Xbox 2 coming in Nov-Dec 2005 - Revolution could be stronger
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
- Status
Paul said:
Omega Boost
This game was the best looking PSONE game period, running at 60fps. Running off the GT2 engine, I hope they make one for PSP or PS3.
I remember a bit of omega boost, wasn't impressed. Oddly, the game that impressed me most was that Square action rpg, the name eludes me, one person had a giant wrench for a weapon and the other had these sort of circles.
function said:
The ps2 had 16 pixel pipelines, only now is that being matched by videocards, its video memory badwidth was over 40GB/s, which has yet to be matched...but what does that give you? Sub-gamecube looking graphics...I don't know wtf they did with the thing internally, on paper ps2 was going to be a monster lol.
Spidermate
Regular
function said:Megadrive1988 said:
How much less efficient than the GC is the Xbox, and how do you calculate that?
IMO, The GC can "hold it's own" against the Xbox in the same way the DC could hold it's own against the PS2. It's clearly not as powerful, but the gap isn't big enough to stop well made games from competing in the market place. That said, Id were quick enough to write the GC off as a destination for Doom 3, so not so much holding it's own going on in that particular instance.
With the 18 or so months to an Xmas 2005 launch, plus what's already gone, I don't see why MS couldn't have a good launch lineup. As good anything that's gone before anyway. How long did DC, PS2 and GC developers have? And how long do people think N5 and PS3 developers will have for launch titles, on what are likely to be less friendly platforms?
And if Nintendo did end up with a more poweful machine (which would be very suprising considering their history and current PR spinnage), surely that'd mean it ended up with worse games, right? Because developers spend too much time on graphics while totally ignoring gameplay, and this crazy push for advanced technology is alienating gamers ...
Ok,this is plan non-sense.First of all,you don't have the slightest idea what these systems are capable of doing.You are basically assuming what you think is going to happen.
How do you know the PS3 and the Revolution aren't going to be easy to program for?Are you an insider collecting the information getting passed around?I'm more certainly positive that you aren't.
From what we know,Sony is developing a rival to compete against XNA.They are also using middleware as well.The way they handled the PSP and the GScube's friendly access for developers last time,there is more than a possibility that they won't be making the same mistake twice.Sony made one mistake with the PS's archchitecture,and because it got the most news,you assume it is something that is regularly done on their part.Even without these tools,I believe the Cell would be much easier to program for than what the PS2 was.But,what I would like to know is why would Sony even go through such a process for speed tools if they wanted to follow their same tracks?
Nintendo may have not mention anything concerning faster tools,but this does not guarantee a less friendly console.Nintendo has had a damn good history for making their consoles easy to program for.It wouldn't surprise me not one bit if they introduced this once more.
Then you talk about Nintendo unable to surpass Microsoft in power because you don't feel the need to give them any credit for their history.We are talking about a company that beat out Sony with its last launch.That says enough.And before you jump back up on that high horse of yours,let me remine you that Sony (with its 18 month old machine) beat out Microsoft with some of the specs in the PS2 as well.Let us not forget that CPU of theirs that was able to perform a whopping 6.2 FLOPS to Microsoft's 3.2,or what about the filtering,the memory bandwidth of 48GBs to about 3.2 (I believe) as well.This was,by far,less than what Sony did to the Dreamcast.With enough time,Nintendo can beat Microsoft's console in power no differently.I suggest you not underestimate these other two regardless of Microsoft's slogan;they pack more resources than you think.
Qroach said:
I own more than 30 N64 games, all from RARE/EAD and this is from what I base my argument. Now, if you base your point on multiplatform games, then you are right, they were all bad on the N64 for cartridge space budget mainly. But, if you bought the N64 for 3rd party games, I pity you.
By the way, I owm Vagrant Story and MGS, both among the top most excellent 3d games on the ps1, and pushing no more than 3k pol by frame according their respective producer. Not really something out of reach of the N64.
london-boy:
> Wasn't Halo developed in around a year?
No. That's just the BS you hear from xbox fanboys as if the previous 4 years of development don't matter.
OICAspork:
> What the hell is with all of you and your Nintendo doesn't have a history
> of releasing the most powerful hardware?
There are lots of ignorant people on this board (and one person in particular). Get used to it.
wco81:
> Not talking about the environments necessarily but the character
> modeling itself.
I think you need to take another look at Mario 64.
> ... Mario Sunrise (not sure of the name) didn't seem to have the same
> visual impact as Mario 64 did.
Not much compares to seeing SM64 for the first time.
> Wasn't Halo developed in around a year?
No. That's just the BS you hear from xbox fanboys as if the previous 4 years of development don't matter.
OICAspork:
> What the hell is with all of you and your Nintendo doesn't have a history
> of releasing the most powerful hardware?
There are lots of ignorant people on this board (and one person in particular). Get used to it.
wco81:
> Not talking about the environments necessarily but the character
> modeling itself.
I think you need to take another look at Mario 64.
> ... Mario Sunrise (not sure of the name) didn't seem to have the same
> visual impact as Mario 64 did.
Not much compares to seeing SM64 for the first time.
cybamerc said:
Heh. This is true, I remember the hype for the game way back in 1999. Halo and it's leveless play on the Ring and its multiplayer just sounded amazing in scope; it was so set to be the next big thing on the Mac/PC. I think 3dfx even pimped the game for PR a bit back in the day.
<img src=http://www.gamecritics.com/feature/preview/halo_pc/screen06.jpg height=180 width=270> <img src=http://spel.torget.se/home/spel/bilder/nytt99/halo.jpg height=180 width=270>
<img src=http://www.elecplay.com/features/microsoftbungie/halo1.jpg height=180 width=270> <img src=http://www.gamecritics.com/feature/preview/halo_pc/screen12.jpg height=180 width=270>
thop said:QRoach, officialy Nintendo didn't want to use CDs because of the long loading times
Heh, I suppose that's why Nintendo approached Sony, an electronic-consumer company, back in the days, ey?
GwymWeepa said:
You missed his point which was clearly the timeframe difference. As to your question "what does that give you"? Well, games on a console that is much older targeted on an inferior process that is still able to compete with consoles that launched 18+ months later and even exceeds them in various areas (although underlyes in others). Pretty impressive if you ask me.
This thread has gone way off topic.
Regarding Nintendo not being the strongest console in generation, that is arguable. The SNES clearly had better graphics capabilities over the Genesis but the CPU was weaker. But since we're talking about the overall machine I would give it to the SNES every time. Graphics may be subjective, but they are a damned good benchmark.
N64 was more powerful than PSX but it was also crippled by its cartridge format.
Gamecube probably is more efficient than the Xbox yet that is arguable as well. Devs can do what they want with Xbox memory whereas the Gamecube is a little more restrictive.
Halo was in development for more than three years and it turned out to be a very nice game. Halo 2 has been in development for a very long time as well and I wouldn't be surprised to see it get delayed once again.
XNA is nice on theory and we will see how it plays out in the real world. Nintendo may already have it beat with its tools so that isn't a big deal. If rumors are to be believed and IBM is helping Sony with the tools than I do think any advantage XNA would have allowed will become a non-issue.
Nintendo can have a more powerful console if it releases a year later. MS launching by itself can afford it a very nice window of opportunity til the juggernaut of PS3 arrives. If PS3 and N5 launch around the same time and the Xbox 2 already has sold a good number of units then I predict hell will break loose.
Blah, blah, blah.
Regarding Nintendo not being the strongest console in generation, that is arguable. The SNES clearly had better graphics capabilities over the Genesis but the CPU was weaker. But since we're talking about the overall machine I would give it to the SNES every time. Graphics may be subjective, but they are a damned good benchmark.
N64 was more powerful than PSX but it was also crippled by its cartridge format.
Gamecube probably is more efficient than the Xbox yet that is arguable as well. Devs can do what they want with Xbox memory whereas the Gamecube is a little more restrictive.
Halo was in development for more than three years and it turned out to be a very nice game. Halo 2 has been in development for a very long time as well and I wouldn't be surprised to see it get delayed once again.
XNA is nice on theory and we will see how it plays out in the real world. Nintendo may already have it beat with its tools so that isn't a big deal. If rumors are to be believed and IBM is helping Sony with the tools than I do think any advantage XNA would have allowed will become a non-issue.
Nintendo can have a more powerful console if it releases a year later. MS launching by itself can afford it a very nice window of opportunity til the juggernaut of PS3 arrives. If PS3 and N5 launch around the same time and the Xbox 2 already has sold a good number of units then I predict hell will break loose.
Blah, blah, blah.
Quincy
Yeah I know you didn't say they lied and made up quotes. I was just saying that unless they've lied and made up these quotes then wether they normally have a clue or not isn't so important.
I assume you mean N64 not GameCube In past threads here I seem to remember a dev (was it ERP?) saying that in reality the N64 could put out the same, if not more, polys then PSX. Especially when a dev used Turbo3D ucode. PSX also lacked perspective correction (something N64 had). Which meant it needed to pump out many more polygons just to stop poly wapring. Also this is only geometric detial we're talking about, N64 had better effects.
On-chip ram to hold Z and Frame buffers. Very low latency embedded/system ram. 8 layer single pass multi-texturing. Lighting and pixel effects done in parrallel ect ect.
GC seems to be able to reach closer to its peak numbers then XBox, hence more efficient. Its not a big deal that its more efficient. All that matters in the end is how much performance can be extracted from the machine, not what percentage of its total performance can be extracted (appart from maybe when you look at it from a cost point of view). So its not as if I'm bad mouthing XBox or anything.
Yeah I know you didn't say they lied and made up quotes. I was just saying that unless they've lied and made up these quotes then wether they normally have a clue or not isn't so important.
I assume you mean N64 not GameCube
In past threads here I seem to remember a dev (was it ERP?) saying that in reality the N64 could put out the same, if not more, polys then PSX. Especially when a dev used Turbo3D ucode. PSX also lacked perspective correction (something N64 had). Which meant it needed to pump out many more polygons just to stop poly wapring. Also this is only geometric detial we're talking about, N64 had better effects.On-chip ram to hold Z and Frame buffers. Very low latency embedded/system ram. 8 layer single pass multi-texturing. Lighting and pixel effects done in parrallel ect ect.
GC seems to be able to reach closer to its peak numbers then XBox, hence more efficient. Its not a big deal that its more efficient. All that matters in the end is how much performance can be extracted from the machine, not what percentage of its total performance can be extracted (appart from maybe when you look at it from a cost point of view). So its not as if I'm bad mouthing XBox or anything.
I agree with most of what you say. Except...
I agreee cartridge hurt the N64, but it certianly didn't have the polygon muscle to back up it's graphical features at solid framerates. The programemrs I'm working with seemed to think PSx could push 3 times more geometry. Textures were issues on both console, but for different reasons. Anyway that generation it all came down to how many poly's you could draw since textures and texture quality weren't a big factor. I could look at a game like soul calibre on teh PSX and say it looked better than anything on the N64 pretty easily.
I don't like the efficient argument as it's pretty stupid unless you've coded on the hardware for both platforms. The only thing I'd agree with is that gamecube is more "cost" efficent than the X-box. Performance wise is a difference story.
I agreee cartridge hurt the N64, but it certianly didn't have the polygon muscle to back up it's graphical features at solid framerates. The programemrs I'm working with seemed to think PSx could push 3 times more geometry. Textures were issues on both console, but for different reasons. Anyway that generation it all came down to how many poly's you could draw since textures and texture quality weren't a big factor. I could look at a game like soul calibre on teh PSX and say it looked better than anything on the N64 pretty easily.
I don't like the efficient argument as it's pretty stupid unless you've coded on the hardware for both platforms. The only thing I'd agree with is that gamecube is more "cost" efficent than the X-box. Performance wise is a difference story.
I can't wait for Revolution.
I can also see Revolution being more powerful than the Xbox2, though I expect PS3 to be more powerful than both, but how much more remains to be seen.
Then again, don't expect any year headstarts. Sony knows its not invincible and won't give MS any type of advantage. The PS3 hardware time lines seem to confirm the whole later in 05 Japanese launch and around a March 06 USA launch.
I can also see Revolution being more powerful than the Xbox2, though I expect PS3 to be more powerful than both, but how much more remains to be seen.
Then again, don't expect any year headstarts. Sony knows its not invincible and won't give MS any type of advantage. The PS3 hardware time lines seem to confirm the whole later in 05 Japanese launch and around a March 06 USA launch.
Sorry I realy don't catch your point there... what are you trying to say?
yeah I meant N64. i think I remrmber ERP talking about that, but I also seem to remrmber him saying that the poly count went down as you added effects. As I mentioned in my last post, both PSX and n64 had so littlememory for textures tha tit usually came down to hwo many poly's you could draw.
so this proves it's more cost efficeint, but nothing there implies it's more effecient hardware.
Um, well known? I've never seen anyone state anything like that. There isn't a whole lot of features gamecube can do that aren't supported or can be performed on xbox.
Like I said it's more COST efficient, but that doens't mean it's more efficient hardware from a development point of view.
Polarbear53
Newcomer
cybamerc said:
It was in the works for a long time and they just about had the game, then they had to switch it to xbox in less then a year. So they just ported it in a year.
Quincy
When you first posted about the article you said IGN usually don't have a clue. I was just saying that they have quotes from developers on there info. So they don't really need to have a clue, only the quoted developers do. Or was that comment aimed at the 'Revolution could be more powerful then XBox2' bit of the article more then anything the developers said?
Geometry level was important, but not everything. Partical effects and filtering were also important.
What exactly do you mean when you say efficient then?
I wasn't talking about features supported by GC that XBox can't do. I was just pointing out that GC gets a lot closer to its peak polygon numbers then XBox in games. Adding effects seems to hurt polygon performance less on GC.
When you first posted about the article you said IGN usually don't have a clue. I was just saying that they have quotes from developers on there info. So they don't really need to have a clue, only the quoted developers do. Or was that comment aimed at the 'Revolution could be more powerful then XBox2' bit of the article more then anything the developers said?
Geometry level was important, but not everything. Partical effects and filtering were also important.
What exactly do you mean when you say efficient then?
I wasn't talking about features supported by GC that XBox can't do. I was just pointing out that GC gets a lot closer to its peak polygon numbers then XBox in games. Adding effects seems to hurt polygon performance less on GC.
I agree that it is likely that PS3 will be the most powerful console next generation...Paul said:
we all know that Sony's initial target was for the "power" of the PS3, to be 1000x the "power" of the PS2;
here's a pic. from GDC 2002:
(I found that pic from this thread: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8927 )
and here's an article:
http://psx.ign.com/articles/072/072237p1.html?fromint=1
how much more "powerful" can Revolution or Xbox Next be than GameCube or Xbox, respectively? ..
20x ? ... 30x ? ...... maybe 50x ?
now, most people don't expect Sony to be able to deliver on their initial target of 1000x the "power" of the PS2 .... but lets say Sony only manages to make the PS3 say, 200x the "power" of the PS2 ... 1/5 the "power" that they were originally targeting.............
even if Revolution or Xbox Next were 50x more "powerful" than GameCube or Xbox, respectively.. Revolution and Xbox Next would still be substantially weaker than the PS3 ..... only if GameCube / Xbox were currently around 4x more "powerful" than the PS2, would a 50x "power" increase lead to all 3 next gen. consoles performing roughly similarly, as the PS2, GameCube and Xbox arguably do in the current generation
Megadrive1988
Veteran
very thoughtful, decent post, imho. this is how I might have written on the same subject. I would think the senario you wrote out is certainly at least a possibility.
the best possible case for Xbox 2 and Revolution is 50 to 100 times the performance/power of Xbox and Gamecube, respectively.
....Gamecube is 50 to 100 times the performance of Nintendo..... so I am using that as a baseline.
even if PS3 is only 200 to 300 times the performance/power of PS2, we'll still have an incredibly powerful PS3. the PS2 is about 300 times the performance of PS1, according to Sony.
now to those that say the increase from last generation to this generation is more like 10 to 20 times (much more conservative) things can scale down to that type of comparison as well, all things being equal (i.e. PS2 is only 10x more powerful than PS1, and Gamecube is only 10x more powerful than N64, etc)...
Teasy
It was more about Revoloution could be more powerful than Xbox 2. There's zero information on Revoloution out there, as nitnendo has almost leaks when it comes to hardware these days.
What particle effects? Both systems wer epretty weak in teh particle area. Most of the effects on the PSx was done with polygons anyway, which comes righ tback to polycount. If i look at a game like final fantasy on the PSX and the types of effects it had when you cast spells, I can't think of any N64 game that compared to that.
Like I said before about the filtering. THe N64 had so little texture memory that the filtering just made everything look blurry. PSX has no filtering and some actual texture memory, but it still didn't have the kind of memory to really ake use of texturing in any way we've become accustomed to. Anyway most people didn't even notice that the textures weren't filtered. Good games pre filtered the textures before using them in the game to reduce noise to some extent.
That depends on what you mean by efficient. You mentioned cost in your explanation and I agree with you. It is certainly the most cost efficient of the 3 consoles. However from a development point of view I don't see how you could argue it's more efficient without actually making a game on both platforms.
Hold on a second. You're not thinking this through.
Nintendo never published any theoretical numbers on the gamecube to the general public. Infact, they never published any performance numbers to anyone but developers, hence those were the only numbers that came out into the public through the press. MS also published real performance numbers to game developers and they of course talked theoretical numbers in the press, just like Sony since they didn't want to seem less pwoerful. Just becuase gamecube can get close to the developer performance numbers, doesn't mean Xbox can't get close to the real performance numbers MS gave out to developers. You simply never saw the more conservative numbers for xbox (provided by mike abrash if I remember correctly, and I'm not talking about the numbers he was speculating on before xbox shipped.).
Now you can say how xbox performace drops 10 fold if they are using 8 textures compared to a 4 fold decrease on the gamecube, but what difference does that make if nobody is using 8 texture layers in a single pass? How does that make gamecube more efficient than xbox? What if xbox has much higher performance numbers when using 2 textures and this is still twice the speed of gamecube? You can flip that argument and say xbox is more efficient.
EA has shown (and all the hardcore cube fans ignore it) that xbox can push close to twice the amount of textured polys compared to gamecube, does that mean xbox is the more efficient hardware? No of course not. There's always a few instance where one set of hardware can out pace a completely different set of hardware performing a certain task (and I seem to recall ERP saying this the last time we got into a discussion about which is the most efficient).
Anyway. it's like i said before, unless you have developed on both you can't really make an arguement (that gamecube is more efficient) on the reasoning you provided.
It was more about Revoloution could be more powerful than Xbox 2. There's zero information on Revoloution out there, as nitnendo has almost leaks when it comes to hardware these days.
What particle effects? Both systems wer epretty weak in teh particle area. Most of the effects on the PSx was done with polygons anyway, which comes righ tback to polycount. If i look at a game like final fantasy on the PSX and the types of effects it had when you cast spells, I can't think of any N64 game that compared to that.
Like I said before about the filtering. THe N64 had so little texture memory that the filtering just made everything look blurry. PSX has no filtering and some actual texture memory, but it still didn't have the kind of memory to really ake use of texturing in any way we've become accustomed to. Anyway most people didn't even notice that the textures weren't filtered. Good games pre filtered the textures before using them in the game to reduce noise to some extent.
That depends on what you mean by efficient. You mentioned cost in your explanation and I agree with you. It is certainly the most cost efficient of the 3 consoles. However from a development point of view I don't see how you could argue it's more efficient without actually making a game on both platforms.
Hold on a second. You're not thinking this through.
Nintendo never published any theoretical numbers on the gamecube to the general public. Infact, they never published any performance numbers to anyone but developers, hence those were the only numbers that came out into the public through the press. MS also published real performance numbers to game developers and they of course talked theoretical numbers in the press, just like Sony since they didn't want to seem less pwoerful. Just becuase gamecube can get close to the developer performance numbers, doesn't mean Xbox can't get close to the real performance numbers MS gave out to developers. You simply never saw the more conservative numbers for xbox (provided by mike abrash if I remember correctly, and I'm not talking about the numbers he was speculating on before xbox shipped.).
Now you can say how xbox performace drops 10 fold if they are using 8 textures compared to a 4 fold decrease on the gamecube, but what difference does that make if nobody is using 8 texture layers in a single pass? How does that make gamecube more efficient than xbox? What if xbox has much higher performance numbers when using 2 textures and this is still twice the speed of gamecube? You can flip that argument and say xbox is more efficient.
EA has shown (and all the hardcore cube fans ignore it) that xbox can push close to twice the amount of textured polys compared to gamecube, does that mean xbox is the more efficient hardware? No of course not. There's always a few instance where one set of hardware can out pace a completely different set of hardware performing a certain task (and I seem to recall ERP saying this the last time we got into a discussion about which is the most efficient).
Anyway. it's like i said before, unless you have developed on both you can't really make an arguement (that gamecube is more efficient) on the reasoning you provided.
- Status
