The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Just think the Gamecube abd Xbox are built upon the current PC technology, but the PS2 is a completely different kettle of fish, and the top boffins agree, it has the potential to blow everything else away, don't belive me have a read of this!!!
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu /2q00/ps2/ ps2vspc-1.html
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu /2q00/ps2/ ps2vspc-1.html
Page:
It would be nice to have tons of cars in GT3 but with 170 or so then there is still alot of choice. The cars that are included are the best ones from GT2 plus new ones that are amazing. Anyone remember the Escudo Pike the small rally car well in GT3 you can tune it up to over 1700 bhp. The oil change is nice feature too. The physics are alot more realistic as when you change the ride height of the car it will change the handling. The rally mode is improved, theres wet weather racing. There are so many graphical enhacments to the game that make it look very good ideed. Overall GT3 is a amazing sequel to a amazing game.
okay, iwa just rying to find flaws in the top sony racer. They cant really change the gameplay as it is near perfect. The graphics are the only things that can change and the amount of cars. And as turbonutter said we are excited by visuals. But really is it all that different from the other GT's? I've only noticed little things like the haze effect and of course there is the rain. Visually stunning, but is it all that different? Closer to reality but there is less cars. As you said this is becasue it takes longer to make the cars becasue of the higher polygon count, so i can understand why now.
I think dropping the amount of cars in GT3 is a good thing because I wouldn't buy half the cars on GT2 and so it is just a waste of space.
Ortega wrote:
if i remember rightly they cut down on the number of cars in the game so they could make the graphics look better.
They cut the cars down not to make the graphics better as the cars are data and do not effect the graphics only when they are on screen. They cut the number of cars that were in GT2 down to 170 odd as it takes 2 weeks to make a car in GT3 compared with the 1 day it took in GT2. It would take a large team of programmers a long time to get all the cars put into GT3. They could do it but as they want to release the game now they had to limit the cars. All the good cars are still in it though.
GT3 still runs with all 6 cars on a race track this has been the same for all 3 GT games.
How do you know it only pushes well under 10 million? Also the 75million Polygon count is true. Its just the raw amount of polygons, these are non texture polygons that are never really in games as game polygons have textures and effects. The 75 million is just one of those facts that people say "well it does this amount which is more than that other console" It doesnt give an indication on how good a game can look and how many textured polygons it can chuck around. To see that you would need a polygon count for fully textured and effects aswell.
if i remember rightly they cut down on the number of cars in the game so they could make the graphics look better.
They cut the cars down not to make the graphics better as the cars are data and do not effect the graphics only when they are on screen. They cut the number of cars that were in GT2 down to 170 odd as it takes 2 weeks to make a car in GT3 compared with the 1 day it took in GT2. It would take a large team of programmers a long time to get all the cars put into GT3. They could do it but as they want to release the game now they had to limit the cars. All the good cars are still in it though.
GT3 still runs with all 6 cars on a race track this has been the same for all 3 GT games.
How do you know it only pushes well under 10 million? Also the 75million Polygon count is true. Its just the raw amount of polygons, these are non texture polygons that are never really in games as game polygons have textures and effects. The 75 million is just one of those facts that people say "well it does this amount which is more than that other console" It doesnt give an indication on how good a game can look and how many textured polygons it can chuck around. To see that you would need a polygon count for fully textured and effects aswell.
Ortega wrote:
> Even if
> this is true, what da hell does it mean anyway? sony dont know how
> good they can make the graphics? if i remember rightly they cut
> down on the number of cars in the game so they could make the
> graphics look better. limitation right there hey. And a game
> doesnt just rest on graphics anyway.
You forget that mass market gamers are very shallow and expect fantastic visuals. The games take ages to code so they have good graphics. Think about it, if the visuals were identical to GT2, how many people would buy it?
> Even if
> this is true, what da hell does it mean anyway? sony dont know how
> good they can make the graphics? if i remember rightly they cut
> down on the number of cars in the game so they could make the
> graphics look better. limitation right there hey. And a game
> doesnt just rest on graphics anyway.
You forget that mass market gamers are very shallow and expect fantastic visuals. The games take ages to code so they have good graphics. Think about it, if the visuals were identical to GT2, how many people would buy it?
well oh flippin great....the damn polygon count. GT3 isnt pushing 15 million anyway. Its way under 10. This coming from the company that hyped you all up with the 75mil polygon count tripe. At least ninty gave a modest estimate. anyway some devellopers say they can push the cube to 20mil.
Ninty say their baby can do 15 million polys/sec with all trimmings.
MGS and GT3 all say they they are pushing 15 million polys/sec! No too bad for a machine two years behind that no one knows what can do?
MGS and GT3 all say they they are pushing 15 million polys/sec! No too bad for a machine two years behind that no one knows what can do?
turbonutter wrote:
> a) Fantastic article, everyone read it. Fact is, GT3 already equals
> what Ninty know what the GC can do, but even Sony don't know what
> the PS2 can do.
Even if this is true, what da hell does it mean anyway? sony dont know how good they can make the graphics? if i remember rightly they cut down on the number of cars in the game so they could make the graphics look better. limitation right there hey. And a game doesnt just rest on graphics anyway.
> a) Fantastic article, everyone read it. Fact is, GT3 already equals
> what Ninty know what the GC can do, but even Sony don't know what
> the PS2 can do.
Even if this is true, what da hell does it mean anyway? sony dont know how good they can make the graphics? if i remember rightly they cut down on the number of cars in the game so they could make the graphics look better. limitation right there hey. And a game doesnt just rest on graphics anyway.
Page: