The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 want to sort a few things out and hopefully make people think about what makes good graphics in a game. This will involve looking at the Hardware available and also what I believe to be the most important things to graphical quality!!
As you all may be well aware, 3D graphics in games are maily to do with vectors, polygons and the like, all 3D games have this is common. These make up 3D models (wireframes) and then a texture is mapped around the object to make it look more like the thing it is meant to be. Some games use fully 3D environements (i.e. wireframes wrapped in textures to make the envirinments) others use what are known as pre-rendered backdrops, i.e. a 2D drawing which the characters the run around on, some games use a mixture of both. That is your basic 3D environment.
Different effects are then used to make games look better, some are done by the hardware, others by the software itself (this needs more processing power).
Mip-mapping - used to blur images in the distance so that they look out of focus, to make the scene look more realistic.
Z-buffer - used to make sure that objects which are behind other objects on the screen are not in view.
Environment mapping - used to show the surroundings reflecting off of an object (usually in car games, but some cheat, like RRV which just scrolls a picture of trees along the surface of the car.)
Anti-aliasing - there are different types, the most popular being full screen and edge, but more importantly they blur pixels to prevent jagged edges.
There are many, many more but these are the few which I think people are most concerned with when it comes to rating a games graphics, along with the term pop-up. Pop-up is the objects in the distance just appearing out of no where. This is usually caused by the developer reducing the draw length of the game (how far into the distance you can see), the old fashioned way was to use fog effects (i.e. Turok on the N64)
Anyway all of these combined create a good looking visual scene. But what is more important high resolution with no jagged edges but lower quality models and textures, or a little less resolution with jagged edges but much more detailed models and textures??
To look at this we must first find two games to compare on the same platform and the PS2 is the ideal candidate with Crazi Taxi and RRV.
Crazi Taxi has;
High resolution
few jagged edges
low quality models
low quality textures
decent frame rate with some slow down
severe pop-up
RRV has;
Lower Resolution
Severe jagged edges
high quality models
high quality textures
supreme frame rate with no slow down
no pop-up
a form of environment mapping
mip-mapping
Personally I can live with the jagged edges and lower resolution because it lifts the frame rate and therefore the overall speed of the game and allows for a much higher detail of graphical finese from developers. When you look at the little details in RRV like sparks flying from the car as it scrapes the ground or the brake pads lighting up under the heat created by severe braking. It by no means makes it a better game than Crazi Taxi, they are both quite good, but graphically it is far more advanced and technically brilliant. Many people have slagged off the graphics on show in RRV, because they looked at the jagged edges and said, yuk!!
I hope this makes some people think about what they should and shouldn't be looking for in their graphics, true different people like different things, and yes it doesn't effect the gameplay, but I like my eye candy too.
As you all may be well aware, 3D graphics in games are maily to do with vectors, polygons and the like, all 3D games have this is common. These make up 3D models (wireframes) and then a texture is mapped around the object to make it look more like the thing it is meant to be. Some games use fully 3D environements (i.e. wireframes wrapped in textures to make the envirinments) others use what are known as pre-rendered backdrops, i.e. a 2D drawing which the characters the run around on, some games use a mixture of both. That is your basic 3D environment.
Different effects are then used to make games look better, some are done by the hardware, others by the software itself (this needs more processing power).
Mip-mapping - used to blur images in the distance so that they look out of focus, to make the scene look more realistic.
Z-buffer - used to make sure that objects which are behind other objects on the screen are not in view.
Environment mapping - used to show the surroundings reflecting off of an object (usually in car games, but some cheat, like RRV which just scrolls a picture of trees along the surface of the car.)
Anti-aliasing - there are different types, the most popular being full screen and edge, but more importantly they blur pixels to prevent jagged edges.
There are many, many more but these are the few which I think people are most concerned with when it comes to rating a games graphics, along with the term pop-up. Pop-up is the objects in the distance just appearing out of no where. This is usually caused by the developer reducing the draw length of the game (how far into the distance you can see), the old fashioned way was to use fog effects (i.e. Turok on the N64)
Anyway all of these combined create a good looking visual scene. But what is more important high resolution with no jagged edges but lower quality models and textures, or a little less resolution with jagged edges but much more detailed models and textures??
To look at this we must first find two games to compare on the same platform and the PS2 is the ideal candidate with Crazi Taxi and RRV.
Crazi Taxi has;
High resolution
few jagged edges
low quality models
low quality textures
decent frame rate with some slow down
severe pop-up
RRV has;
Lower Resolution
Severe jagged edges
high quality models
high quality textures
supreme frame rate with no slow down
no pop-up
a form of environment mapping
mip-mapping
Personally I can live with the jagged edges and lower resolution because it lifts the frame rate and therefore the overall speed of the game and allows for a much higher detail of graphical finese from developers. When you look at the little details in RRV like sparks flying from the car as it scrapes the ground or the brake pads lighting up under the heat created by severe braking. It by no means makes it a better game than Crazi Taxi, they are both quite good, but graphically it is far more advanced and technically brilliant. Many people have slagged off the graphics on show in RRV, because they looked at the jagged edges and said, yuk!!
I hope this makes some people think about what they should and shouldn't be looking for in their graphics, true different people like different things, and yes it doesn't effect the gameplay, but I like my eye candy too.
Page:
How?? Because it has small pipes but large buckets whereas the PS2 has large pipes but small buckets?? If you do not understand the systems are in direct contrast. The GC is fundamentaly based upon PC architecture, a fact IBM will tell you without second guessing. The PS2 on the otherhand is exactly what is needed to run computer games. The technology and architechture are in place for games to improve indefinately.
The PS2 has massive bandwidth throughput between all of it's individual components, so where people say, ah it hasn't got the memory to store massive amounts of dat, think again. That silly explanation arises because the bandwidth between components in a PC based system is very small so data must be stored in RAM, with the PS2 the RAM is all embedded within processors and set up as caches rather than storage. Why?? Because the PS2 has enough bandwidth to store all the data it needs in it's pipelines rather than in memory. Get it yet??
The PS2 has massive bandwidth throughput between all of it's individual components, so where people say, ah it hasn't got the memory to store massive amounts of dat, think again. That silly explanation arises because the bandwidth between components in a PC based system is very small so data must be stored in RAM, with the PS2 the RAM is all embedded within processors and set up as caches rather than storage. Why?? Because the PS2 has enough bandwidth to store all the data it needs in it's pipelines rather than in memory. Get it yet??
Oh my god I have some serious headache. I never was any good with console secifications or things to do with graphics. Although I know what all of the above are and do I dont really understand them to a level of being able to explain them in detail. Never mind I should understand more when I get older.
Oh by the way if you want to put the Ps down tella Ps owner this:
The pixels are so large you could play chess on the screen.
Not that I am being biased against the Ps or anything.
Oh by the way if you want to put the Ps down tella Ps owner this:
The pixels are so large you could play chess on the screen.
Not that I am being biased against the Ps or anything.
Come on GC will whoop it!
Absolutely nothing ZP, sorry mate, but nothing does usually mean nothing!!
Nothing like the GameCube, XBOX say??
Resi, if you give a backdoor into this post for Ninty fans to s**g the PS2, I will personally kill you, but yes once the PS2 hits full throttle, nothing will be able to match it!!
--->This is from the web page which Bonus posted below<---
These 2 paragraphs of the conclusion may interest some people who think the PS2 has awful anti analising basing it on the early games.
Not only does the Emotion Engine have horsepower under the hood, but its aggressively new, cutting-edge design means that it's going to take a while for developers to really learn to use all that power. It'll be interesting to see if the PC has caught up with the PS2 by the time PS2 developers figure out how to exploit this hardware to its fullest potential.
All in all, it should be a fascinating ride in the next few months as MS and Nintendo begin to ready their own console offerings. The PS2 has really upped the ante in terms of raw gaming horsepower, so MS and Nintendo are going to have to offer something killer in response. (Was I the only one who was unimpressed by the recently-released X-Box specs? I hope nVidia packs some amazing hardware into it, because after looking at the Emotion Engine, a 600MHz Intel offering ain't turnin' me on...maybe if it's a Willamette...) All speculation aside though, one thing is definitely for certain. As of the Japanese launch of the Playstation 2 last month, the home entertainment scene just got much, much more exciting.
Taken from a web page and (( NOT MY WORK ))
These 2 paragraphs of the conclusion may interest some people who think the PS2 has awful anti analising basing it on the early games.
Not only does the Emotion Engine have horsepower under the hood, but its aggressively new, cutting-edge design means that it's going to take a while for developers to really learn to use all that power. It'll be interesting to see if the PC has caught up with the PS2 by the time PS2 developers figure out how to exploit this hardware to its fullest potential.
All in all, it should be a fascinating ride in the next few months as MS and Nintendo begin to ready their own console offerings. The PS2 has really upped the ante in terms of raw gaming horsepower, so MS and Nintendo are going to have to offer something killer in response. (Was I the only one who was unimpressed by the recently-released X-Box specs? I hope nVidia packs some amazing hardware into it, because after looking at the Emotion Engine, a 600MHz Intel offering ain't turnin' me on...maybe if it's a Willamette...) All speculation aside though, one thing is definitely for certain. As of the Japanese launch of the Playstation 2 last month, the home entertainment scene just got much, much more exciting.
Taken from a web page and (( NOT MY WORK ))
Yeah sure, [email protected].
Bonus, i don't know too much about it, and what i posted was part of an article i found. I can email you the whole lot if you want.
I'm going to look at the site you just put up though....
I'm going to look at the site you just put up though....
I think that there is a major hole in YH's comparison between the DC and the PS2, you seem to claim that the GS renders polygons, but it doesn't, the Emotion Engine itself contains 2 Vector units which render the display, the Emotion engine does all of this, what the GS does do is add effects such as mip-mapping etc. The GS recieves the created image as compressed "display lists" which are then outputted to the TV. You are classing the PS2 in the same terms as the PC type architecture the DC was based on but it really doesn't come close!!
I recommend anyone really interested check this out!! Very in-depth and most people will not get it, but I'm sure you will YH.
http://arstechnica.com /reviews/1q00/ playstation2/ee-1.html
(PS - remove the spaces from the URL!!)
I recommend anyone really interested check this out!! Very in-depth and most people will not get it, but I'm sure you will YH.
http://arstechnica.com /reviews/1q00/ playstation2/ee-1.html
(PS - remove the spaces from the URL!!)
Page: