SCEI & Toshiba unveil 65nm process with eDRAM

[Lazy8s]

According to the developers, the Baldur's Gate port on Xbox has improved special effects as well as twice the resolution over time (progressive scan) versus its field-rendered incarnation on PS2. I'd guess it supports 5.1 sound in gameplay on Xbox as well.

 

[Vince]

GTA3 was PS2 native and still runs better on the PC. The game was built for the PS2, its the platforms biggest title of this generation to date.

Ben, you know perfectly well it's built on Renderware. Quit the BS rhetoric.

You bring up the fact that developers aren't utilizing the PS2 properly, but expect PC developers to utiilize the GF properly because nVidia graphics cards are the most popular....?

So, your saying that developing to D3D, which is a unilaterlly accepted standard - the same standard that all the IHV's point their hardware and HAL towards, is somehow as hard to develop to as using VU microcode or managing DMA, or playing a virtual hot-potato game with your data in the subsystems?

Give me a break.

 

[V3]

Your processor was the problem.

And that benchmark is not ? Which was the main point. Even with current processor, if the same thing occur, framerate would still drop. The point still, those benchmark is good for comparing cards/rigs, but not so good for concluding gaming quality for certain rig.

I run it now with my NV15, I ran 1024x768 on my GF1.

NV15 ? that's what ? Geforce 2 GTS ? I get motion sickness from frame rate fluctuation running at that res. Not even Geforce 3. Only with the recent Geforce 4 4600, I can run it decent at 1600x1200. You are not just running timedemo are you ?

Arcade monitors always help the visuals

If you compare to older boxes, I agree, but not her setup though, she got a nice setup to play DOA3.

 

[marconelly!]

According to the developers, the Baldur's Gate port on Xbox has improved special effects as well as twice the resolution over time (progressive scan) versus its field-rendered incarnation on PS2. I'd guess it supports 5.1 sound in gameplay on Xbox as well.

It's developers said they will try to add bump mapping on the water surfaces. As far as I could see, they ended up not doing it and the game looks prety much the same. It does support progressive, though, but it looks like it has antialiasing not as good as the PS2 version.

That aside, I will just repeat - Xbox and it's games have nothing to do with Ben's initial comparision of GF1 and PS2.

I've heard it was a sloppy port to the XBox, doesn't mean that it will be to the PC.

Maybe it was sloppy, I can't speculate about that, but if you think they will rework their x86 / DX code specially for a PC, I think you are fooling yoursef. Just look at Silent Hill 2 PC version which has completely destroyed shadows compared to Xbox and PS2 versions.

 

[Lazy8s]

marconelly!:

It's developers said they will try to add bump mapping on the water surfaces. As far as I could see, they ended up not doing it and the game looks prety much the same.

I don't know the specifics about the "improved special effects", but I got it from a remark from one of the developers posting on their message board after the port was already finished. So, I'm assuming whatever upgrades they were talking about in that case made the final cut.

It does support progressive, though, but it looks like it has antialiasing not as good as the PS2 version.

Really? The anti-alaising in the Xbox version actually looked better to me, but then again, that might have come from the superior image integrity progressive scan output affords.

 

[randycat99]

Just curious, but why would they add bump mapping to the water surface anyway? The water already ripples in the PS2 version. What more is there to add for effect? Save'it for the damn monkeys, I say!

 

[jvd]

Just curious, but why would they add bump mapping to the water surface anyway? The water already ripples in the PS2 version. What more is there to add for effect? Save'it for the damn monkeys, I say!

The ps2 version may have been done in software and would take to much "power" away from the xbox and so they would either have to take out that effect or change it to be done with bump maps. Then again the water may look completely diffrent.

 

[randycat99]

OK, that makes sense. I was originally imagining them putting some sort of bumps on the water, for no reason I could discern. However, if they are using bumpmapping to actually simulate the ripples, that makes sense. ...er wouldn't they do that via vector shader, though? I guess many ways to skin a cat...

 

[Lazy8s]

The impact to be had from improving any of the game's already-nice effects for the Xbox port would be pretty minimal, in my opinion. The only real visual improvement Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance was begging for was the addition of progressive scan; having that added into the Xbox port really makes the image quality shine - especially now that it can be used in conjunction with a true VGA connector on Xbox.

 

[jvd]

OK, that makes sense. I was originally imagining them putting some sort of bumps on the water, for no reason I could discern. However, if they are using bumpmapping to actually simulate the ripples, that makes sense. ...er wouldn't they do that via vector shader, though? I guess many ways to skin a cat...

It was just an example . look at these old screens from expendable on a g400 max to see what they can do with bump maps to the water and tell me (i've never played the psx version of the game) If thats an improvement over its water http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/19990628/g400-03.html

 

[marconelly!]

Really? The anti-alaising in the Xbox version actually looked better to me, but then again, that might have come from the superior image integrity progressive scan output affords.

Hehe, maybe. Or as I like to say: Xbox - my TV is better than yours
I think the aliasing in Xbox version is much more obvious in the cut scene model closeups.

I also remember you saying that about the effects long time ago, but the speciffic comment was found later and it was talking about the water surface bumpmapping. I really couldn't see any difference in the effects whatsoever, btw.

jvd, water in BGDA is already rippling, using the geometry.

 

[jvd]

yes i understand what you mean but if you look at the screen shots it looks alot more than rippling it has depth and foam in the actually water. dreamcast games had rippling

 

[BenSkywalker]

Vince-

Ben, you know perfectly well it's built on Renderware. Quit the BS rhetoric.

So you are going on record stating that they did absolutely no platform specific optimizations and are, as a point of fact, one of the poorest console developers in the business? Funny that you speak so highly of their work.

So, your saying that developing to D3D, which is a unilaterlly accepted standard - the same standard that all the IHV's point their hardware and HAL towards, is somehow as hard to develop to as using VU microcode or managing DMA, or playing a virtual hot-potato game with your data in the subsystems?

I must have missed it, can you please point me to the GeForce1 specific DirectX build that is floating around. I can't believe I missed that

V3-

And that benchmark is not ? Which was the main point. Even with current processor, if the same thing occur, framerate would still drop.

From 250FPS down to 175FPS, catastrophic fluctuation to be sure

The point still, those benchmark is good for comparing cards/rigs, but not so good for concluding gaming quality for certain rig.

Games are the best indicator as always. Benchmarks eliminate the delusions and bias that people hold.

NV15 ? that's what ? Geforce 2 GTS ? I get motion sickness from frame rate fluctuation running at that res. Not even Geforce 3. Only with the recent Geforce 4 4600, I can run it decent at 1600x1200. You are not just running timedemo are you ?

First off 61FPS is by default better then any console period. If you or I like 200FPS is irrelevant, if a PC pushes a game @61FPS it is faster then any console. NV15 includes the GF2Pro boards including the Gainward GF Pro450 which is clocked at 220/450(significantly faster then a GTS). A normal GF2 Pro pushes just under 60FPS average @16x12-

Now, if you are saying that you need 100FPS to be able to play Quake3 or any other game, the PS2 looses to the GF1 by default. You mention framerate fluctuation, if it doesn't drop below 30FPS at any point, how is it any different then any console title?

If you compare to older boxes, I agree, but not her setup though, she got a nice setup to play DOA3.

Really? She found a TV with a dot pitch under 0.30??? I have yet to see one under .60, where did she pick it up? I've been wanting one for years.

Marco-

Maybe it was sloppy, I can't speculate about that, but if you think they will rework their x86 / DX code specially for a PC, I think you are fooling yoursef. Just look at Silent Hill 2 PC version which has completely destroyed shadows compared to Xbox and PS2 versions.

So because one team screwed up one port, all teams must screw up all ports, is that the general idea of what you are saying?

 

[Guest]

With that being said, Hunter has a lot more going on (30+ enemies simultaneously) than BG does and it looks just as good.

And Hunter is also an Xbox game.

We are talking about the limitations of the GF1 vs the PS2, without bottlenecking the GF it is akin to using PSX games to show the power of the PS2.

So what PC specs should we pair up with a GF1 to make it a fair comparison with a PS2?

It runs a lot smoother on the PC.

I just have to wait for the demo, if there is to be one.
In the meantime, please try out NWN or Dungeon Siege on your GF1 and compare that with BGDA.

According to the developers, the Baldur's Gate port on Xbox has improved special effects as well as twice the resolution over time (progressive scan) versus its field-rendered incarnation on PS2. I'd guess it supports 5.1 sound in gameplay on Xbox as well.

IGN do not see any drastically improved special effects and BGDA is rendered at high res internally on the PS2.
Why are we comparing PS2 with Xbox now?

So because one team screwed up one port, all teams must screw up all ports, is that the general idea of what you are saying?

I think he meant PC<->Console ports are not too accurate for comparison.

 

[jvd]

I'm going to put on my flame suit for this one . I bet my athlon xp 2000+ with a radeon 9700 pro and 512megs of ddr can run any console game at 640x480 with out any problems as long as the developer tried a little to optimize it for the pc (xbox game most likely nothing needs to be done).

Why do current console games look better than current pc games. Well if your deveoloping for a xbox , you have the x amount of ram , the 700 mhz cpu and whatever the gpu speed is. That will never change. You can optimize the hell outta it .

