Xbox 2 coming in Nov-Dec 2005 - Revolution could be stronger

[thop]

Anyway most people didn't even notice that the textures weren't filtered.

I'm pretty sure every FF7 player noticed it (to use your example), the overworld was very ugly Seriously, i didn't even want to look at PSX games anymore when i first played Turok. It was certainly impressive what developers were able to push out of the PSX towards the end though.

 

[archie4oz]

I agreee cartridge hurt the N64

Actually I think the carts really didn't hurt the N64 for gaming (unless you were set on doing tons of FMV) so much as for production costs (lead time estimates, sales estimates), and distribution (dealing with the wholesaler)...

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.

Actually you're contradicting yourself a bit here... The PSOne's polygon calculation capabilities are what *did* give it excellent particle generation capabilities...

I do think you could do more sophisticated emitters adn such on the N64, you just probably couldn't push as many of them around (although I find that a little hard to believe)...

 

[Teasy]

Quincy

I am absolutely thinking it through.. cheeky bugger

I'm not basing my opinion on real world performance numbers given out by Nintendo or MS. That would be silly for obvious reasons. I'm basing this on actual theoretical numbers (they can be worked out).

On the EA benchmarks. Obviously if a developer can get twice the polygon performance from XBox when compared to GC in a certain engine that doesn't mean XBox is more efficient. I mean theoretically XBox can push 3 to 4 times the amount of polys GC can. So if anything it would show the opposite.

Also I'm still not sure how your actually seeing efficiency here. You said you agree with it being the most cost efficient system but not the most efficient system. Surely being the most cost efficient is directly related to being the most efficient. Afterall, being the most cost efficient doesn't just mean being the cheapest.

Its no big deal or anything, I just think its generally agreed GC is the more efficient system overall. Just like its generally agreed that XBox is the more powerful system overall. I mean GC's specs are way below XBox's, yet the results devs get from both systems are quite close.

P.S. I've been looking for those EA benchmarks recently, so I'd appreciate it if you could point me to them (or anyone else who knows where they are).

 

[linthat22]

we also know the following:

Don't expect the graphics capabilities of future Nintendo and Microsoft products to be exactly the same, however, the ATI spokesman said. "Yes, we have different design teams working on them, with different requirements and different timetables," the spokesman said.

[source: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1220430,00.asp ]

.. so we know that one of the consoles will be more powerful than the other .. but which one ............

That'd be a great question to ask the developers when the systems are close to release or closely after they are released. (I'm hoping that it's not some minute visual difference.)

 

[Megadrive1988]

this time, Nintendo and Microsoft's consoles should be closer in actual in-game performance, compared to Xbox and Gamecube.

Gamecube: IBM PowerPC G3 variant (Gekko), ARTX custom Flipper GPU
(design process 1997/1998 to 2000)

Xbox: Intel 733 Pentium 3 variant, Nvidia custom GeForce3/4 GPU
(design process 1999/2000 to 2001)


Revolution: IBM PowerPC 970 / POWER4/POWER5 variant(s). ATI west coast VPU
(design process 2001/2002 to 2005/2006)

Xenon: IBM PowerPC 970 / POWER4/POWER5 variants. ATI east coast VPU, with some help from ATI west and ATI Orlando.
(design process 2002 to 2004/2005)

 

[Polarbear53]

What are the chances of seeing the Fast14 technology in it? Wasn't microsoft talking to the company who made it? How much do you think it would help it?

 

[Qroach]

Teasy

I am absolutely thinking it through.. cheeky bugger

Cheeky? I'll have you know I only have 4 cheeks in total.

I'm not basing my opinion on real world performance numbers given out by Nintendo or MS. That would be silly for obvious reasons. I'm basing this on actual theoretical numbers (they can be worked out).

Nitnendo never gave out theoretical numbers. That's the point I'm making.

On the EA benchmarks. Obviously if a developer can get twice the polygon performance from XBox when compared to GC in a certain engine that doesn't mean XBox is more efficient. I mean theoretically XBox can push 3 to 4 times the amount of polys GC can. So if anything it would show the opposite.

How would that show the opposite? Honestly? who cares about theoretical, especially when you don't have theoretical performance numbers for the gamecube?

Also I'm still not sure how your actually seeing efficiency here. You said you agree with it being the most cost efficient system but not the most efficient system. Surely being the most cost efficient is directly related to being the most efficient. Afterall, being the most cost efficient doesn't just mean being the cheapest.

Teasy I said YOU can't tell which system is more efficient without developing on either. I'm not claiming one is more efficient than the other. On a scale of cost, Nintendo got more bang for thier buck, the GC had a more cost efficient design, but that has nothing to do with more efficient performance (or getting close to theoretical numbers, which is clearly what I took from what you were writting, and please don't say that's not what you meant.

Its no big deal or anything, I just think its generally agreed GC is the more efficient system overall. Just like its generally agreed that XBox is the more powerful system overall.

Well I don't agree with that statement. GC isn't a more effiecient in a performance comparrison unless you've acctually developed a game on it, how the heck would you know? You certainly haven't seen any quotes form developers saying that in a comparrison.

I mean GC's specs are way below XBox's, yet the results devs get from both systems are quite close.

Wel, so says you. There's certain games that just never appeared on gamecube because they were coded specifically for xbox. I'm certain a few of those would be pretty difficult to get runnign on the cube while looking identicle. Look at splinter cell on gamecube and xbox. They both look quite different.

P.S. I've been looking for those EA benchmarks recently, so I'd appreciate it if you could point me to them (or anyone else who knows where they are).

Oh I don't have a link to those handy, but I'm sure someone has it around.

 

[zidane1strife]

It was certainly impressive what developers were able to push out of the PSX towards the end though.

Indeed, some of the character models, particularly bosses of some rpgs were top-notch. Some exceed many of the modern gen char models, featuring individually articulated fingers, round body features, with highly detailed polygonal faces that were nicely animated(polygon animation ala ffx/mgs2, not simple texture animation-as seen even in some next-gen rpgs like Skies of arcadia. and some sections of games like kingdom hearts.).

There are also games that I've seen a few sections, but I've heard they've levels where they push dozens upon dozens of characters, and at 60fps.

 

[Jov]

It's 100% nintendo's fault that sony decided to get into consoles beyond than the CD addon. It also opened a window regarding CD usage (where nintendo couldn't use CD technology for 5 years) which allowed sony to release a console using superior storage tech.

Can you fill us in on why Nintendo couldn't use CD tech for 5 years?

 

[Jov]

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.

Elaborate? Tech wise??

 

[GwymWeepa]

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?

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.

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.

I've seen a large swath of games from each platform, though some ps2 games can compete with anything on the other two machines, most fall short from my experience.

 

[GwymWeepa]

I agree with most of what you say. Except...

N64 was more powerful than PSX but it was also crippled by its cartridge format.

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.

Yeah right, Soul Calibur was hideous, a pixelated mess, and IIRC it suffered from non-perspective corrected textures like most psx games did. You act like raw polygon count equates to power in that last generation, I don't think so. Banjo Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64 kill the visuals of anything on PSX, so does Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask. The n64 had its problems as did the psx, but at the end of the day it could display the better graphics.

 

[Jov]

I've seen a large swath of games from each platform, though some ps2 games can compete with anything on the other two machines, most fall short from my experience.

I can say the same for Xbox and GameCube games. It comes down to personal taste most of the time. Some like consistent and higher frame rate (me), some wants more features.

 

[GwymWeepa]

I've seen a large swath of games from each platform, though some ps2 games can compete with anything on the other two machines, most fall short from my experience.

I can say the same for Xbox and GameCube games. It comes down to personal taste most of the time. Some like consistent and higher frame rate (me), some wants more features.

Oh then in that case you think the Xbox has the nicest looking games?

 

[Deepak]

BTW N64 was the most powerful of its generation and, arguably, so was SNES.

no bloddy way, as I said before it had some nicne graphical features, making it more capable thatn the PSX, but hardly any of those capabailties were all that visible. PSX could push far more polygons than the gamecube, not only that it's games had better framerates for what was drawn...

 

[Bohdy]

We all know that for the most part N64 games were pretty light on the polygons in favour of other effects but that doesn't mean that it wasn't capable of flexing its polygon-pushing muscles in the right circumstances.

I seriously advise you guys to check out Kirby64: The Crystal Shards. That game pushed more polygons than a few other n64 games combined with a silky smooth framerate and fantastic lighting. This was at the expense of a big border around the screen (guess that it was fillrate limited) but IMHO is was near to dreamcast quality, and the kirby model could have been inserted into SSBM on GC without looking out of place.

 

[Jov]

I can say the same for Xbox and GameCube games. It comes down to personal taste most of the time. Some like consistent and higher frame rate (me), some wants more features.

Oh then in that case you think the Xbox has the nicest looking games?

In most cases, Xbox games does look better (with its AA, BM, higher texture res, etc), but I'll like to see Xbox do something like ZOE 2 with the AA & highres texture. If it can, I'll luv my Xbox more...

This gen is probably the closest between the 3 consoles (not including DC since its not officially supported).

 

[Jov]

BTW N64 was the most powerful of its generation and, arguably, so was SNES.

no bloddy way, as I said before it had some nicne graphical features, making it more capable thatn the PSX, but hardly any of those capabailties were all that visible. PSX could push far more polygons than the gamecube, not only that it's games had better framerates for what was drawn...

I guess some of us might like Sony, but such a statement is out of this world!

Second thought... he might be right if the sudden change in context went from 32/64 bit gen. to current, where PSX => PS[2]X.

OK, OK we all know what you meant Qroachy

 

[Li Mu Bai]

deleted.

 

[GwymWeepa]

I can say the same for Xbox and GameCube games. It comes down to personal taste most of the time. Some like consistent and higher frame rate (me), some wants more features.

Oh then in that case you think the Xbox has the nicest looking games?

In most cases, Xbox games does look better (with its AA, BM, higher texture res, etc), but I'll like to see Xbox do something like ZOE 2 with the AA & highres texture. If it can, I'll luv my Xbox more...

This gen is probably the closest between the 3 consoles (not including DC since its not officially supported).

I haven't seen ZOE 2, I've been wanting to though. But anyhoo, PS2 from what I've seen wouldn't be able to handle Ninja Gaiden, but some games really take art design and fudge nearly as impressive graphics, like the Jak series.