The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Ok, just an idea and yet a valid enough argument to say the least.
Now people would have other's to believe that the Nintendo Gamecube and PS2 are on equal power with each other concerning graphics, despite the various mis-matches that exist between each systems.
I have always denied however that there is.
So I'll ask this question- "Why then does GC Versions of PS2 Games have superior features to their PS2 Counterpart, if that's the case?"
Ill name GC examples:
1. Tony Hawk's 3
2. Klonoa 2 ( Which has been announced to be of higher standard than PS2)
3. Extreme G3
4. NFL Blitz
5. FIFA 2002
These are a tiny few and there are many more.
Well?
Now people would have other's to believe that the Nintendo Gamecube and PS2 are on equal power with each other concerning graphics, despite the various mis-matches that exist between each systems.
I have always denied however that there is.
So I'll ask this question- "Why then does GC Versions of PS2 Games have superior features to their PS2 Counterpart, if that's the case?"
Ill name GC examples:
1. Tony Hawk's 3
2. Klonoa 2 ( Which has been announced to be of higher standard than PS2)
3. Extreme G3
4. NFL Blitz
5. FIFA 2002
These are a tiny few and there are many more.
Well?
Page:
Cooky, see my last-but-one post to see what the architecture of each machine may mean.
You say that the Gamecube currently has better graphics than the Playstation 2, and that that can be explained due to the PS2 being in early stages of its development. Well going that the PS2 has been out for ages and the Gamecube has only just come out in Japan. Don't you think that the Gamecube is also in its early stages of development, thus thats graphics can only get better too.
You see, whereas the PS2 is a monster to develop for, and its alot harder for developer to do what they want. The graphics architecture of the Gamecube has many in built features that allow developers to create very nice looking graphics with ease. Thus with a bit of luck, the Gamecube's graphics will be looking far smarter than the PS2's for quite a while more!
:)
You see, whereas the PS2 is a monster to develop for, and its alot harder for developer to do what they want. The graphics architecture of the Gamecube has many in built features that allow developers to create very nice looking graphics with ease. Thus with a bit of luck, the Gamecube's graphics will be looking far smarter than the PS2's for quite a while more!
:)
Early days yes. Blurry etc..
And the reason?.....'Anti-Aliasing'.
But even at that, they still looked better than PS.
And the reason?.....'Anti-Aliasing'.
But even at that, they still looked better than PS.
Personally speaking, the 'look' of the games was a major factor (aside from the software available) in my never buying an N64 ; they had a faded, washed-out, almost blurry look to them.
The Playstation had more Polygon Pushing power than the N64.
Now what system made it's games look great?, Better than the other system too?
Exactly.
Now what system made it's games look great?, Better than the other system too?
Exactly.
Lylat Wars.
That's all I need to say.
That's all I need to say.
WolfHound wrote:
> Well developer's have said that they have more power on GC to added extra
> 'Superior' features.
I think these will be mainly in the area of graphics - lighting etc. Granted, the 'cube has some features that the PS2 is lacking, such as hardware lights, shading etc.
These will no doubt make some of the games look smoother. However, the PS2 pushes significantly more polygons, so the graphics can be more detailed.
So there's some kind of trade-off on both systems.
The main advantage I know of with the GC (from an interview with the designer which I read a few weeks ago as a result of someone's post on here) is that developers know exactly how much power they can allocate to each area of a game (graphics, sound, polygons etc.) before performance in other areas starts to drop.
This will possibly allow for slightly faster development of games, but as everything has been 'set in stone', it suggests a less flexible system which *may* be more suited to some game styles than others.
The PS2's architecture means that it's more open-ended; nothing is set in stone. Obviously there is an upper limit to all areas, but using Sony's Performance Analyser software means that developers can track the usage of all PS2's processors while developing code, and adjust it as necessary to squeeze every bit of power from the machine.
One thing's for sure, though - both machines will have plenty of games to keep the punters happy. There'll be some crossover in titles, but each will draw its own crowd based on the games available.
Even though I plan to get a 'cube, and even though it has more adult-oriented games than its predecessors, I still think that the Nintendo machine will largely be favoured by the younger audience. I also believe that, of the two companies, Sony will continue to have the largest market share.
Certainly, neither company or platform is in danger of failing, even after Xbox arrives. Neither really have anything to prove in the gaming world, where as Microsoft have everything to prove.
> Well developer's have said that they have more power on GC to added extra
> 'Superior' features.
I think these will be mainly in the area of graphics - lighting etc. Granted, the 'cube has some features that the PS2 is lacking, such as hardware lights, shading etc.
These will no doubt make some of the games look smoother. However, the PS2 pushes significantly more polygons, so the graphics can be more detailed.
So there's some kind of trade-off on both systems.
The main advantage I know of with the GC (from an interview with the designer which I read a few weeks ago as a result of someone's post on here) is that developers know exactly how much power they can allocate to each area of a game (graphics, sound, polygons etc.) before performance in other areas starts to drop.
This will possibly allow for slightly faster development of games, but as everything has been 'set in stone', it suggests a less flexible system which *may* be more suited to some game styles than others.
The PS2's architecture means that it's more open-ended; nothing is set in stone. Obviously there is an upper limit to all areas, but using Sony's Performance Analyser software means that developers can track the usage of all PS2's processors while developing code, and adjust it as necessary to squeeze every bit of power from the machine.
One thing's for sure, though - both machines will have plenty of games to keep the punters happy. There'll be some crossover in titles, but each will draw its own crowd based on the games available.
Even though I plan to get a 'cube, and even though it has more adult-oriented games than its predecessors, I still think that the Nintendo machine will largely be favoured by the younger audience. I also believe that, of the two companies, Sony will continue to have the largest market share.
Certainly, neither company or platform is in danger of failing, even after Xbox arrives. Neither really have anything to prove in the gaming world, where as Microsoft have everything to prove.
What are the many more? There aren't that many that are on both formats.
It's untrue to say that "a lot" of developers have said that PS2 is difficult to code for. A few have said this, it has been widely reported, and everyone thinks that no-one likes coding for the machine. More developers have said that they have no trouble developing for the machine. Most developers have said nothing.
I would also agree with Pro Evo... differences in games between platforms are more down to the devloper. Criterion Studios are a small outfit who make PS2 middleware development systems for other companies. You only have to look at their two current projects - Airblade and Burnout - to see what can be done. If a small developer can turn out products of this quality, the big companies have absolutely no excuse!
It's untrue to say that "a lot" of developers have said that PS2 is difficult to code for. A few have said this, it has been widely reported, and everyone thinks that no-one likes coding for the machine. More developers have said that they have no trouble developing for the machine. Most developers have said nothing.
I would also agree with Pro Evo... differences in games between platforms are more down to the devloper. Criterion Studios are a small outfit who make PS2 middleware development systems for other companies. You only have to look at their two current projects - Airblade and Burnout - to see what can be done. If a small developer can turn out products of this quality, the big companies have absolutely no excuse!
Well developer's have said that they have more power on GC to added extra 'Superior' features.
Going by that, they could be- Better graphics, Better sound, more effects and specialities.
You know, 'the usual'.
Going by that, they could be- Better graphics, Better sound, more effects and specialities.
You know, 'the usual'.
I think he means like extra levels and more options, you know that sort of thing
Page: