Why RE4's lighting may be the GCN's Best

[ShinHoshi]

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

I wouldn't like to be in the skin of the SH3 programmers. Seeing how the standard PS2 games look and how incredible SH3 looks is a proof that a lot of work was put on the game to use 100% of the hardware.

XBOX and GC are more easy to push to the limits than PS2, IMO. Because of the internal architecture and design and the easier planning you have to take when developing sth.

 

[jvd]

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.

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)

Not for nothing but konami has made alot more games for the ps2 than factor 5 has made for the gamecube.

After each game they make they don't just take the work and throw it away. They build opon it . So mabye factor 5 has put more work into the 2 gc games they have made over any 2 konami games. But overall konami has put in alot more effort than factor 5 has.


If ps2 was in second place we wouldn't be seeing games like silent hill 3. No one would have bothered to push the system that far. It would have been like the dreamcast. Games would have kept looking better and better than then they would have seemed to hit a wall because there was more profits to be made on the number 1 console.

Not only does the amount of units matter but also how hard it is to develop and how many other games are out on that system factor in.
On the gamecube you can sell alot of games being on par graphicly with the other publishers on that system. Becasue there aren't as many games to go up against. On the ps2 there are tons of games that are just me too games. So you need to put the extra time to make something that stands out to sell well.

Thats just my opinion. I feel both the xbox and the gamecube have alot of room to grow visualy . I believe the ps2 has the least at this point in the game. ALthough I feel its visuals have grown and improved the most out of those 3 systems .

 

[London Geezer]

Not for nothing but konami has made alot more games for the ps2 than factor 5 has made for the gamecube.

After each game they make they don't just take the work and throw it away. They build opon it . So mabye factor 5 has put more work into the 2 gc games they have made over any 2 konami games. But overall konami has put in alot more effort than factor 5 has.


If ps2 was in second place we wouldn't be seeing games like silent hill 3. No one would have bothered to push the system that far. It would have been like the dreamcast. Games would have kept looking better and better than then they would have seemed to hit a wall because there was more profits to be made on the number 1 console.

Not only does the amount of units matter but also how hard it is to develop and how many other games are out on that system factor in.
On the gamecube you can sell alot of games being on par graphicly with the other publishers on that system. Becasue there aren't as many games to go up against. On the ps2 there are tons of games that are just me too games. So you need to put the extra time to make something that stands out to sell well.

Thats just my opinion. I feel both the xbox and the gamecube have alot of room to grow visualy . I believe the ps2 has the least at this point in the game. ALthough I feel its visuals have grown and improved the most out of those 3 systems .

i also fully agree that, should PS2 have not been the market leader, no way it would have enjoyed the plethora of games it now has. Nor the attention it receives.

and i also agree that Ps2 has the biggest improvements out of all the systems, but maybe we should remember the state PS2 launch games were in... I mean, MS is still selling the Xbox bundled with Halo, a launch game....

Ps2 has always been in a position of advantage over the competition, and will always be. still, there arent that many game sthat are truly GORGEOUS... more than the other systems but that stems from the fact that the total library of games is much larger on Ps2.

 

[jvd]

i also fully agree that, should PS2 have not been the market leader, no way it would have enjoyed the plethora of games it now has. Nor the attention it receives.

and i also agree that Ps2 has the biggest improvements out of all the systems, but maybe we should remember the state PS2 launch games were in... I mean, MS is still selling the Xbox bundled with Halo, a launch game....

Ps2 has always been in a position of advantage over the competition, and will always be. still, there arent that many game sthat are truly GORGEOUS... more than the other systems but that stems from the fact that the total library of games is much larger on Ps2.

Yes. Do you also believe as I do that the xbox and the gamecube's graphics aren't living up to what the hardware can really do ?

 

[maskrider]

i also fully agree that, should PS2 have not been the market leader, no way it would have enjoyed the plethora of games it now has. Nor the attention it receives.

and i also agree that Ps2 has the biggest improvements out of all the systems, but maybe we should remember the state PS2 launch games were in... I mean, MS is still selling the Xbox bundled with Halo, a launch game....

