PS2 EE question
- Thread starter vipa899
- Start date
Yes.
Looks very nice, think Halo is more impressive then metroid on gc but metroid wins in art department.
PS2 was more powerful than GC, and it's easy to see by playing some latest games for PS2 (by latest i mean games released in 2008, 2009 and 2010), or just by watching gampley of these games on yutube.Many of these games look almost like early PS3 games. There is absolutely nothing similar on GC. Games what looked betteron GC were released in 2002, 2003 and 2004. GC was easier to programm for than PS2. In 2002, 2003 and 2004 games for PS2 used less than a half of it's real capabilities. And on GC games used a lot more of it capabilitis.
Unfair comparison. Were games being made for GC as late with the same level of investment?
What games? I'm a fan of the ps2 as well, but even I'll admit that running rogue leader and rebel strike at 60 fps (most of the time) is something the ps2 most likely couldn't pull off.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
I'm wondering what these games are. Personally i think gow2 is the most impressive game on the console but even that 2007 game has a big deficit in modeling and texture work compared to cube games. I think Re4 is fairly representative of the divide in detail capabilities.*
*Though it also doesn't show ps2‘s bandwidth advantage or its greater simulation ability.
Edit : I actually think all of 6th gen had a fair bit of juice left in the tank, esp. the xbox. I can only imagine what a sequel to conker or panzer dragoon may have looked like.
Last edited:
GoW 2 does run at a much higher framerate than RE4 though. I think the star wars games are better technical showcases. Similar effects at twice the framerate, or at least close. Plus, RE4 is vertex lit iirc.
Ghosthunter pulls off some pretty nice effects on ps2. Here's a high res emulator video so you can see everything properly.
There are some bugs in the emulation though.
Is normal mapping considered a form of per pixel lighting?
I think hitman blood money used normal mapping too.
Last edited:
phoenix_chipset
Regular
Wasn't comparing Re4 to GoW. Compare gamecube Re4 to Ps2 Re4. In addition to much lower poly counts it lacks the dynamic lighting and other details. Don't know if the lighting is per pixel or vertex, i'd have to check. Darkside chronicles on Wii has per pixel lighting though.
I would never compare a game with lots of detailed character models and close up environments to rogue squadron though. The on foot stuff in rebel strike looks awful...
Ps2 doesn't support real normal maps but I you could simulate bump mapping on it.
I would never compare a game with lots of detailed character models and close up environments to rogue squadron though. The on foot stuff in rebel strike looks awful...
Ps2 doesn't support real normal maps but I you could simulate bump mapping on it.
I think it was bump mapping + specular to be specific.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
Yeah star fox is a good example for comparing 60fps third person games on the two machines. Great looking game and a 2002 title no less.
What about this?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw1MnIPzC2gLwEnAxa_AavSG
PDF called "DOT3 Normal Mapping on the PS2" from IO interactive. Don't have time right now to look over it myself, but it mentions "a cheap two-pass solution without per-pixel normalization
and a per-pixel normalized alternative which requires four passes." Not sure what that means exactly.
It certainly was in some few departments, but in my opinion by playing games on both systems, then and right now, the GC is a step above PS2. I mean try the first Metroid on GC, it even looks 'better' then the first Halo for xbox. Never saw something like that on PS2, then theres many more games that i thought really showed GC was a more modern console (it came over a year later, no suprise?)
Overall GC was/is more capable of delivering a game with the best graphics. I dont know what you mean with the latest PS2 games från 2008 onwards? I think PS2's best was allready with MGS2, GoW and GoW 2 along Black topped it off. None of these really trump GC's best.
You say 2004 showed PS2's half its abilitys, that would be Transformers? I think Melbourne House really did a great job pushing the platform with great results, no-one believed the PS2 could do that. But neither of all its games showed it was above PS2, something about all those games reminded it was the PS2. GoW1/2 has a fixed camera, MGS3 went 30fps from the 60 MGS2 had with its textures and colours, sotc had its framerate problems and barren world. Those developers just knew how to use PS2's power in the right way, but not hiding it completely.
On top of that i dont think the GC was pushed as much as the PS2 was like said by others here. About all multiplatform games performed and looked better on GC aswell if thats any indication, with Xbox versions often being the best. And thats how many see it, Xbox>GC>PS2, nothing strange with that as PS2 was build using older tech/architecture/ideas. Cant remember where but someone said GC could be compared to a Geforce 2+/500mhz p3 and fast memory pc, not that strange it outperforms PS2 with older hardware then that.
On a sidenote im happy theres something like PCSX2, it lets us play almost all PS2 games in higher res/filters and much of other features, even improving FPS if you have a capable PC. Sometimes PCSX2 fixes PS2's shortcomings.
THanks to everyone who answered. I recently completed Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix on PS2, some years ago I completed it on Xbox 360. ON PS2 game looks almost the same, a little bit lower texture resolution, some minor effects not presented in PS2 version, and lower resolution, but same polygon count, same draw distance, same openworld without loadings, same content. Here is comparison PS2 vs PC.
Medal of Honor Vanguard. Game was released for PS2 and Wii. Wii was 50% more powerful than GC and had more RAM, but this game looks even a little bit better on PS2.
Both gam,es was released in 2007. Later I'll show some games from 2008, 2009 and 2010.
Medal of Honor Vanguard. Game was released for PS2 and Wii. Wii was 50% more powerful than GC and had more RAM, but this game looks even a little bit better on PS2.
Both gam,es was released in 2007. Later I'll show some games from 2008, 2009 and 2010.
Looks pretty decent for a late PS2 game. Polygon counts are not the same though, you can see the difference in the faces.
Wii version seems to have less aliasing image and better performance. PS2 version has the typical aliasing issues combined with what you can tell is the vsync locking down to something below 30, probably 20 FPS at times, because it's not maintaining 30 in the first place. I actually did play the Wii version back in 2007, and I hardly remember the actual game, just the crappy tacked on motion controls.
I played PS2 version some years ago, and now I don't remember about framerate. But in that comparison video I think PS2 version have better graphics, because image not so dark. Other things are rhe same. But still, Wii have 50% more power than GC, and I don't think GC would've been able to run this game with the same graphics as PS2.
Nothing about it makes me think the GC couldn't run it, and it looks like a very typical PS2 FPS. Being such an early Wii game (released March 2007), it was probably first developed on GC devkits before switching to Wii to finish it up.
I imagine Vanguard is also using the Emotion Engine in the typical VU1 and FPU only fashion. VU0 probably has no engagement, which means the games programming design probably translates to the GC/Wii architecture just fine. There certainly headroom in the Wii to improve the graphics, like texture compression and some basic EMBM.
I imagine Vanguard is also using the Emotion Engine in the typical VU1 and FPU only fashion. VU0 probably has no engagement, which means the games programming design probably translates to the GC/Wii architecture just fine. There certainly headroom in the Wii to improve the graphics, like texture compression and some basic EMBM.
Could be me but both these games dont impress, they dont have bad graphics but if you want to show the PS2's power you should come with ZOE2, that game really uses the one of few, if not only advantage it has over the other two consoles, particle effects (although xbox could perhaps do ZOE2 if in another style with its vertex shaders?)
GC allready being more capable then the PS2 overall, i think something like the Wii which in itself comes near og xbox in hardware would only be more capable, on top of that GC allready had games that the PS2 graphically never competed with.
Then comparing 2007/2008 and onwards games, on a platform with a 150+ million install base that existed since early 2000 to the other two that only had a fraction of PS2's install base that launched late 2001 and ended 2004/2005. I can only imagine how GC wouldve been if it had the same install base, years of development etc, xbox would be even more intresting.
But still, Wii have 50% more power than GC, and I don't think GC would've been able to run this game with the same graphics as PS2.
GC allready being more capable then the PS2 overall, i think something like the Wii which in itself comes near og xbox in hardware would only be more capable, on top of that GC allready had games that the PS2 graphically never competed with.
Then comparing 2007/2008 and onwards games, on a platform with a 150+ million install base that existed since early 2000 to the other two that only had a fraction of PS2's install base that launched late 2001 and ended 2004/2005. I can only imagine how GC wouldve been if it had the same install base, years of development etc, xbox would be even more intresting.
Well today I hit up a local game store to pick up a copy of Vanguard, but ultimately decided I really wanted to purchase Red Steel and FC: Vengeance. I've played both before, loooooong ago, but the former I'd only played through the first level. Back when I played it in 2006, I do remember being impressed by the use of glass caustics in certain scenes. But today, there were two very interesting things about Red Steel that grabbed my attention: 1) The game must be using texture compression because there is alot of fine grain textures (though there is alot of banding). 2) The game has volumetric lighting/light shafts, and ALOT of it. However, I don't think it's the "true" kind, but one built up of overlapping polygons - something I figure the PS2 would excel at versus the GC and Wii. I'm not entirely sure how volumetric lights were done back then, or even today for that matter, but they look pretty damn good in Red Steel, in a Wii game no less.
You can catch it at 11:46
All that blending I figure would excel with the Graphics Synthesizer's pixel fillrate and bandwidth to the eDRAM along with the high polygonal rate. I'm kinda surprised the game didn't hit the PS2. Aside from the possible texture compression, the ragdoll physics of the enemies and interactivity of the environment would suit the PS2 and Emotion Engine's prowess since the game loses FPS quite frequently during interactions.
Last edited: