Why does Sony create such wacky architectures?

[Lazy8s]

Almasy:

When I load FFX, I can see Tidus´s and Yuna´s models and the world of Spira rendered in outstanding detail. When I load SoA, I can see character models worthy of the N64. That is reality.

When I load F355, I see very detailed car models riding through some gorgeous tracks at 60 full frames per second. When I load Gran Turismo 3, I'm just left wondering what happened to half my resolution in output. Some blurry depth of field effects in replays is what I get for trading in picture stability and clarity? That is what my eyes see.

 

[Vince]

When I load Gran Turismo 3, I'm just left wondering what happened to half my resolution in output. Some blurry depth of field effects in replays is what I get for trading in picture stability and clarity? That is what my eyes see.

See Lazy, this is the diffrence:

Both images of GT3 are actually the same upon entry of the visual pathway. Both make their way as impulses down the optic nerves, threw the optic chiasm and then are divided into a number of discrete pathways [eg. Lateral Geniculate, Colliculus, et al.] where your brain then interprets the images according to specific features that each detects [eg. pattern anaylsis]. See, at this point, both you and the rest of us see the same image.

Unfortunatly for us, The image then leaves the "subconscious" and is interpreted by the more modern neurological centers such as the Frontal Lobes which are responcible for Higher brain functions.

This is where the images differ. You have this conscious tendency to process these images diffrently. You apply these pre-dispositions to them that alter your perception at a high-level and cause you to filter out things thats most people notice and see things that other wouldn't. Basically, your consciously biased - unless you're really F*ed up and it's turned into this 'self-reflexive,' I'm not biased, it's the truth - I see this!! type of state where you actually consciously cause yourself to believe that you're not bias.

Interesting stuff.

 

[Almasy]

Almasy:
When I load F355, I see very detailed car models riding through some gorgeous tracks at 60 full frames per second. When I load Gran Turismo 3, I'm just left wondering what happened to half my resolution in output. Some blurry depth of field effects in replays is what I get for trading in picture stability and clarity? That is what my eyes see.

How can you dismiss obvious visual improvements? Even worse, how have you managed to convince yourself that doubling the resolution makes up for many special effects, higher polygon counts, lightning and whatnot?

With GT3 you get:
a) More complex car models, at least quite a bit better than F355´s
b) Much better lightning
c) Environmental Reflections
d) 60 fps
e) Weather effects such as heat haze
f) Depth of field.
g) Good textures
h) And in this particular case, more than 150 different cars, as opposed to F355´s only car.

[edit] After reading what Vince posted, I can see why Lazy just outright refuses to see the truth. It is very interesting how the human conciousness can alter perception.

 

[Lazy8s]

Vince:

Basically, your consciously biased

Just as the people that prefer DVD output to VHS output are? The people who prefer DVD progressive to DVD interlaced are?

I'm sure someone going in to see Star Wars Episode I in the theatre on a nice screen and then seeing Star Wars Episode II on a slightly less impressive projection screen could easily have the more fulfilling visual experience from Star Wars Episode I, depsite the fact that special FX in the sequel were beyond that of its predecessor. The projection of the picture isn't by any means insignificant, especially when we're talking about differences as small as two consoles of the same generation.

I don't get what you, Vince, and Marconelly are trying to say. That there's some huge difference between DC and PS2 graphic complexity!? It should then follow that a DC game like Dead or Alive 2, with its beautiful and multi-tiered environments, wouldn't fit in among PS2 games. The gaming press sure didn't agree with that, though, as many of them felt DOA2 looked superior to PS2's Tekken Tag Tournament, a game reprogrammed for the PS2 in mind. In fact, a lot of them said even DC Soul Calibur still compared favorably in visuals to TTT.

I think you two might exaggerating the difference between PS2 and DC-level graphics, and then dismissing that something as impactful as double-the-res output could more than close that gap.

 

[Bowie]

Lazy8s, how are you going to stand playing Xbox 2 when its standard resolution is going to be 1080i? What if you were living in Europe? The Xbox there doesn't even support progressive scan. In Europe, the PS2 has more progressive scan games than the Xbox and Gamecube. Would you be a PS2 whore then?

 

[Sonic]

Answer to that question Bowie, if SEGA put 100% behind PS2 then yes. But on a lighter note, Gran Turismo 3 is a much better looking game than F355. How can it not be? The textures are great for a PS2 game, it has numerous effects that can't be found in the likes of F355.

And gee, games got cancelled, even in a state of near completion. What you do not realize is that I'm commenting straight from the source. I think SEGA's own dev teams would know about bump mapping and such effects in a game better than any 3rd party would, considering SEGA's dev teams had the most time and experience with the system. Sure you could add bump mapping and multi-texturing and sacrifice other things, such as geometry and a little thing I like to call framerate. Not to mention that it would be a very limited use of it if any at all.

 

[Phil]

It was somewhere stated that GT3 writes full frames to the framebuffer, not just half. Bearing that in mind, it doesn't really matter that only half of that is being displayed as an interlaced signal, as the full information is there, just not being used. Same goes for many other games I believe. Reason to why progressive output is just coming now is the lack of libraries.

 

[overclocked]

To the Topic=

It´s fun and interessting that some company(Sony in this case) goes for a VERY different architecture..

 

[V3]

Hmm you know in hindsight, that sounds like a really good strategy...almost perfect actually.

Not really, that strategy was only good if Sega could revive their Arcade glory days and salvage the Saturn some way. If they fail that part, Sega should have went third party (preferably second party first) at that point.

Anyway I think the reason why SEGA released the DC because SONY was already in a comfortable position as they already had the PSX.

Yes, that could be the reason, but that wasn't a very good decision. They could have stayed with the Saturn and revived their Arcade sector.

I guess SEGA wanted to be first off the block with the "next generation". That's probably why SONY released PS2 so soon after DC as they didn't need to if SEGA hadn't released DC in the first place.

And you think that was a smart decision ? To be the one that forced Sony to show their hand ? Gutsy move but stupid.

 

[Almasy]

Vince:

Basically, your consciously biased

Just as the people that prefer DVD output to VHS output are? The people who prefer DVD progressive to DVD interlaced are?

I'm sure someone going in to see Star Wars Episode I in the theatre on a nice screen and then seeing Star Wars Episode II on a slightly less impressive projection screen could easily have the more fulfilling visual experience from Star Wars Episode I, depsite the fact that special FX in the sequel were beyond that of its predecessor. The projection of the picture isn't by any means insignificant, especially when we're talking about differences as small as two consoles of the same generation.

I see you are still trying to convince yourself. With this kind of thinking, it is clear that it is very easy for you to keep fooling yourself, and basically covering your ears with your hands while saying "DC LOOKS BETTER!, IT HAS TO, IT JUST HAS TO!".

Not to mention that console games are aimed at least this generation were aimed at interlaced screens, not PC monitors.

I don't get what you, Vince, and Marconelly are trying to say. That there's some huge difference between DC and PS2 graphic complexity!? It should then follow that a DC game like Dead or Alive 2, with its beautiful and multi-tiered environments, wouldn't fit in among PS2 games. The gaming press sure didn't agree with that, though, as many of them felt DOA2 looked superior to PS2's Tekken Tag Tournament, a game reprogrammed for the PS2 in mind. In fact, a lot of them said even DC Soul Calibur still compared favorably in visuals to TTT.

I would refrain from making those kinds of comparisons. DOA2 was a DC port, at launch, at a time where development support was not good, to say the least, which in turn led to very unefficient coded games.

SC compared favorably in visuals, sure, but what about comparing DC games to PS2 games developed by people with a better understanding of the hardware?

The best technically DC game to date, Shenmue II, doesn´t compare favorably to current and upcoming PS2 games.

In any case, TTT only used 3 mpps and still looked quite a bit better than SC.

I think you two might exaggerating the difference between PS2 and DC-level graphics, and then dismissing that something as impactful as double-the-res output could more than close that gap.

Low polygon counts are low polygon counts.
Mediocre lightning is mediocre lightning.
Lack of particle effects is still a lack of particle effects.
You will still not find weather effects.
Nor soft-focus effects.

Do you want me to go on? Are you comfortable saying that higher resolution will turn low polygon counts into high polygon counts? Mediocre lightning into complex?

Are you sure that we are the ones exagerating? Are you sure you´re not the one overestimating double resolution, due to your now very apparent bias? Stop covering your ears, that´s my advice.

 

[Guest]

At least Sony out-did, out-tech and out-3Ded Sega during the PSX-Saturn days.

 

[Lazy8s]

Bowie:

Lazy8s, how are you going to stand playing Xbox 2 when its standard resolution is going to be 1080i? What if you were living in Europe? The Xbox there doesn't even support progressive scan. In Europe, the PS2 has more progressive scan games than the Xbox and Gamecube. Would you be a PS2 whore then?

My criticism of PS2 games' frequent sub-480p output comes from its comparison against Dreamcast. If the bar hadn't been set higher by something else I was exposed to, the PS2's interlacing wouldn't be such a deal to me.

When I go back to play Saturn/N64/PSX games now, I take it as a given that flickery displays are a hallmark of the graphics from that era. What I wasn't pleased with in the visual sense is seeing that return with a 50% more expensive and 15 month newer machine after Dreamcast.

Heck, it drives me nuts even when I play beautiful Xbox games like PDO and Halo at my friend's on his TV as I struggle to make out the little details in the graphics that my mind subconciously expects should be there (from the visual training its recieved during the times I played those games on a HDTV/monitor.)

Ever watch a movie on DVD, and then later have to sit through the same movie in VHS? Or a movie in progressive DVD, and then have to revisit it in interlaced DVD?

Phil, I don't see where you trying to go with your argument with PC-Engine. First of all, explain to me again how PS2 graphics top VF4 arcade?

Then, as he said a million times, how hard is it to extrapolate approximate Naomi 2 costs when it's mostly comprised of DC-like chips: two PowerVR Series 2 parts, an SH-4, and some relatively inexpensive RAM. How much do you think the ELAN co-processor costs!? For reference, I think most of the chips were priced at around $30 a unit in quantities of 10,000 at release (not to mention the sweeter deals SEGA would have gotten.) At launch, Naomi 2 (with a rather insignificant cutback to some of the excessive RAM amounts) could've likely been manufactured at a price quite competitive to that which PS2 was manufactured.

And why confuse the technology point we're discussing here by talking about manufacturing philosophies? Let's just assume hypothetically, for the sake of directly comparing Naomi 2 to PS2, that Sony could've designed their own custom tech that would've ended up becoming Naomi 2 back in March 2000 instead of the PS2 we got. I think Sony would've been better off in system performance, cost, and ease of development had they designed a system more like Naomi 2 instead of the design they came up with for PS2.

And once again, don't forget... I've been referring to Naomi 2, but the hypothetical console realistically would've been even more powerful as it would have instead made use of more up-to-date parts like enhanced Kyro-level technology (Series 3+).

 

[Guest]

progressive scan is cool for ... large TVs or when you sit really really close to one.

I used to game on my 20" panny, in my room, most games look similar imagewise. Then i "upgraded" to my dad new HDTV and wowzawee!!! Xbox games made my jaws drop. I need to get back my DC to see if there are any differences.

 

[PC-Engine]

And you think that was a smart decision ? To be the one that forced Sony to show their hand ? Gutsy move but stupid.

No not at all, I just think they're too hasty, but Saturn wasn't doing too well so I guess it made some sense?

And Since someone brought up Shenmue again camparing it to what's available now and soon to be on PS2, my question is what's the point? The technological evolution of software for DC was halted a couple years ago. What would DC games look like today if production hadn't stopped? Didn't it take 5 years for developers to fully exploit PSX's capabilites? I'd like to think software evolution isn't a SONY patent too

Who knows what DC games would look like today.

 

[zidane1strife]

The Dreamcast was cheaper, came out earlier than the PS2, and yet has a library of 250+ pro-scan/VGA compatible games. It was a standard for the platform... the PS2 really has no excuse, despite how few other people take advantage of VGA/HDTV. If it was done on Dreamcast, it should have been done on PS2 because it makes a big visual difference in the end.

Poor documentation, libraries, totally different h/w from what dev. are used to... The DC was quite the opposite being easy to go around with, and probably due to good doc.s and libraries... But worry not now that proscan is available the ps2 shall eventually have quite a good amount of proscan titles, if most dev.s adopt it, it will surpass the DC proscan library by several fold, and at higher resolution to boot.

Since progressive scan (and consequently VGA) means twice the resolution over time, makes a big impact on how the visuals end up looking, and it's what I'm getting in all of my Dreamcast games.

Well, as said there are already proscan(with higher than dc rez) ps2 titles, true u list a very big list of proscan DC titles, but as far as I'm aware that platform has at most one or two dozen must haves... I personally favor inferior titles looking inferior on a platform, it suits those titles. Bad games should not feature the same effects, as top games, they just shouldn't.

back to the interlace flicker of the PS2 library to get it.

Actually if you were talking common DC IQ, I'd agree... but as many titles have shown, you can be free of most aliasing, shimmering, and other artifacts even in interlaced... I've not experienced proscan DC, but from what I hear it still suffers from artifacts such as aliasing... I prefer little to no IQ artifacts while interlaced, to have them present but being in proscan.

I remember you posting this at Gaming-Age once. If someone told you DC was limited to 480p output, someone lied. Dreamcast is capable of higher HDTV resolutions as well.

Well, at least the ps2 had a 1080i title announced, or at least that's what some mags said, maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but at least it had one announced something I don't think can be said for DC(AFAIK)... As for DC I don't know if it can handle it, but seeing as some strange things happen in even high profile titles like shenmue2 at normal rez... I wouldn't be too optimistic.

In fact, a lot of them said even DC Soul Calibur still compared favorably in visuals to TTT.

A single TTT model has nearly as much geometry as the entirety of Soul Calibur(from the polycounts i've heard), there are up to four onscreen at a time... The IQ is superior to if I'm not mistaken, and so is the lighting, background, background animation, etc...

I think you two might exaggerating the difference between PS2 and DC-level graphics, and then dismissing that something as impactful as double-the-res output could more than close that gap.

I think a several fold jump in geometry, coupled with better lighting, better animation, more particles, better effects like reflections and blurring, and better IQ and textures in some title, more than make up for any small rez difference.

REZ allows you to see DETAIL clearer, this is especially good when dealing with some of the newer pc titles that feature extremely good texturing ,and more detail... I've gone from 640 to the maximum my monitor can take, and Although there's a difference it's barely noticeable.... I believe what is currently prefered is less artifacts, aliasing, over higher rez...

I at least would prefer to run a game like Doom 3 at a lower rez if it allowed me to have all effects on , as opposed to raising the rez to the max at the cost of most effects, or slowdown..

Just as the people that prefer DVD output to VHS output are? The people who prefer DVD progressive to DVD interlaced are?

Well, u have to admit the only difference there is the rez, not the effects, geometry, its not like say looking at Toy story 2 in an interlaced mode, and placing it against toy story 1 with progressive, or viceversa. (not sure, if said titles offer such visual options.).

Some casual people are having trouble seeing what all the fuzz is about with HDTV, they seem to be able to tell it can look better... but they don't consider it to be by much... and that is dealing with real life( which has high detail and benefits greatly from the rez), not some game with far less detail.

 

[Bowie]

My criticism of PS2 games' frequent sub-480p output comes from its comparison against Dreamcast. If the bar hadn't been set higher by something else I was exposed to, the PS2's interlacing wouldn't be such a deal to me.

When I go back to play Saturn/N64/PSX games now, I take it as a given that flickery displays are a hallmark of the graphics from that era. What I wasn't pleased with in the visual sense is seeing that return with a 50% more expensive and 15 month newer machine after Dreamcast.

Heck, it drives me nuts even when I play beautiful Xbox games like PDO and Halo at my friend's on his TV as I struggle to make out the little details in the graphics that my mind subconciously expects should be there (from the visual training its recieved during the times I played those games on a HDTV/monitor.)

Ever watch a movie on DVD, and then later have to sit through the same movie in VHS? Or a movie in progressive DVD, and then have to revisit it in interlaced DVD?

I have a Dreamcast connected to a interlaced television and a VGA monitor. Frankly, I prefer to play my Dreamcast on my TV. Sure, VGA is a lot sharper than TV, but that's the problem with it. It's easy to see the flaws like edge-aliasing, texture shimmering, mipmap banding, low poly characters, etc. Running on a television, these flaws are minimized. Since Dreamcasts flicker-filter adds a little anti-aliasing, to me games just look better on a television.

Image quality is subjective. I prefer the softer and smoother flicker-filtered look while you prefer the crisper and sharper aliased look. Since people have different opinions, I don't think you should jump on the PS2 every chance you get for its lack of progressive scan. After all, next generation games will be running at 1080i.

 

[Lazy8s]

Almasy:

Not to mention that console games are aimed at least this generation were aimed at interlaced screens, not PC monitors.

And that changes what specifically?

I would refrain from making those kinds of comparisons. DOA2 was a DC port, at launch, at a time where development support was not good, to say the least, which in turn led to very unefficient coded games.

I wasn't talking about DoA2 on PS2. I was talking about DoA2 on Dreamcast versus Japanese Tekken Tag Tournament built specifically for PS2, both which came out around March of 2000.

As an aside, I just want to add that it's not like DoA2 was some super evolved DC software, either. It was actually one of the first Dreamcast (Naomi, actually) games to start development; early shots of it were shown soon after switching from Model 3 to Naomi back at a time before the DC even started being manufactured. And oh yeah, it runs in progressive and looks just marvelous in VGA (no lie)!

Are you comfortable saying that higher resolution will turn low polygon counts into high polygon counts? Mediocre lightning into complex?

It doesn't, and it doesn't have to either. It turns a flaky, flickery image into a stable, fuller, richer, and clearer image. After all, it's only twice the amount of pixel output you're getting! And yes, I prefer Dreamcast graphic tradeoffs - the boost in IQ makes a whole lot bigger difference than the isolated effects you've mentioned.

And it's the PSX geometry levels which I would call "low polygon counts", not the Dreamcast geometry levels. F355 cars look quite satisfactory to me; they even modeled the car's interior which you can see through the translucent windshields. I'm not particularly struck by the inadequacy of the geometry levels when playing DoA2, Crazy Taxi 2, or Sonic Adv. 2 after coming back from some PS2 games like Tekken 4, GTA3, or Sly Cooper. Same with the lighting in Shenmue after coming back from a Vice City stint, nor in Resident Evil: Code Veronica after coming back from a seeing the more view-distance obscured Silent Hill 2. And it's also not like DC games are totally bereft of many of the special effects you've been mentioning... they're just lower key compared to PS2 usage.

The contrast between sophistication in certain elements of PS2 graphics versus Dreamcast graphics is there, like you mentioned, but certainly not enough to account for the fact that I'm suddenly missing half of my resolution output in almost all of the games.

chap:

At least Sony out-did, out-tech and out-3Ded Sega during the PSX-Saturn days.

So what you're saying is that you've never seen Decathlete?

Actually, though, I think the PSX was a very competent design for its price.

 

[marconelly!]

That there's some huge difference between DC and PS2 graphic complexity!? It should then follow that a DC game like Dead or Alive 2, with its beautiful and multi-tiered environments, wouldn't fit in among PS2 games.

Well, frankly, after seeing a game like ZoE2, the difference is pretty damn big. There's just nothing comparable on DC that I can think of, nor do I see how it could be done. Btw, Dead or Alive 2 on DC does look pretty dated by today's standards.

 

[Bowie]

the fact that I'm suddenly missing half of my resolution output in almost all of the games.

Actually, this isn't really true. If the game is running at 30 fps, then it is outputed at full resolution. At 60 fps, if flicker-filtered, then it is similar to 640x240 with 2xAA.

 

[Lazy8s]

zidane1strife:

REZ allows you to see DETAIL clearer

Well technically, proscan doesn't improve the apparent resolution of a game... it's actually animation integrity (a property related to framerate) that gets improved. A frame of MGS2 technically has the detail of a 640x448 res, despite only updating half-way with each update and then alternating. Picture detail isn't sacrificed when interlacing, but motion quality is (hence the less stable, more flickery appearance).

Well, u have to admit the only difference there is the rez, not the effects, geometry, its not like say looking at Toy story 2 in an interlaced mode, and placing it against toy story 1 with progressive, or viceversa. (not sure, if said titles offer such visual options.).

Which is why I fully explained that point with my Star Wars example:

"I'm sure someone going in to see Star Wars Episode I in the theatre on a nice screen and then seeing Star Wars Episode II on a slightly less impressive projection screen could easily have the more fulfilling visual experience from Star Wars Episode I, depsite the fact that special FX in the sequel were beyond that of its predecessor. The projection of the picture isn't by any means insignificant, especially when we're talking about differences as small as two consoles of the same generation."

and that is dealing with real life( which has high detail and benefits greatly from the rez), not some game with far less detail.

Games can actually benefit more from the advantages of proscan than movies... some games can output 60 unique, full images a second, and proscan enables you to see all of it. Movies don't have such a high framerate to take as good advantage of the proscan benefits.

Bowie:

Since people have different opinions, I don't think you should jump on the PS2 every chance you get for its lack of progressive scan.

I don't!

I haven't attacked anyone else's comments on their opinions. I don't go around in every other topic here bringing it up. I simply stated my viewpoint on the issue in this topic as I felt it relevant to the point I was expressing, and I've since then just supported my stance as others have argued/discussed it with me.

It's the few others that are getting defensive here (basically, just Vince and Almasy) that seem to not be accepting that these matters are subjective.