Good joke!
Yes, but I haven't Xbox and can't get this game for it. And personaly I more interested to see how it worked on PS2. Xbox is a lot lot more powerful, so it's less impressive to see this game on it.
Questions about PS2
- Thread starter Liandry
- Start date
Interesting compare some latest GameCube games with PS2 versions. As an example in True Crime New York City on GameCube there is absolutely no reflections on road, and no 3D water. All those effects are in PS2 version. Or in NFS Most Wanted in GameCube version rain effect and some lighting effects not presented and textures are better in PS2 version. So question is why so? Because in the end of life cycle developers were able to get more from PS2 than from GameCube?
Economics. In the whole "what console was most powerful?" debate, there were strengths and weaknesses as evidenced by other cross-platform titles that got better treatment across all machines (cf. Resident Evil 4, very weak on PS2 by comparison). But seriously, you're some 15 years too late to this party! We've all moved on, just hoping Nintendo sticks something like PVR raytracing-capable GPU in NX just so we can start making up new arguments and metrics over which machine is 'most powerful'.
In all seriousness though, a discussion on whether PS2 was the most powerful console of its gen really isn't welcome here any more. Specific questions as you started with, fine, but leave the conclusions to, "that's interesting," without trying to derive proof of superiority in some form (not saying you're doing that, but some people do and it's something to be avoided).
Last edited:
All these PS2 talk makes me wish DF would write a very detail face off for DC vs GC vs PS2 vs Xbox. Talk about their specs, ports, their strengths with games as examples. It was a very interesting gen with the closest competition. But I think they mentioned before that Black was considered the most technically advanced software from that gen that pushs both ps2 and xbox.
back in the day IGN ran a proto DF feature where they'd compare various ports of then current PS2/GC/Xbox games. Last I saw it was still locked behind that stupid paywall of theirs, so that info might as well be lost unless someone recompiles it themselves or straight up copies it from them.
That'd be copyright theft.
Ok, I understand.
Yes, I'm too late in that kind of questions. But I missed almost all 6th gen of consoles. Now want undertand it more. And I personally think that 6th gen consoles were more interesting macgines than 7th and especialy 8th gen consoles which is just PC's.
Nothing to compare now. Ok, only questions about PS2 from now.
Really, how about some tech examples about this game? And I think that for PS2 Black was great game, but there were even better games (from tech perspective). But for Xbox Black wasn't in top graphics list. Top was Doom 3, Chronicles of Riddic, Far Cry Instincts and Far CRy Instincts Evolution.
I didn't say it would be posted here or that it'd be legal.
Copyright is theft.
Was it ever resolved what, exactly, "geotexturing" was in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory PS2? It has come up a few times on this forum. The link to the video in that thread still works, shockingly.
/wins
Anyway, not to spoil the party or show that I'm a visionary genius, once again, but a more interesting question would be: What kind of graphics would we get if one of the manufacturers kept the same philosophy as PS2, but used today's technology? I.e. a machine that can push an ungodly amount of geometry around and not much else?
These days we could probably have something that pushes billions of polygons with very simple (or even non existing) textures. I wonder what we could do with that.
Just maybe.
I believe sony built a machine with ps2's architecture, but with 10x everything, for research purposes. It would be great if someone could bring up the name of the thing, or interesting links about it. It was obviously not very efficient, and I don't know if it could be turned into a viable consumer level part even today.
Cube something-something?
One of the major problems when Microsoft initiated the 7th generation which Sony tagged along is that it was believed at the time that the power was sufficient.
Only resolution and lighting systems ate up a ton of computational performance.
The PS2 benefited from it's time...I could have been substantially enhanced and better had they planned it to be that way but there was competition from Sega's nervous breakdown launches and Nintendo 64 actually having a large list of games selling millions of copies and graphics improvements.
Big difference between PS2 and PS3 is that besides resolution going up and the discovery that a bit more was needed was that the requirement of online multiplayer modes also added to the development time and budget of games.
Can't speak much on PS4 but once these companies make decisions then they have to work with what they got.
Btw Black wasn't the only impressive PS2 era title...there were many Japan only games that used some cool effects here and there that were not part of the first person shooter worship.
Splinter cell was originally hyped for xbox 1 and later ported to PS2 so their goal of making it the best impressive DirectX checklist hype game wasn't intended to take advantage of the PS2 hardware compromises as back the the intent was to carve into MGS.
One of the biggest benefits to PS2 to keep in mind is that because the budget to make development tools didn't require online multiplayer...the dev tools benefited so they could nearly extract the maximum performance out of that console's limitations.
Check out Virtua Fighter 4 Evolution which nearly matched the NaOmi 2 arcade hardware graphics.
Even xbox 1 was also improving visually around 2004 but by that time they were getting ready to pull the plug.
Thank you for link. Great information discussion, and impressive tech in Splinte Cell Chaos Theory. Now I play first game in Splinter Cell series. And it's great to compare them. But some years ago I've played Splinter Cell Double Agent, also on PS2, and I personaly thint that it was even more impressive than what was shown in that video.
That is true, but that is true also for PS4 generation. And PS3 was much more powerful to PS2 than PS4 to PS3. Maube because of that PS4 graphics is better than PS3's but not so much better that PS3 graphics compared to PS2's. And PS2 level of graphics to PS1 was a super huge jump.
Of course, I even think that FPS game with best graphics was Call of Duty World at War Final Fronts, released in 2008. You can take a look at gameplay videos.
Can you name some, please.
Does it was with better graphics than Virtua Fighter 4?
Please let's wait for the end of the generation before we can objectively compare each generational jump.Thank you for link. Great information discussion, and impressive tech in Splinte Cell Chaos Theory. Now I play first game in Splinter Cell series. And it's great to compare them. But some years ago I've played Splinter Cell Double Agent, also on PS2, and I personaly thint that it was even more impressive than what was shown in that video.
That is true, but that is true also for PS4 generation. And PS3 was much more powerful to PS2 than PS4 to PS3. Maube because of that PS4 graphics is better than PS3's but not so much better that PS3 graphics compared to PS2's. And PS2 level of graphics to PS1 was a super huge jump.
Of course, I even think that FPS game with best graphics was Call of Duty World at War Final Fronts, released in 2008. You can take a look at gameplay videos.
Can you name some, please.
Does it was with better graphics than Virtua Fighter 4?
Anyways, the most impressive PS2 games for me was Jak & Daxter, MGS2 and Shadows of the colossus, all exclusives. Most PS2 games, particularly at the beginning, were not very different than your usual Dreamcast game IMO, minus the perfect image quality of the Dreamcast VGA output and the generous (compressed) textures. Dreamcast was a much better balanced console than the flawed PS2 hardware.
When people say this, I always cringe a little.
Graphics technology in general made a huge jump between PS1 and PS2. And also between PS2 and PS3 (but already a bit smaller than the last jump, in my eyes). So of course those platforms would reflect that change in technology. After those big jumps, diminishing returns start to come into play until we will get to one day some time in the future, where there will be very little difference in graphics between different platforms.
I still think that some of the games I've played on PS4 represent a huge jump from PS3, in IQ and general graphics fidelity, however it's clear that we're in diminishing returns territory.
It's a bit like, for example, comparing games to Pixar movies: in the PS1 days, that was the impossible dream. On PS2, pretty much the same. On PS3 we started to see a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, and on PS4 we just got Ratchet and Clank which is getting very close to the look and feel of an animated movie, at least in some aspects.
When one day we will actually play something that looks like a Pixar movie, and that jump will look relatively small, since PS4 has already gotten so close - at a first glance at least, it really all depends on the material.
This seemingly 'smaller jump' will not be a reflection of how powerful the PS4 is compared to a supposedly 'weak' next gen platform. It will simply be because of diminishing returns. And so manufacturers will try to keep hanging on by adding features like 4K, higher framerates, higher this, higher that, in order to justify the cost of upgrading to a new platform and see any sort of 'jump'.