The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I bought craxy taxi for the PS2 yesterday and I am very disapointed with myself. This is not because the game is bad which it certainly isn't. I am disapointed because I have subcontiously joined the ranks of those who say that graphics do not matter. I used to be against this arguement but I now forgive crazy taxi for its terrible pop-up in favour of admiring its gameplay and addictiveness. Has this happened to anyone else? How can I possibly forgive pop-up in this day and age?
Page:
This is a plus, apparently GT3 will have 60hz support also in Euroe, so it will be fairly quite at a decent resolution.
Me thinks project Gotham has a bit of catching up to do.
Me thinks project Gotham has a bit of catching up to do.
Moto GP also has widescreen support, and as mentioned in the PS2 forum, GT3 will provide anamorphic widescreen support.
Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
> I think the actual rendered resolution is something like 1024x480
> which is then downgraded (can't recall the tech term at the mo)
> before being output to the TV.
As you no doubt know, there's very
> little to be gained from high resolutions on a TV screen, as they're
> simply incapable of displaying that much detail.
It would cut down on the jagged edges and reduce the required amount of anti-aliasing, you are just opening a door for these things to be blaed on a TV. Also Widescreen TVs allow for a higher resolution and a Widescreen mode in games wouldn't go a miss, SSX cottoned on to that idea, and it was one of the first games out.
> I think the actual rendered resolution is something like 1024x480
> which is then downgraded (can't recall the tech term at the mo)
> before being output to the TV.
As you no doubt know, there's very
> little to be gained from high resolutions on a TV screen, as they're
> simply incapable of displaying that much detail.
It would cut down on the jagged edges and reduce the required amount of anti-aliasing, you are just opening a door for these things to be blaed on a TV. Also Widescreen TVs allow for a higher resolution and a Widescreen mode in games wouldn't go a miss, SSX cottoned on to that idea, and it was one of the first games out.
Ok Pointdexters, calm down with the stats and specs already.
They are all good machines.
Except the Gamecube, which runs on playdough and crayons.
Much like the users.
Hah.
"A vote for The Goat is a vote for retarded childern driving out-of-control-buses on the info-superhighway of life"
They are all good machines.
Except the Gamecube, which runs on playdough and crayons.
Much like the users.
Hah.
"A vote for The Goat is a vote for retarded childern driving out-of-control-buses on the info-superhighway of life"
I think the actual rendered resolution is something like 1024x480 which is then downgraded (can't recall the tech term at the mo) before being output to the TV.
As you no doubt know, there's very little to be gained from high resolutions on a TV screen, as they're simply incapable of displaying that much detail.
As you no doubt know, there's very little to be gained from high resolutions on a TV screen, as they're simply incapable of displaying that much detail.
Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
> At the end of the day, look at the games. With the PS2 able to do
> things like GT3 (and I don't care what anyone says, NO game on ANY
> platform looks as good), the whole topic is irrelevant.
Just my
> opinion, of course.
Well done! Got back to the topic at hand!
Well, I think it will be a few months till the PS2 really does overtake the DC in terms of graphics... as of yet the PS2 and D are the same in terms of graphics.
However, by the time code on the PS2 is refined enough to get these results the GC and Xbox will be out... DOH!
Sonic
> At the end of the day, look at the games. With the PS2 able to do
> things like GT3 (and I don't care what anyone says, NO game on ANY
> platform looks as good), the whole topic is irrelevant.
Just my
> opinion, of course.
Well done! Got back to the topic at hand!
Well, I think it will be a few months till the PS2 really does overtake the DC in terms of graphics... as of yet the PS2 and D are the same in terms of graphics.
However, by the time code on the PS2 is refined enough to get these results the GC and Xbox will be out... DOH!
Sonic
Mmmm, it could look better though!!
With decent anti-aliasing and a higher resolution it would rock. You just wouldn't get away with a 640*480 pixel resolution on a monitor, it would look hellish.