On the pc side you people still running rage 128s and tnts . Look at doom 3 . Thats a game made around a geforce 1. Imagine a game made around my setup . It will be much much more amazing than anything the xbox will ever come up with. The problem is it will take a few years by then a new console will be out.

One last thing to note. Take any 3d pc game and run it at 640x480 res and then run it at 1600x1200 (or highest res you can run it at , for me 1600x1200 6fsaa and 16x aniso ) See how much better it looks. Now ask yourself if you can take an xbox game and move it up to a higher res with out the frame rates tanking big time.

 

[marconelly!]

So because one team screwed up one port, all teams must screw up all ports, is that the general idea of what you are saying?

Let's just wait and see, but I think you are up for an unpleasant MGS2 ride on a PC.

yes i understand what you mean but if you look at the screen shots it looks alot more than rippling it has depth and foam in the actually water. dreamcast games had rippling

Yes, but BGDA also has rippling with specular highlights and transparency, plus the rippling is realtime generated when anything touches/walks through the water. Bumpmapping could add it some microdetails though (or so I assume).

Basically, It looks like this, except this is a very muddy water on the dungeon:

 

[cybamerc]

BenSkywalker:

> Add to the things Johnny already mentioned,

What were those?

> non muddy textures

Please... as if every PS2 has crappy texturing.

> proper texture filtering

DOA3 is a shimmery mess. Of the launch games Halo looks far cleaner.

> and the hair effects.

I knew you'd mention that but DOA3's hair effects are no better than what you see in SH3 or Clock Tower 3.

> The game was built for the PS2, its the platforms biggest title of this
> generation to date.

I'm not chap but I'd like to point out that GTA3 is running on a poorly optimized Renderware engine. DMA was never any good at making 3d engines to begin with so the game is hardly suitable as a benchmark of any kind.

> as a point of fact, one of the poorest console developers in the
> business?

From a technical point of view they're certainly not among the best.

 

[zurich]

Ben,

You're still on crack if you think GTA3 is better on the PC. It ran like absolute GARBAGE on my system (GF2, 1ghz P3, 640x480), and the "streaks" effect were so bad they almost gave me epilepsy.

Unless they released some magic patch to fix the rendering process, GTA3PC gets two thumbs down from me.

 

[Guest]

Anyway, i dont care if GF1 is really better than a PS2, but until we have some really reliable sources or benchmarks(faf?! archiez!? erp?! crazyace!?), i would not be so quick to make any confirmation based off certain games or personal experiences.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Zurich-

You're still on crack if you think GTA3 is better on the PC. It ran like absolute GARBAGE on my system (GF2, 1ghz P3, 640x480)

What is your aperture setting at? It is a known issue with the game, they explicitly tell you how to fix it. As far as thinking it runs better on the PC, FRAPS says it runs around 45-55FPS although it is at 1024x768, not 640x480

and the "streaks" effect were so bad they almost gave me epilepsy.

Somehow after reading that I find it extraordinarily unlikely you bothered to adjust your aperture settings. If you don't like the streaks, shut them off, problem solved.

Marco-

Let's just wait and see, but I think you are up for an unpleasant MGS2 ride on a PC.

There is no way I'm gonig to pay a cent for MGS2, I can't stand it. I'm simply interested in how it will perform.

Cybermac-

What were those?

Animation, poly complexity and lighting which when combined with quality texturing, proper filtering and the shader effects easily surpasses anything I've seen to date on the PS2.

Please... as if every PS2 has crappy texturing.

'Ico has good textures', 'BG has good filtering', 'VF4 has good animation', 'SH3 has good lighting' etc. What matches everything DOA3 offers on a visual basis on the PS2?

DOA3 is a shimmery mess. Of the launch games Halo looks far cleaner.

No mip banding.

I knew you'd mention that but DOA3's hair effects are no better than what you see in SH3 or Clock Tower 3.

Haven't seen anything on the hair effects, have any links to real time vid feeds?

I'm not chap but I'd like to point out that GTA3 is running on a poorly optimized Renderware engine. DMA was never any good at making 3d engines to begin with so the game is hardly suitable as a benchmark of any kind.

Of course, every single game that is on both the PC and PS2 runs better on GF1 level hardware because of xxxx excuse

Chap-

Anyway, i dont care if GF1 is really better than a PS2, but until we have some really reliable sources or benchmarks(faf?! archiez!? erp?! crazyace!?), i would not be so quick to make any confirmation based off certain games or personal experiences.

Actual benchmarks don't count as benchmarks....? There are things the PS2 does better, some of which I've never argued(transformations as an example). There are also things that the PS2 comes up short on.