Have you guys seen the ps2 version of Splinter cell(3)?
- Thread starter therealskywolf
- Start date
- Status
I think you need to define Lighting then.
Many people will argue that Xbox has an advantage thanks to pixel shaders which give better lighting to a certain extent.
Many framebuffer effects used in PS2 games like the ones in Ico and MGS2/3 and others make people go wow, quite rightly so, but i'm not sure they couldn't be done on Xbox to be honest, just approached in a different way.
Many people will argue that Xbox has an advantage thanks to pixel shaders which give better lighting to a certain extent.
Many framebuffer effects used in PS2 games like the ones in Ico and MGS2/3 and others make people go wow, quite rightly so, but i'm not sure they couldn't be done on Xbox to be honest, just approached in a different way.
z said:
That's the thing, matey, unless you specify what you or EGM mean with "better lighting", this discussion is pointless.
Consoles don't have "better lighting" than others. The developers can make up their lighting effects, like the ones in ICO and MGS games. Those are achieved by using many of the features of each console, so the term "lighting" when talking about videogames is a very broad concept.
Particles is only a part of Lighting in a game.
Ps2 might be able to display lots of particles at screen at once, like shown in that total craziness that is ZOE2, but i think bump mapping also makes games look like they have good lighting, although many would argue it's "fake"...
Besides... EGM?!? :?
z said:
I think it's been proven many times that the numbers only tell one side of the story, and to be honest if you need real information, this is the best place, not google.
_phil_ said:
so many times i wonder where 's the importance to have good/bad game artists ,if all relies on the hardware
by experience ,game visuals quality is 75% artist ,25% hardware ,provided your coders don't suck too much.
yes, I realize it doesn't make that much difference, it is saying Xbox has more audio channels than PS2. yet games sound the same on my 5.1 surround system. but then it does if taking advantage of. why else does the water effects of PS2 is THE best ever seen on a console?
I just want to give the numbers "technically" since someone asked.
here is Xbox's: Particle Performance: 125 M/sec
from: http://gear.ign.com/articles/306/306618p1.html
I'll try finding PS2's
-----
EDIT:
Particle Performance: 150M/sec.
source:http://gaysucks.tripod.com/teamcbr/id4.html
P.S. I find it strange to down play a source. what is wrong with EGM, or any other? what we are talking about are cold hard facts, bot opinions or forcasts. so it is irrelevant who reports them as long as the numbers are official.
z said:that is why I said "but then it does if taking advantage of. why else does the water effects of PS2 is THE best ever seen on a console?"a688 said:
How is PS2 the best when it comes to water effects? I've seen games from all 3 consoles that have very nice water effects.
Evil_Cloud
Veteran
Following your 'logics', GameCube would have to be the worst performing console, right?
PC-Engine said:
we are specifically talking about Splinter Cell 3 and why its water effects are the best out of the three consoles, as stated by all previewers of major sites and mags.
and by the way, MGS3's cave "wet glitter" effect was remarkable.
if that is directed to me, I have no idea what you mean. Cube's numbers are mostly better than PS2's
Evil_Cloud
Veteran
GameCube has much lower polygon performance numbers than the "66" and "125" numbers you stated, but that's only because Nintendo gave somewhat more realistic and attainable numbers.
Point being: nice on paper, but really useless in the field since it doesn't represent an actual in-game scenario with textures, lightning, shaders, resolution,... Therefore, take those polygon performances with a few grains of salt, or rather read what the systems are really worth here.
Point being: nice on paper, but really useless in the field since it doesn't represent an actual in-game scenario with textures, lightning, shaders, resolution,... Therefore, take those polygon performances with a few grains of salt, or rather read what the systems are really worth here.
right on!
and to elaborate on this point:
that is because Ninty gave the actual in game poly count as aposed to the raw count- which I think was a marketing mistake. since everybody gave raw numbers, Ninty should have done as well. they made themselves seem far lower than the rest at first site. while I say the Cube has some very impressive graphical power. sometimes, better than the box.
and to elaborate on this point:
Evil_Cloud said:
that is because Ninty gave the actual in game poly count as aposed to the raw count- which I think was a marketing mistake. since everybody gave raw numbers, Ninty should have done as well. they made themselves seem far lower than the rest at first site. while I say the Cube has some very impressive graphical power. sometimes, better than the box.
edited by moderator:
No need to add fire to the flame london-boy. Your side comments always go off topic and appear to be trolling. There's no need to have side comments that are obviously meant to flame.
No need to add fire to the flame london-boy. Your side comments always go off topic and appear to be trolling. There's no need to have side comments that are obviously meant to flame.
Evil_Cloud said:GameCube has much lower polygon performance numbers than the "66" and "125" numbers you stated, but that's only because Nintendo gave somewhat more realistic and attainable numbers.
Point being: nice on paper, but really useless in the field since it doesn't represent an actual in-game scenario with textures, lightning, shaders, resolution,... Therefore, take those polygon performances with a few grains of salt, or rather read what the systems are really worth here.
You speak the truth young man. Real world gaming scenarios seriously degrade those hypothetical peak maximums listed. (many times even halving them or more) Best water? Referring solely to this game correct? Otherwise the upcoming LOZ, RE4, SMS, FF:CC, RS3, MGS3, BG
A, Halo/2, Fable, & a few others would take offense. Best lighting? Look up per-pixel & educate yourself. Both the GC & XBX can accomplish this type of lighting, whereas the PS2 cannot. (this is not to say that the the PS2 is not capable of impressive lighting effects however, the system has proven it already)For games/scenes utilizing massive particle effects you are correct. The Tanker on SOL for instance, or the particle intensive ZOE series. I would doubt that a game like SC would be using such an engine that would be noticeably different from the other two, minus the lighting & textural downgrades from the XBX. These simply aren't effects that the GC's framebuffer couldn't pull off just as easily for example.
Actually we don't know yet. The Gc build was based off the PS2 version for the last 2 Splinter Cells but those were all farmed out to UbiSoft Shanghai. This time Montreal's doing the PS2 & GC versions inhouse, alongside Xbox & PC. I'm expecting the GC version to probably be based off those rather than the PS2 version (which will probably use more hardware specific framebuffer effects in place of normal mapping and other techniques GC is fully capable of).therealskywolf said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked