Grall:
I've never noticed DC having a problem with motion blur. I'd say it's actually overused in some parts of Shenmue.
Will the game even fit in the DCs relatively small memory space?
Conversely, the DC would give more room for the frame buffer.
1200 MILLION pixels/sec rendering speed, using 640*448 pixel full height screen buffers means you can redraw the screen SEVENTY TIMES PER FRAME AT 60FPS!
DC games are held to the higher 640x480p standard.
64MB GF2 cards have more total ram sure, but then again they NEED all that ram for texture storage because the AGP port is such a slow bottleneck. AGP4x is slower than PS2s GIF interlink to begin with, and it is an inefficient interface too. Besides, if you have (for example) 128MB main mem and 64MB GPU mem doesn't mean you have 196MB total. Frame buffers occupy some, and all textures in graphics mem have to be duplicated in main memory on the PC anyway (because else you have to transfer stuff back and forth TWICE over AGP and you'd start to trash memory space and all sorts of annoying things).
Again, you're faulting the tech of those PC accelerators for things related to its implementation in a PC environment, and yet comparing it to the GS which has been implemented into an optimized console environment. The comparisons are not direct and therefore moot.
zidane1strife:
the ps3 I've heard was estimated over 200x ps2 perf. a few months back, based on some of the cell designs...
Sony's Kutaragi has been claiming the goal of a 1000x performance increase for PS3 over PS2 since the EE and GS were first announced I believe, back before the PS2 even launched. It was actually part of a roadmap he laid out for EE2 and GS2 and beyond.
london-boy:
still, i don't think this whole argument has any meaning to it, we will NEVER see MGS2 on Dreamcast, not only because it could never be replicated at full detail, but just because DREAMCAST IS DEAD!!!
get the F**K over it........
great for its time, but DEAD!!!
sorry to hear when it happened, but now its OVER!!!
some people even go as far as bashing SEGA games on some consoles because they're not on their favorite console..... what is wrong with you people?? can't u just get over it?
How does that prevent it from being used as a hypothetical point of comparison?
What is it with some people and this "DEAD" argument? Does this condition of being "DEAD" have some effect I don't know about, altering reality's physical properties by nullifying DC's performance or its metaphysical properties by stopping the DC from ever existing?
jesus it's not like the death of Lady D or something, it was a box to play games on. a box that has been surpassed in every conceivable way long ago by your most hated console, yes the one with a SONY name on it....
You can't conceive of texture mapping? Or IQ issues like native VGA support, proper filtering, or proscan in every game, delivering twice the comparable res at each update? Or simultaneous audio channels? Seems pretty conceivable to me.
talking about *feature sets*....
the Geforce and whatever else u mention DID have loads of features supported in hardware. TRUE.
now, give me one example where those features were actually used in a game.
The DC is an example of PC-born graphics accelerator tech built into an optimized console environment, and I could provide you with lots of examples where many parts of its robust 1998 *feature set* were used in games. See Test Drive Le Mans for anisotropic filtering, and lots of the system's games for usage of modifier volumes, multitexturing, and whatnot.
Phil:
As good as Shenmue may look, don't you at least realise how it runs on it? Sub 30fps, chocks here and there, pop ups etc. At least MGS2 maintains double and constant framerate throughout the game.
If smooth 60fps framerate concerns you so much (which is amusing considering your stance on the Getaway vs. Crazy Taxi 2 comparison), take Sonic Adventure 2 on the DC instead. It shows robust graphics with insane textures, self-shadowing, and some enchanting water effects running at a super smooth sixty frames per second without the choking and pop-up (and hey, no image tearing either!), and it even delivers full high res at each update with proscan.
Bump mapping and in average better image-quality is hardly a subsitute for the lack of geometry and fillrate that the PS2 can push.
If you can't support that quantitatively, you're really just saying that you prefer the style of one look to another.
Come on now, do you seriously believe that AM2 just ported their saturn engine? How long was the game in development? over 3 years? You can't tell me that AM2 had no idea about DC hardware and that they didn't optimize it.
Shenmue II dates back to 1996, and the engine looked in pretty near final form on DC by 1998. Lots of footage was used as tech demos for the DC when it was unveiled. See the following screens, taken from the other thread:
Saturn Shenmue and Shenmue II:
Dreamcast Shenmue II:
Still, I have no doubt that the fillrate intense effects on MGS2 uses way more of the available fillrate than the DC could ever hope to reach. Basically, any software on DC can be used as an indication that this assumption is correct.
That's quite the specious assumption. For one, you can't quantify the fillrate intense effects in MGS2 nor the ones in DC games. You also can't claim to have seen every piece of DC game coding. I can tell you that games like Jet Set Radio and Dead or Alive 2 (Tengu stage) on DC appear to use some impressive multi-pass post-processing effects.
overclocked:
I mean not even my Xbox handle´s the game as my PS2 does.
It's not often that any hardware will outhandle something in the exact way another foreign architecture did... heck, even the powerful 2D boards of yesteryear, like Capcom's SF3 arcade boards, handle sprites and memory in specific ways that wouldn't work as well on today's consoles. If the programming approach isn't revised for the new architecture, comparative performance can suffer. However, that speaks little to overall performance.
The Xbox handles the game better, personally. Resolution is increased from 640x448 to 640x480, you get more than double the res per update in progressive scan, the screen tearing is improved, and there's 5.1 channel decoding in real-time gameplay.
marconelly!:
Yeah, that is true. But it's also true PS2 can do it in four passes, and considering it's much higher fillrate it would end up doing more BM'ed polygons, theoretically. Yet, noone is using it in game on either of them, so we can specualte all day long
london-boy:
EXACTLY MY THOUGHTS.... PS2 has such a performance headstart that the end result would be better performance than dreamcast anyway, even though the latter supports it in hardware..... clever boy
Well, screens that have been posted in these types of discussions in the past have shown Dreamcast bumpmapping tech demos (I believe they were on incomplete, less powerful DC hardware before launch, provided as examples for developers to see) that are more complex than any demo footage we've seen of PS2 bumpmapping.
zidane1strife:
100x geometry jump, accompanied by a 10+x jumps in physics, by 2x+ in framerate and resolution, and tons of additional effects, and image quality enhancements, all at the same time...
That'd be like a gpu being capable of throwing out all it's predecessor could 100fold accompanied by better IQ, effects.
Perhaps. This kind of thing is hard to quantify since it's circumstancial. For example, if your goals on PSX were memory related/limited like storage of information or textures, or audio related like sound generation and capacity, it's possible to conclude a sub-100x performance increase on PS2.