The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I bought my PS2 soon after release and it only serves to bring continual disappointment. Games come in dibs and drabs with very few titles worth buying (SSX, Timesplitters).
Magazines only ever seem to FEATURE the next generation of must-have titles as the release dates just get put further and further back. So in the meantime, developers (crappy and reputable) put out average to awful games in order to exploit us, the consumers who are desparate for games. I do concede that some games are of a good standard. But I have bought a next generation console. I dont want good, I want the best!!!
I was most hopefull for Zone of the Enders, but just turned out to be an incredibly tedious blaster so I returned it (after playing the MGS2 demo to death!)
I bought my PS2 to play games on and treated the DVD as an extra. As it stands, it is completely the other way around.
Does anyone else feel the same way?
Magazines only ever seem to FEATURE the next generation of must-have titles as the release dates just get put further and further back. So in the meantime, developers (crappy and reputable) put out average to awful games in order to exploit us, the consumers who are desparate for games. I do concede that some games are of a good standard. But I have bought a next generation console. I dont want good, I want the best!!!
I was most hopefull for Zone of the Enders, but just turned out to be an incredibly tedious blaster so I returned it (after playing the MGS2 demo to death!)
I bought my PS2 to play games on and treated the DVD as an extra. As it stands, it is completely the other way around.
Does anyone else feel the same way?
Page:
ssxpro wrote:
> I tell you what though, I`ll give them a quick count
> myself if I get GT3, and let you know.
Great, thanks! I'll expect the official polygon count from you sometime after GT3's UK release - possibly sometime around the start of the next millennium, if you're not too busy with your studies! ;-)
> I tell you what though, I`ll give them a quick count
> myself if I get GT3, and let you know.
Great, thanks! I'll expect the official polygon count from you sometime after GT3's UK release - possibly sometime around the start of the next millennium, if you're not too busy with your studies! ;-)
Would you like in game counts as well as fmv counts?
adrian wrote:
> was just posting the maximum amount it could generate as somebody
> thought it could 85 million but It cant. The figures I posted were
> untextured like I had said in a previous post, which arent really
> used in games.
Ahem.
"Somebody" was trying to remember it off the top of his head at about 1:10 in the morning.
The official Sony figure is 75 million, but as said in my post "gamecube specs" it is nearer 20 mil.
Sorry!
> was just posting the maximum amount it could generate as somebody
> thought it could 85 million but It cant. The figures I posted were
> untextured like I had said in a previous post, which arent really
> used in games.
Ahem.
"Somebody" was trying to remember it off the top of his head at about 1:10 in the morning.
The official Sony figure is 75 million, but as said in my post "gamecube specs" it is nearer 20 mil.
Sorry!
The 75 million is the max rate. Which means no effects, no textures e.t.c. When you think of what a polygon has to be to make it look nice for a game like Gran Turismo 3. It needs to be textured, relective for the cars, Shadows, lighting e.t.c they all make the 75 million drop down. Companys always quote the max polygon rate even though most games use polygons with a ton of effects on them, so the max rate is never acheived. It just sounds nicer and more impressive if it can do 75 million rather than 20-25 million.
ssxpro wrote:
> Would you like in game counts as well as fmv counts?
Just in-game will do. You can cheat and pause it if you like! :-)
> Would you like in game counts as well as fmv counts?
Just in-game will do. You can cheat and pause it if you like! :-)
I think I`ll take you up on that WM. I`ll pause it in several places, and take the average.
How many places would you say? 10? 100?
How many places would you say? 10? 100?
ssxpro wrote:
> I think I`ll take you up on that WM. I`ll pause it in several
> places, and take the average.
> How many places would you say? 10? 100?
To get a true indication, I think you'l need to do it every 100m around each track. Make sure you use the same car every time though, to get an accurate scenery count.
> I think I`ll take you up on that WM. I`ll pause it in several
> places, and take the average.
> How many places would you say? 10? 100?
To get a true indication, I think you'l need to do it every 100m around each track. Make sure you use the same car every time though, to get an accurate scenery count.
Should I repeat this for all the cars?
About 2mins for a race at say 100 miles an hour. Thats 1/30 * 100 = 3/1/3 miles.
That is 5/1/3 kilometres, which is 53.33 checks per track with about 20 tracks and 200 cars. Say about 20 million polys.
That means I have to count to 4266400000000!!
That is 5/1/3 kilometres, which is 53.33 checks per track with about 20 tracks and 200 cars. Say about 20 million polys.
That means I have to count to 4266400000000!!
About 2mins for a race at say 100 miles an hour. Thats 1/30 * 100 = 3/1/3 miles.
That is 5/1/3 kilometres, which is 53.33 checks per track with about 20 tracks and 200 cars. Say about 20 million polys.
That means I have to count to 4266400000000!!
That is 5/1/3 kilometres, which is 53.33 checks per track with about 20 tracks and 200 cars. Say about 20 million polys.
That means I have to count to 4266400000000!!
Page: