The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This is my final Gameaday attempt for a a long while so I have decided to write something that will bring peace to the war zone that is The Future Of Gaming .
Why is it we are insistent on saying things like the “Playstation rules and Nintendo suck”? The Nintendo 64 is a system that plays high quality games in gorgeous graphics, it has some of the greatest games the world has ever seen on it such as Zelda, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Conker and so many more and it is a an absolutely stunning console. The system is cleverly designed so the use of a memory card is rarely needed and it is good fun to play.
The Playstation is no different; it has a great variety of games including some of the best in the world like Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Smack down and Resident Evil. As well as being able to play CD’s and manage to create stunning graphics and only being 32 bit shows what a massive feat Sony has over come in order to create such a beauty. The Playstation 2 is the most powerful console on the market at the moment what more do I need to say
The Dreamcast maybe going but it is still one of the greatest systems on the market, a wealth of great games including, House of the dead, Crazy Taxi, Shenmue, Code veronica and Dead or Alive 2 (I love that game). It is a small console and is Internet ready from the start unlike other consoles. It is Sega’s last console so it has to be good.
Everyone is judging the X-box before it is even released! Sure it is new and we don’t know what we expect but Sony did it so why cant Microsoft?
What I am trying to say is that all of the consoles make people happy and if something can do that then it can’t be all that bad now can it. I am a die-hard Nintendo fan and when I see someone playing on Playstation, although I wish it were a 64 I know my friend is enjoying his Playstation and that is all that matters.
Here’s to the future
Dringo
Why is it we are insistent on saying things like the “Playstation rules and Nintendo suck”? The Nintendo 64 is a system that plays high quality games in gorgeous graphics, it has some of the greatest games the world has ever seen on it such as Zelda, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Conker and so many more and it is a an absolutely stunning console. The system is cleverly designed so the use of a memory card is rarely needed and it is good fun to play.
The Playstation is no different; it has a great variety of games including some of the best in the world like Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Smack down and Resident Evil. As well as being able to play CD’s and manage to create stunning graphics and only being 32 bit shows what a massive feat Sony has over come in order to create such a beauty. The Playstation 2 is the most powerful console on the market at the moment what more do I need to say
The Dreamcast maybe going but it is still one of the greatest systems on the market, a wealth of great games including, House of the dead, Crazy Taxi, Shenmue, Code veronica and Dead or Alive 2 (I love that game). It is a small console and is Internet ready from the start unlike other consoles. It is Sega’s last console so it has to be good.
Everyone is judging the X-box before it is even released! Sure it is new and we don’t know what we expect but Sony did it so why cant Microsoft?
What I am trying to say is that all of the consoles make people happy and if something can do that then it can’t be all that bad now can it. I am a die-hard Nintendo fan and when I see someone playing on Playstation, although I wish it were a 64 I know my friend is enjoying his Playstation and that is all that matters.
Here’s to the future
Dringo
Page:
Isn't it holdup
Time_Warp wrote:
> when will it be posted?
Yeah, when er-no?
> when will it be posted?
Yeah, when er-no?
Dringo wrote:
> Is it true Nintendo designed it?
Kinda... the PSX was initial a joint venture as a CD drive SNES (in fact edge has a picture of it... it was identical to a snes, but with a cd drive instead of a cart slot). However, the partnership fell out, and Sony carried on developing it. Nintendo took the old path with carts and the rest is history!
Sonic
> Is it true Nintendo designed it?
Kinda... the PSX was initial a joint venture as a CD drive SNES (in fact edge has a picture of it... it was identical to a snes, but with a cd drive instead of a cart slot). However, the partnership fell out, and Sony carried on developing it. Nintendo took the old path with carts and the rest is history!
Sonic
Is it true Nintendo designed it?
Dringo wrote:
> the graphics chip i know of, I was emphasising on the power of the
> system being only 32 bit yet still manages to pull off fantastic
> games with fantastic graphics.
I'm sorry if that confused any
> one.
Ah! now I get what you're saying! Yer, the archetecture is fantastic in the PSX!
Sonic
> the graphics chip i know of, I was emphasising on the power of the
> system being only 32 bit yet still manages to pull off fantastic
> games with fantastic graphics.
I'm sorry if that confused any
> one.
Ah! now I get what you're saying! Yer, the archetecture is fantastic in the PSX!
Sonic
the graphics chip i know of, I was emphasising on the power of the system being only 32 bit yet still manages to pull off fantastic games with fantastic graphics.
I'm sorry if that confused any one.
I'm sorry if that confused any one.
In response to the actual topic...
u say that despite being ONLY 32bit, the PSX can pull off great graphics. Now, the "bit" number means nothing. After all, the Mega Drive was NOT 16 bit, and was inferior to the SNES, and the PSX is almost as powerful, if not just as powerful as an N64. The reason for this is the archetecture. Although the N64 has a great chip set, the PSX has specific chips for sound and vector graphics- in the N64 these are done by the processor. So, for example, to have great sound on an N64 game requires processor power (1% per channel I think). On the PSX, all sound is done by another processing block completely, allowing the games to run at full speed.
The reason for the N64 graphics being "superior" (actually, I prefer the hard-edges polygons on the PSX)? The answer is anti-aliasing. The N64 has anti-aliasing that (simply put) everything blurry. This works to great effect, making objects seem more realistic, while making sure they are not too vague. The PSX uses different, less effective types of AA, that keep every polygon showing.
Remember, "bits" are nothing. What is important is the archecture and the CPU speed (in Mega/Giga hertz). Otherwise the 128bit PS2, DC and Xbox would be approximately the same power. In realisty, the Xbox is the most powerful and has great archetecture. The PS2 is the next powerful, but has poor archetecture making the evolution of games slower. The DC has the slowest processor speed, but has brilliant archetecture (like xbox, based on PCs). Due to this, it took only one generation to reach Sould Calibur, and will stay side by side with the PS2 for a bit longer.
Sonic
u say that despite being ONLY 32bit, the PSX can pull off great graphics. Now, the "bit" number means nothing. After all, the Mega Drive was NOT 16 bit, and was inferior to the SNES, and the PSX is almost as powerful, if not just as powerful as an N64. The reason for this is the archetecture. Although the N64 has a great chip set, the PSX has specific chips for sound and vector graphics- in the N64 these are done by the processor. So, for example, to have great sound on an N64 game requires processor power (1% per channel I think). On the PSX, all sound is done by another processing block completely, allowing the games to run at full speed.
The reason for the N64 graphics being "superior" (actually, I prefer the hard-edges polygons on the PSX)? The answer is anti-aliasing. The N64 has anti-aliasing that (simply put) everything blurry. This works to great effect, making objects seem more realistic, while making sure they are not too vague. The PSX uses different, less effective types of AA, that keep every polygon showing.
Remember, "bits" are nothing. What is important is the archecture and the CPU speed (in Mega/Giga hertz). Otherwise the 128bit PS2, DC and Xbox would be approximately the same power. In realisty, the Xbox is the most powerful and has great archetecture. The PS2 is the next powerful, but has poor archetecture making the evolution of games slower. The DC has the slowest processor speed, but has brilliant archetecture (like xbox, based on PCs). Due to this, it took only one generation to reach Sould Calibur, and will stay side by side with the PS2 for a bit longer.
Sonic
I have finished a topic I have been working on for a long time...
LOL
Page: