Why RE4's lighting may be the GCN's Best
- Thread starter Li Mu Bai
- Start date
- Status
There's no myth. The console with the most competitive development environment gets dug into most deeply.
More often, publishers focus their ambitious projects for that console, backing it with larger budgets, more staff, and more resources overall. Games are often conceptualized and tuned more aptly for the machine. Developers' "A Team" staff are put on the job. A larger general sampling of developers, which in turn, means a larger number of talented developers, continue to raise the technical bar at a faster pace for what can be done with the machine, benefitting the competitiveness of the whole community.
And just because a console like the PS2 has a higher learning curve for getting acceptable performance doesn't mean the other consoles lack its depth to explore for optimizing performance.
More often, publishers focus their ambitious projects for that console, backing it with larger budgets, more staff, and more resources overall. Games are often conceptualized and tuned more aptly for the machine. Developers' "A Team" staff are put on the job. A larger general sampling of developers, which in turn, means a larger number of talented developers, continue to raise the technical bar at a faster pace for what can be done with the machine, benefitting the competitiveness of the whole community.
And just because a console like the PS2 has a higher learning curve for getting acceptable performance doesn't mean the other consoles lack its depth to explore for optimizing performance.
and what are these abilities exactly. I am asking because out of the 3 machines the GC has been widely regarded as the omst opitmal in resource usage.
what exactly do you expect (ignoring art asset for a moment here) the GChas up it's sleeve.
I personnelly think it's would be it's multitexturing features still have room for further exploitation but what else?
thoughts anyone?
notAFanB said:
Well multitexturing is a HUGE asset not taken advantage of, 8 textures in a single pass? (while 4 is the norm) More DOT3 implementation, pixel shading, fully exploit the 16 stages of the TEV pipeline basically. ERB already stated some combinations the TEV could perform that the NV2A couldn't, & vice versa. Lighting (per-pixel) as well, I mean that's plenty when applied in a gaming environment. RS3 has the best lighting effects for the Cube currently, Endor & Bespin were
Li Mu Bai said:Well multitexturing is a HUGE asset not taken advantage of, 8 textures in a single pass? (while 4 is the norm) More DOT3 implementation, pixel shading, fully exploit the 16 stages of the TEV pipeline basically. ERB already stated some combinations the TEV could perform that the NV2A couldn't, & vice versa. Lighting (per-pixel) as well, I mean that's plenty when applied in a gaming environment. RS3 has the best lighting effects for the Cube currently, Endor & Bespin were
maybe because, just like Xbox, all those effects DO have an effect on performance after all...?
and by the way, people talk about this as if EVERY PS2 or Xbox games take advantage of ALL their strengths, while i could count on ONE hand the truly stunning games on PS2 (the ones that really push it). same for the Xbox and the GC.
i just don't see how things really differ from platforms to platform, and i don't see the point of making GC the "victim" of Nintendo's own faults (namely, so-called Nintendosity which among other things includes poor marketing, appalling 3rd party networking etc).
there are very few games on EACH platform that take full advantage with "what's there". i don't see the point of this GC-centered victimism, when there are a few games that would make any GC owner proud (i'm waiting until i have enough funds to buy one infact, together with some of the best games this generation, for anyone who might think i'm biased)...
london-boy said:Li Mu Bai said:Well multitexturing is a HUGE asset not taken advantage of, 8 textures in a single pass? (while 4 is the norm) More DOT3 implementation, pixel shading, fully exploit the 16 stages of the TEV pipeline basically. ERB already stated some combinations the TEV could perform that the NV2A couldn't, & vice versa. Lighting (per-pixel) as well, I mean that's plenty when applied in a gaming environment. RS3 has the best lighting effects for the Cube currently, Endor & Bespin were
maybe because, just like Xbox, all those effects DO have an effect on performance after all...?
and by the way, people talk about this as if EVERY PS2 or Xbox games take advantage of ALL their strengths, while i could count on ONE hand the truly stunning games on PS2 (the ones that really push it). same for the Xbox and the GC.
i just don't see how things really differ from platforms to platform, and i don't see the point of making GC the "victim" of Nintendo's own faults (namely, so-called Nintendosity which among other things includes poor marketing, appalling 3rd party networking etc).
there are very few games on EACH platform that take full advantage with "what's there". i don't see the point of this GC-centered victimism, when there are a few games that would make any GC owner proud (i'm waiting until i have enough funds to buy one infact, together with some of the best games this generation, for anyone who might think i'm biased)...
Of course every effect exacts a cost, but you miss the point lb. Don't apply bumpmapping? Fine, heavily utilize the pixel shader. Don't use either? Fine, at least apply 8 textures per pass. It has to do primarily with developer proficiency, performance hits aside, all of the features can be implemented simultaneously & in wide scale, ala RS3. Though you're right, very few games do take full advantage of what's available. But many of the GC's offerings have the capacity/features to look much, much better.
When developers are saying "we made it on Xbox instead of GCN because GCN is weak" and the consoles are actually close in capabilities.. then yes: this can be debated. The GCN is the middle console, and like the middle child.. it gets ignored.
Not all the time, obviously.. companies like Capcom and Factor 5 have worked very hard to exploit the GCN hardware.
Meanwhile, dozens of other developers are off releasing polished PS2 title after PS2 title. 'Course, that's a marketshare thing.
Not all the time, obviously.. companies like Capcom and Factor 5 have worked very hard to exploit the GCN hardware.
Meanwhile, dozens of other developers are off releasing polished PS2 title after PS2 title. 'Course, that's a marketshare thing.
It doesn't 'quite' work that way since what you listed are mutually inclusive.
things.
BM is a subset of pixel shading in this case(DOT3 is just one of the available PS instructions). And PS is further a subset (or equivalent, depending on how you define it) of TEV/multitexturing unit (every PS instruction takes at least one texture stage, and textures are the data arrays they operate on).
Although, I do also think that GC hasn't received as much focus or tech showcase in software development as other two consoles, which is a shame since it's quite a nice piece of kit.
Fafalada said:
True Fafalada, but you see the simplistic point I was trying to illustrate. While all said functions may belong for example to the TEV pipeline, (excluding vertex, or procedural animation that have to be offloaded to the Gekko) or subset, some come at a higher performance hit obviously than others. As you know Faf, as a developer starts to use more complex shaders, up to 8 hardware lights come at basically no performance penalty, (Cpu or Gpu wise) because the graphics processor computes light values in parallel to other functions. This alone eases ambient & directional light implementation for devs.
Per object self-shadowing & tinting are basically automatics, (easily realized technically) so why aren't more devs. utilizing these techniques? Bumpmapping is supported by the indirect texture unit, which devs. have used to create heat shimmer & shockwaves by grabbing the frame buffer, why not widescale bump maps? All visual techniques invariably are associated with the TEV in some form, so why only use fractions of its capabilities is really what I was trying to express.
[maven said:]Li Mu Bai said:
If that were free, I'd like to know about it, too...
That's what i mean. The attitude of some people who think that 8 layers of textures is FREE on GC. Or things like that.
No effect is FREE, otherwise it would be used all the time, just like Bilinear Filtering (which IS free now).
All i was saying before the wave of defensiveness, is that just like there are FEW games on Xbox and Ps2 that REALLY push the hardware, there are FEW games on GC that push "what's there".
At the end of the day people seem to forget that MOST multi-platform games (the ones worth looking at, like SC2, SSX3, LOTR) look better on GC and Xbox than Ps2. That must mean something.
(oh BTW, SSX3 is now my most wanted game, will buy it as soon as i see it in the shops, screw Jak2
my wallet can only afford one big game now)Maven, london-Boy
Li Mu Bai didn't say any effects were free. He actually said "object self-shadowing & tinting are basically automatics, (easily realized technically)". Meaning those effects are easily implemented, not free.
On the subject at hand, I agree with Li Mu Bai and Faf. GC doesn't get as much effort spent on its games in general. You mentioned multi-platform games london-boy and how most of the time they're better looking on GC and XBox. But how many times are they only slightly better looking (or not even better looking at all) on GC when they should be quite a bit better looking given the same effort? XBox ports always seem to be, at least, quite a bit better looking then the PS2 version (always) but with GC its hit and miss.
I mean I'm not trying to bad mouth the PS2 at all. With enough effort developers can get some fantastic looking games out of it, and because of this effort its really holding its own in overall. But I think most people agree that GC is generally closer, in graphical power, to XBox then it is to PS2. So why does it often look like GC is closer to PS2 then XBox in a lot of multi-platform games?
I do see what your saying though. XBox, GC and PS2 all have there core of 1st/2nd party devs (and a few third parties) that really go all out to make their games as great looking as possible. But I just think XBox and PS2 have more devs that put in at least a really good amount of effort then GC has. I mean I don't think the difference in developer effort is huge or anything like that (especially not from GC to XBox) but the difference is there IMO.
Li Mu Bai didn't say any effects were free. He actually said "object self-shadowing & tinting are basically automatics, (easily realized technically)". Meaning those effects are easily implemented, not free.
On the subject at hand, I agree with Li Mu Bai and Faf. GC doesn't get as much effort spent on its games in general. You mentioned multi-platform games london-boy and how most of the time they're better looking on GC and XBox. But how many times are they only slightly better looking (or not even better looking at all) on GC when they should be quite a bit better looking given the same effort? XBox ports always seem to be, at least, quite a bit better looking then the PS2 version (always) but with GC its hit and miss.
I mean I'm not trying to bad mouth the PS2 at all. With enough effort developers can get some fantastic looking games out of it, and because of this effort its really holding its own in overall. But I think most people agree that GC is generally closer, in graphical power, to XBox then it is to PS2. So why does it often look like GC is closer to PS2 then XBox in a lot of multi-platform games?
I do see what your saying though. XBox, GC and PS2 all have there core of 1st/2nd party devs (and a few third parties) that really go all out to make their games as great looking as possible. But I just think XBox and PS2 have more devs that put in at least a really good amount of effort then GC has. I mean I don't think the difference in developer effort is huge or anything like that (especially not from GC to XBox) but the difference is there IMO.
Teasy said:
speaking of Splinter Cell, it's not like the Devs went all out to make the most out of the PS2 architecture as well. they had limited resources and made the best out of the Xbox version (which could have been better anyway), and they left out Ps2 and GC... see...
there might be more games on PS2 that can be considered "pushy", but remember that PS2 has MORE GAMES period. less for xbox and even less for GC.
i mean, multi-platform games like SSX3 could look better on GC and Xbox (although they already do look and run better than PS2 versions), however one might argue that the PS2 version could run better too.
at the end of the day the only devs who really push the hardware are always the first party, and let's just say "to each his own".
Teasy said:
Maybe if the majority of PS2 developers would put as much effort into their work such as Konami & Co. or Sony devs, most people wouldn't be refering to PS2 as simply the 'weakest' console and pulling it into comparasments such as you just did by saying that multiplatform games on GC look closer to PS2 than Xbox. It works both ways and with that, I clearly agree with london-boy above.
Another thing to watch out is that mulitplatform games are rarely a good indication as they don't really tap into either console's performance. One might be targeted specifically, but commonly, developers would want their game to be ported over to the other platforms with eaze. Often, this goal is more important with console efficiency being the sacrifice. Given that PS2 is the number 1 selling console by a large margin, it's ultimately also the victim of rushed games with little to no effort put into gaining acceptable performance. Why? Because at a userbase with just over 60 million and a large majority that barely differenciates between the consoles, it's easy to cash in. That's the average, the majority. Hence the reason for the illusion many are living when refering to PS2 as simply the 'weakest'. Sure, there are exceptions, mainly the big developers with big money backings, but not that many that would warrant a belief that one console is enjoying more dedicated effort than the other. It works both ways.
In a perfect world, PS2 games would on average look like MGS2/3, GT4, Jak II with superb animation, perfect framerates, IQ. In a perfect world, GameCube games would look better, even Xbox games. In a perfect world, no one would be putting down either console in arguments which is more powerful - because they would all have their distinctive and unique look that would differenciate them from the other games on other consoles. I certainly see it that way when looking at the best each console has to offer. Is it that hard to grasp?
The focus of GC has been and will be more about game play than anything else. I can understand that this should be the forum to talk more about technical aspects of the consoles but the consoles have different targets, and hence the different treatment, to say that developers haven't paid enough effort to work on the console is just pointless IMHO.
MS on X-BOX has always been about technical althought I don't think most of its games do show it, PS2 was always about entertainment and it is doing its task pretty well. GC is always more about fun and it is doing what it is supposed to be doing.
8 layer texturing is not single cycle 8 layer texturing, it is tagged with a cost and I think it is a pretty big one. To say that the developers don't use it are not paying their effort to use is just pointless IMHO, they have their limitations and you know it, they know their contraint. Not many developers have the luxury of spending a lot of time on a single project with a single console like some big or gifted ones.
The gaming public won't pay to wait for you to develop a game that utilize a single console fully.
I'd say enjoy the games, especially those from the gifted developers, and stop complaining.
MS on X-BOX has always been about technical althought I don't think most of its games do show it, PS2 was always about entertainment and it is doing its task pretty well. GC is always more about fun and it is doing what it is supposed to be doing.
8 layer texturing is not single cycle 8 layer texturing, it is tagged with a cost and I think it is a pretty big one. To say that the developers don't use it are not paying their effort to use is just pointless IMHO, they have their limitations and you know it, they know their contraint. Not many developers have the luxury of spending a lot of time on a single project with a single console like some big or gifted ones.
The gaming public won't pay to wait for you to develop a game that utilize a single console fully.
I'd say enjoy the games, especially those from the gifted developers, and stop complaining.
london-boy
No Ubi-Soft certainly didn't go all out with the PS2 version of Splinter Cell. But their's not much doubt in my mind that they put more effort into the PS2 version then the GC version (look at the extra's the PS2 version got vs the GC version). Not that it wasn't understandable for them to do so considering PS2's userbase advantage.
And yeah you make a good point that PS2 just has a lot more games then GC not just more games with effort put into them. But still, PS2 does have more of those games either way.
Phil
Well its my opinion that PS2, overall, is the weakest of the three. That's not to say that its weaker in all departments, its not. But I think it is weaker overall and I think just about everyone would agree with that. I don't think that would change if more devs tried as hard as Konami and Sony either. Infact I think PS2 is as close, graphically, to GC and XBox today because of so much effort from devs. The console is almost 2 years older then the other two, its not really suprising that its the weakest of the three.
No Ubi-Soft certainly didn't go all out with the PS2 version of Splinter Cell. But their's not much doubt in my mind that they put more effort into the PS2 version then the GC version (look at the extra's the PS2 version got vs the GC version). Not that it wasn't understandable for them to do so considering PS2's userbase advantage.
And yeah you make a good point that PS2 just has a lot more games then GC not just more games with effort put into them. But still, PS2 does have more of those games either way.
Phil
Well its my opinion that PS2, overall, is the weakest of the three. That's not to say that its weaker in all departments, its not. But I think it is weaker overall and I think just about everyone would agree with that. I don't think that would change if more devs tried as hard as Konami and Sony either. Infact I think PS2 is as close, graphically, to GC and XBox today because of so much effort from devs. The console is almost 2 years older then the other two, its not really suprising that its the weakest of the three.
Teasy said:
Two years older in launching, yes, I'd argue that it's two years older in technology though. Given that it did launch two years in advance, it's quite suprising to see that it's way beyond it's time in many features though also behind in others. Given it's a radically different approach to that found in either the GameCube or Xbox, I wouldn't dare to use it as an argument. I respect your opinion to think that it's the weakest of the three overal, though I can't help to think that your opinion is somewhat formed by the misleading fact that on average most developers face the PS2 as an easy way to cash in. You think PS2 is close because of the effort - though I think that reasoning is quite insane as it gives the impression the other two consoles are lacking that 'effort'. I dare to point out that the Cube has F5 while Xbox has Team Ninja that both are infact pushing the hardware. I take it that you are ultimately claiming that Konami has put more effort in than F5 or Team Ninja? I doubt it, very much so.
On average, yeah, I might even agree that many PS2 games enjoy more effort, mainly due to Sony's internal R&D teams and 1st party studios specialised in PS2 dev research (i.e. SCEE Cambridge). I wouldn't go as far to say that GameCube or Xbox don't have a developer putting in an equivilant amount of effort as PS2's best. That's just ignorant. Or would you put down a Konami game looking close to, lets say, F5's Rebel Strike because of more effort? If anything, I'd put it down to different architectures with different strengths which perhaps is more of a factor than many would want to admit...
Teasy said:
yes, and looking at this from another point of view, one can surely say that Konami (a 3rd party) has put a lot more effort in exploiting Ps2's strengths than the other 2. And to good effect i must say.
i'm sure that if they put as much effort into any of the other 2, the results would have been drool-material, seen the room for improvement provided by the other 2.
i mean, after seen those miracles they did with the PS2 hardware, one can only imagine what they could do with Xbox and GC.
still. it's only Konami, ONE out of the MANY dev houses out there.
EA has been pretty linear, providing GOOD multi-platform games that look best on Xbox, good on GC and a bit less on PS2. Still, of course, without exploiting the hardware the way first party devs do or the way Konami did with PS2.
On GC we have Factor5
On Xbox we have.. other people (dont really follow Xbox stuff)
- Status
