I don't know how this could be slower than the UMD drive, any proof? And as for space requirements, developer could list space needed on the box. Therefor buyer could prepare buy deleting unwanted data on the stick. Also, level data really isn't that big anyway, i don't understand how this could be a problem.london-boy said:
Splinter Cell (PSP) pics!
- Thread starter mckmas8808
- Start date
do any of you remember when the PSP was rumored to have 4MB of ram and developers complained? imagine how games would have looked then. i think we'd be seing alot more PSP<->DS ports going on if that were the case.
still, i can't help but wonder if sony shouldn't have taken a page from the GC design and put in multiple teers of memory, allowing them to have more total system ram.
still, i can't help but wonder if sony shouldn't have taken a page from the GC design and put in multiple teers of memory, allowing them to have more total system ram.
pixelbox said:
It could be a problem because the developers won't build 2 different version of the same game - one with streaming implemented from MS and one without.
In the end, the data still has to go from the disc to "somewhere", whether it's the MS or the main RAM, so the energy used to spin the disc is used the same way... See the issue now?
but frequently accessed data could be dropped on the memory stick to save a lot constant spinning. take an RPG, for instance, where you'll likeley see loading every time you enter a building. if most building interiors are the same, or draw on many common assets you could save a bunch of disk spinning right there.london-boy said:
not that i think any dev would ever do anything like that, unless they included a memory stick with the game (ala the various saturn games that included custom and/or universal ram carts).
A game that uses that idea could have one big load in the begining and from then on leave it up to the memory stick. Data access from the memory stick uses less power than a UMD drive.london-boy said:
QUOTE=london-boy]It could be a problem because the developers won't build 2 different version of the same game - one with streaming implemented from MS and one without.
[/QUOTE]
No one's asking for two versions, just one. The requirement would be on the box and if you couldn't meet those requirements then you would have to delete some data or get a better memory stick. And even that won't be nessesary because level data isn't so big where it would HAVE you to delete anything. That's all i'm saying.
A game that uses that idea could have one big load in the begining and from then on leave it up to the memory stick. Data access from the memory stick uses less power than a UMD drive.london-boy said:
No one's asking for two versions, just one. The requirement would be on the box and if you couldn't meet those requirements then you would have to delete some data or get a better memory stick. And even that won't be nessesary because level data isn't so big where it would HAVE you to delete anything. That's all i'm saying.london-boy said:
pixelbox said:
Well you'd have to decide then, if you want a big load
lol: ) at the beginning, then your next point about it not being "a lot of data" is invalidated.Putting on the box "xxxMB required on MS" on the box would be suicide, firstly because it WILL be missed and people won't be happy to get home and find out that they can't play their new game without a bigger MS - or without deleting data. That would divide the userbase already, and that's not preferable.
It's just not a good idea, in my opinion.
Nicked said:Do you search for Dreamcast whenever you logon?
Really, Shenmue/2 are the only DC games which are still competitive graphically IMO. I don't know of any similar games on PSP to compare it to though. Now if only the gameplay was as interesting as the graphics
Sonic and that other Headhunter picture aren't exactly flattering though.
Not to mention that those shots certainly don't show off lighting of any sort, I can't think of a single Dreamcast game that did. In fact, I remember that being one of my complaints about the DC back in the game, there were N64 games with better lighting engines.
It was said a lot prior to PSP's launch. However, considering PSP has raw specs on par with GameCube, but lacks in many features and has weaker T&L, plus given that there isn't a single psp game that looks as good as the top PS2 stuff...even disregarding the lower resolution of PSP, the models and textures still don't match top Ps2 stuff, and the effects and lighting...please. And I don't think it bodes well for PSP, because supposendly PSP had much better tools on launch and is easier to program for, so it won't see the improvement that the Ps2 did.
mckmas8808
Legend
Fox5 said:
Fox5 the PSP has only been out for 9 or 10 months. Please man give it some time. And it's not using the full power of the system. Plus compare games that came out within the first year or so on the PS2 and then compare games that came out within the same time span but on the PSP.
I think you will be amazed.
The whole argument that handheld graphics should be compared on some proportional scale to home graphics neglects to consider that their visibility is determined by their distance from the viewer and not just their size. Actually, a handheld screen typically fills more of a person's field of view than a home TV screen does, so handheld graphics are even more visible and in need of quality.
So, while less fillrate is needed to produce the image, the image itself is lower in detail, and that continues to go unaccounted. A handheld with true home console performance would reach the resolution limits of its display and would use the leftover performance to further enhance the graphics, like with image supersampling if the goal was still to reproduce 640x480 definition.