With decent anti-aliasing and a higher resolution it would rock. You just wouldn't get away with a 640*480 pixel resolution on a monitor, it would look hellish.
At the end of the day, look at the games. With the PS2 able to do things like GT3 (and I don't care what anyone says, NO game on ANY platform looks as good), the whole topic is irrelevant.
Just my opinion, of course.
Just my opinion, of course.
The proper tech specs on the PS2 can be found at:
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-116479/Playstation2.html
Yes, 4Mb of VRAM, and yes one set of lines after the other, but this is the way some PC video card operate, ATI RAge Fury MAX, but it did have 64Mb of DDR Ram. What I would really need to know to make and educated comment on that is how much memory a single frame in a game is likely to take up, if it only needs 2 Meg per frame maximum then 4 Meg would be more than enough, if not then obviously its a problem, this I do not know!!
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-116479/Playstation2.html
Yes, 4Mb of VRAM, and yes one set of lines after the other, but this is the way some PC video card operate, ATI RAge Fury MAX, but it did have 64Mb of DDR Ram. What I would really need to know to make and educated comment on that is how much memory a single frame in a game is likely to take up, if it only needs 2 Meg per frame maximum then 4 Meg would be more than enough, if not then obviously its a problem, this I do not know!!
Bonus wrote:
> Do people know exactly how much RAM is in a PS2?? In total about
> 48MBs!!!
There is 32Mbs of RDRam (Rambus) which is the main
> system memory. Every other processor in the maching has at least
> 2-4 meg of buffer RAM so that the system doesn't grind to a halt if
> the program it is tackling creates a bottleneck. The only RAM the
> PS2 has a shortage of is Texture memory and a decent texture
> compression system, which would have very little effect on
> processing a 3D environment, so the PS2 is much faster than a DC,
> thanks to it's 2 vector units, which can carry out the same sort of
> calculations as Nvidia's GPUs. Making the speed of the processor
> more flexible to doing other things like game physics. Also the
> infrastructure of the Ps2 processor allows it to be the fastest CPU
> on the planet, much faster than any PC CPU, but it falls behind PCs
> when it comes to graphics capabilities, why?? Because Nvidia and
> ATI are geniuses in the field, the one advantage the Xbox and the
> Gamecube have over either is that these two companies wipe the floor
> with the PS2 graphics system!
But! The ps2 only has 4MB VRAM... where the image is stored before being sent out... which means that ALL PS2 games sio far have not sent full pictures to the TV... instead they send half the image (every alternate line) one frame, and then other lines the next frame. And if Sony claim that needing this facility is normal then they are fools!
Sonic
> Do people know exactly how much RAM is in a PS2?? In total about
> 48MBs!!!
There is 32Mbs of RDRam (Rambus) which is the main
> system memory. Every other processor in the maching has at least
> 2-4 meg of buffer RAM so that the system doesn't grind to a halt if
> the program it is tackling creates a bottleneck. The only RAM the
> PS2 has a shortage of is Texture memory and a decent texture
> compression system, which would have very little effect on
> processing a 3D environment, so the PS2 is much faster than a DC,
> thanks to it's 2 vector units, which can carry out the same sort of
> calculations as Nvidia's GPUs. Making the speed of the processor
> more flexible to doing other things like game physics. Also the
> infrastructure of the Ps2 processor allows it to be the fastest CPU
> on the planet, much faster than any PC CPU, but it falls behind PCs
> when it comes to graphics capabilities, why?? Because Nvidia and
> ATI are geniuses in the field, the one advantage the Xbox and the
> Gamecube have over either is that these two companies wipe the floor
> with the PS2 graphics system!
But! The ps2 only has 4MB VRAM... where the image is stored before being sent out... which means that ALL PS2 games sio far have not sent full pictures to the TV... instead they send half the image (every alternate line) one frame, and then other lines the next frame. And if Sony claim that needing this facility is normal then they are fools!
Sonic
Page: