimately the software that makes due with the hardware's strength and weaknesses and delivers a perfect balance. The winner although does come down to personal preference in the end... (and that wouldn't be touching on the point that a complex rendered pixel doesn't have to look better than a simple one -> due to lacking art).

what aspects of for instance that GT4 is exploiting?

A tricky question, since I don't have GT4 yet and we don't have insider information on what the game is actually pushing. As I said earlier, there's more to the game than just its pixels... especially in GT4 which manages an incredible amount of data for each individual car must have a very sophisticated physics engine behind it - I take this as obvious by actually played it (well GT4 Prologue) and it's quite amazing to actually feel the difference of each and every car so distinct. So, even if we managed to extrapolate each and every aspect the game is pushing to make it as good as it looks and see this as doable on GameCube, we at that point haven't even touched on its physics-engine which is the main aspect of this game in the first place and among the teams highest priority. And even if we see that as doable on GameCube... it's even more alien to know how it would actually run when physics, visualisation, sound, ...etc come together and run side by side to form what is Gran Turismo 4.

 

[Evil_Cloud]

Considering the production cost of GT4 - somewhere in between 60 and 80 million dollar - it really is possible too on GameCube if about the same budget were to be spent. GT4 is all about expensive custom built visual deception technology.

WHAT!? 60-80 MILLION DOLLARS?? Where did u get that number from? They would need to sell about 15-20 million copies of GT4 alone to break even!!!

They will never break-even on GT4, that's the sad part of the story. Why else do you think they released all those Concept/Prologue GT's? Perhaps they even took out the online mode so they could sell it in a seperate game, to minimize losses. The game is more like a system seller.

GT4 is the most expensive game ever made, it took the crown from the Shenmue series which costed about 35 million dollars in total.

 

[London Geezer]

Considering the production cost of GT4 - somewhere in between 60 and 80 million dollar - it really is possible too on GameCube if about the same budget were to be spent. GT4 is all about expensive custom built visual deception technology.

WHAT!? 60-80 MILLION DOLLARS?? Where did u get that number from? They would need to sell about 15-20 million copies of GT4 alone to break even!!!

They will never break-even on GT4, that's the sad part of the story. Why else do you think they released all those Concept/Prologue GT's? Perhaps they even took out the online mode so they could sell it in a seperate game, to minimize losses. The game is more like a system seller.

GT4 is the most expensive game ever made, it took the crown from the Shenmue series which costed about 35 million dollars in total.

Sorry i got it all wrong!!!

They "only" need to sell about 2 million copies to break even.... 50 dollars per game (not sure about that), 2 million copies is already 100million dollars. And GT4 will sell a lot more than 2 million copies so they'll be fine...

 

[Evil_Cloud]

Do you really think they make 100% profit on each game sold?