Arguing about graphics being the same but at a lower resolution (be it pixel resolution, geometry resolution, or whatever) is the just another way of saying that the graphics are worse. Even under the misconception that handheld graphics are less visible, a lower visibility would limit how good the graphics could look from added detail just as it lowered the need to have as much detail in order to look good in the first place.
So, while less fillrate is needed to produce the image, the image itself is lower in detail, and that continues to go unaccounted. A handheld with true home console performance would reach the resolution limits of its display and would use the leftover performance to further enhance the graphics, like with image supersampling if the goal was still to reproduce 640x480 definition.
Arguing about graphics being the same but at a lower resolution (be it pixel resolution, geometry resolution, or whatever) is the just another way of saying that the graphics are worse. Even under the misconception that handheld graphics are less visible, a lower visibility would limit how good the graphics could look from added detail just as it lowered the need to have as much detail in order to look good in the first place.
mckmas8808 said:
I think MGS2 came out within the first 10 months of the PS2, and it's improvement over the first PS2 games is much bigger than the improvement we've seen from PS2, and better looking than any PSP game so far. MGS2 was the first of PS2 games that truly looked next gen, and it's nice to see it wasn't the exception as to what PS2 games would eventually look like.
However, the 50% increase in clock speed the PSP could see does hold a lot of promise for better looking games.
mckmas8808
Legend
Fox5 said:
HA! Can't argue with you there. I can't wait till the Feburary event to see this game running on a PSP.
Jet Set Radio, among other Dreamcast games, had complex lighting: objects and the environment casting volumetric shadows onto most everything, including themselves (self-shadows). Even Sonic Adventure 2 used modifier volumes for self shadowing.
Good art design is often what is mistaken for good lighting in games, though.
Good art design is often what is mistaken for good lighting in games, though.
As lighting in large part still is pre-baked in current gen games for current gen games consoles, it's fair to say good art design is what gives good lighting in many games.
Last edited by a moderator:
I remember reading somewhere about the specs and there were certain areas like higher clock speeds where PSP surpasses a bit the ps2.Only thing that PSP is certaintly is inferior is the resolution.Rys said:
You wont see games using full potential of the handheld mainly because of battery life.Devs should find new solutions of energy alocation through hardware for as less battery consumption as possible
also about people seeing games as proof that PSP is far from being near PS2 see again what I wroteIts a waste of time to try and squeeze more detail when the screen is small thus even if the detail is there its hard to notice.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nesh said:
Uh, we can tell now that the detail isn't there. The screen may be small, but it's quite high resolution for its size, and held quite close to your face. It's not a 5" screen viewed at the distance a normal tv is at, at most it's 2 feet from your face, and probably as close as 6" for some people. That, and those framebuffer grabs show quite clearly that the polygon counts and texture quality just isn't on par with modern console games.
Fox5, do you own a PSP or have you played any of the games you're refering to?
The reason why I'm asking is because I've been judging many things on those screengrabs as well and since I have actually played some of the games that I was underwhelmed about, I can pretty confidently state that the game running on a little PSP looks better than some of those screens imply.
Yes, characters do have less polygons - but there are games where I'd say the texturing detail is just as high. Image quality is most certainly better in the cases I've seen and some of the effects / action going on IMO are on par with what I'm used to seeing on PS2. Textures and polygons isn't the only thing to go by when comparing performance - in fact, these are two areas where the PS2 is likely to have a leg up anyway given it has more usable memory, doesn't have to worry about barrery limitations and has a much higher polygon throughout put. As I said though, textures and polygons isn't the only thing that uses performance though.
The reason why I'm asking is because I've been judging many things on those screengrabs as well and since I have actually played some of the games that I was underwhelmed about, I can pretty confidently state that the game running on a little PSP looks better than some of those screens imply.
Yes, characters do have less polygons - but there are games where I'd say the texturing detail is just as high. Image quality is most certainly better in the cases I've seen and some of the effects / action going on IMO are on par with what I'm used to seeing on PS2. Textures and polygons isn't the only thing to go by when comparing performance - in fact, these are two areas where the PS2 is likely to have a leg up anyway given it has more usable memory, doesn't have to worry about barrery limitations and has a much higher polygon throughout put. As I said though, textures and polygons isn't the only thing that uses performance though.
SSX(PS2) http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/014/014022/vids_4.html
SSX On Tour http://media.psp.ign.com/media/740/740945/vids_1.html
textures and polygons isnt the only thing inferior
SSX On Tour http://media.psp.ign.com/media/740/740945/vids_1.html
textures and polygons isnt the only thing inferior
mckmas8808
Legend