Ps2 has always been in a position of advantage over the competition, and will always be. still, there arent that many game sthat are truly GORGEOUS... more than the other systems but that stems from the fact that the total library of games is much larger on Ps2.

Yes. Do you also believe as I do that the xbox and the gamecube's graphics aren't living up to what the hardware can really do ?

Until someone take the plunge and do it, no one will be able to prove it.

And until then, any untapped power is just an opinion/dream, doesn't matter on which platform. I am sorry but I have read too much on people's dreams/believes.

 

[[maven]]

Anyone know where I can get a Cube SDK / Homebrew-Kit that includes Flipper-support and I'll show you...

 

[Qroach]

you can download it off of E-mule

 

[Li Mu Bai]

]

Per object self-shadowing & tinting are basically automatics, (easily realized technically) so why aren't more devs. utilizing these techniques?

If that were free, I'd like to know about it, too...

Well here's a little more clarity on that for you maven:

"However, as mentioned above, a couple of features where added in automagically already, like self-shadowing and tinting for example."

"Per-object self-shadowing can be realized quite nicely on the Nintendo Gamecube. The benefit of doing self-shadowing on a per object basis is that one does not need to be concerned so much with precision."

"One should note that during the shader build many features are activated dynamically. For instance, if an object should get tinted a color multiplication is added to the final output color whatever shader was setup before."

"The results of global lighting can be computed in three different ways: per vertex, per pixel using emboss mapping, and per pixel using bump mapping. All three of these methods come in two variants one with self-shadowing and one without."--Florian Sauer & Sigmund Vik http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20021002/sauer_pfv.htm

Using 8 textures in a single pass does not come at any cost, the Flipper's architecture was meant to process these amounts hence the GC's fillrate 648 mpix/sec. (including fogging, z-buffering, & alpha blending) as in comparison to the PS2's fillrate which only processes one texture per pass at - 1.2 G/Sec (2.4 with only particle & framebuffer effects) 2 textures at 600m/sec & the numbers depreciate relative to the no.# of textures applied. Determining which shading operations are relatively cheap, and which are slightly or very expensive is where the cost comes into play, though not the system ability.

 

[notAFanB]

Using 8 textures in a single pass does not come at any cost, the Flipper's architecture was meant to process these amounts hence the GC's fillrate 648 mpix/sec. (including fogging, z-buffering, & alpha blending)

everything comes at a cost. your fillrate figue for 8 textures levels is incorrect.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Using 8 textures in a single pass does not come at any cost, the Flipper's architecture was meant to process these amounts hence the GC's fillrate 648 mpix/sec. (including fogging, z-buffering, & alpha blending)

everything comes at a cost. your fillrate figue for 8 textures levels is incorrect.

I didn't break down the hits for texture inclusion on the GC as I did for the PS2, so you're right I stand corrected. I meant including only fogging, z-buffering, & alpha blending. I felt that the fillrate didn't have to be substantially much faster due to the textures accomplishable per pass. Does anyone have a multitexturing differential for 8 on the GC vs. 8 on the PS2 by chance?

 

[notAFanB]

don't know something like 80MP for 8 textures for GC and 150MP for 8 multi passes for PS2.

please note that the above comparison is of course meaningless.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

don't know something like 80MP for 8 textures for GC and 150MP for 8 multi passes for PS2.

please note that the above comparison is of course meaningless.

I know notAFanB that that their fillrates are inclusive of differing features, (alpha blending, fogging, particle effects, etc.) & each of these have their own associated system resource costs, but for curiousity's sake why would it be irrelevant exactly? I hear PS2ers always bring up this no.# in tech. comparisons.

 

[notAFanB]

they are meaningless outside the domain of ppls who have actually written programs for these systems.

specs allow you to conjecture but not many of us here will be able to put any of our theories to the test as it were.

? I hear PS2ers always bring up this no.# in tech. comparisons.

only useful for conjecture, especially when neither system conforms to what might be called standard implementatoins required for 'benching'.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

they are meaningless outside the domain of ppls who have actually written programs for these systems.

specs allow you to conjecture but not many of us here will be able to put any of our theories to the test as it were.

? I hear PS2ers always bring up this no.# in tech. comparisons.

only useful for conjecture, especially when neither system conforms to what might be called standard implementatoins required for 'benching'.

Though without these numbers, as well as an in-depth understanding of the associated feature sets, any form of intelligent technical conversation or debate would be moot. Grasping at straws as it were. Yes there are a myriad of ways to implement or emulate effects dependent upon code manipulation & optimization that would perhaps defy a conventional standardized benchmark. Shunting of resources, cutting a feature or in clever reuse of the color registers, or streaming in order to circumvent an inadequate memory footprint to name but a few. At least this is educated conjecture, & not baseless. Even taking real world gaming scenarios that degrade the hypothetical no#s into consideration, (as Nintendo did) some amount of accuracy can be garnered through our shared discussion or speculation. And where we may stray in erroneous information ERB, Fafalada, & others may correct us.

 

[London Geezer]

I might be wrong, but i thought the main difference is that the PS2 has to resend geometry to the GS for each layer of textures, which might be ok for the first 2 or 3 layers, but which becomes a pain the more layers u use...
the other main issue is the lack of "nice" blending modes on PS2 (mainly DOT3)

that is to say that 8 layers of textures is everything BUT free, however it is still easier and less troublesome to implement that on PS2.

hell, EVERYTHING is "easier" to implement on GC...

 

[Crazyace]

The nice thing is that vertices are resent to the GS from the VU local memory, so it isn't really a huge problem..

blend modes are a bit bleak, compared to GC/Xbox - but one interesting thing about the RogueLeader article is that many of the effects would transfer to PS2 implementations without too much trouble ( Note that many of the shadow algorithms involve multiple passes of geometry followed by framebuffer snapshots - all of which take time on the GC )

 

[notAFanB]

blend modes are a bit bleak, compared to GC/Xbox

just out of interest actually what are the blend modes (or lack thereoff evidently) on the PS2? anywhere where some public documentation available on this?

 

[London Geezer]

blend modes are a bit bleak, compared to GC/Xbox

just out of interest actually what are the blend modes (or lack thereoff evidently) on the PS2? anywhere where some public documentation available on this?

If i remember correctly (and i'm sure i don't), Faf said that Alpha was pretty much it... shocking yeah, and explains the reason of the common opinion of Ps2 being 16 Voodoo1's (or 2) on steroids...

 

[jvd]

blend modes are a bit bleak, compared to GC/Xbox

just out of interest actually what are the blend modes (or lack thereoff evidently) on the PS2? anywhere where some public documentation available on this?

If i remember correctly (and i'm sure i don't), Faf said that Alpha was pretty much it... shocking yeah, and explains the reason of the common opinion of Ps2 being 16 Voodoo1's (or 2) on steroids...

I've said that many times before .

The gs is nothing more than a fillrate beast. The finest example of brute force rendering . More so than even the geforce and radeon series of video cards.

 

[London Geezer]

If i remember correctly (and i'm sure i don't), Faf said that Alpha was pretty much it... shocking yeah, and explains the reason of the common opinion of Ps2 being 16 Voodoo1's (or 2) on steroids...

I've said that many times before .

The gs is nothing more than a fillrate beast. The finest example of brute force rendering . More so than even the geforce and radeon series of video cards.

yeah, the "loads of alpha-polys" approach... which can be ok most of the time (this generation) but it would have been nice to have more advanced features... of course that would have meant "more silicon" and therefore more money thrown into the PS2 chipset... I think Sony expected, somehow KNEW that there would be "some" developers willing to spend the time and effort to make the most out of the architecture, whatever the flaws and bottlenecks were...
That is why i know that whatever flaws and "missing links" are in PS3, technically great games will be made for it..