The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
And there is a very simple explanation for it too........
This time around, nothing new is being done by the guys who make the consoles, simply because nothing new has become available to the mass market. This will lead people to feel underwhelmed and disappointed in their new console. I do have examples to show this, so please just hear me out.
First we take the Playstation 2.
What exactly can the PS2 do, that the PSX can't? Emmm, not much really. In terms of graphics, yes there will be massive advances forward, and this is already visible, all you have to do is compare the original Ridge Racer, to Ridge Racer 5 on the PS2. Massive graphical difference between the two, and in terms of gameplay, well, RRV is just RRIV in disguise isn't it?? Yes, it is, and that's because the initial launch games of the Playstation 2 were no better than PSOne games with a higher frame rate, and nicer graphics, yes, that counts for SSX too. The big advances for the PS2 will come when MGS2 is released, simply because of the vastly accurate representation of real actions included in the game. This is possible because of the amount of math which the PS2 can churn through, which isn't to do with graphics. (Yes, for those of us who care little for how much better the GC or Xbox graphics look than the PS2, be content that it can handle the gameplay no bother at all.) But in terms of visual impact or presentable qualities, most people who don't appreciate the finer things in life, like melting Ice Cubes, the impact will be minimal.
As for the Gamecube, it will be more impressive visually than the Playstation 2, and it will support massive frame rates, so the F-Zero Next-Gen non-sequel, will run faster than ever before. But the system doesn't do maths at the drop of a hat. Listen to the same Ninties who told you that graphics don't matter to games a couple of years ago, and they have all becoma expert games developers, and know everything there is to know about texture compression, Hardware Transformation and Lighting, memory latency and disc buffers. All of which have everything to do with graphics, ask them about FPU calculations dedicated to AI, Physics and geometry, and that is now what doesn't count, the things which important to gameplay. Basically, what we will see from the NGC is exactly what Nintendo wanted the N64 to be, a bright, colourful and simple console, nothing too extravagent, nothing too complicated. N64 games at 60fps, some of us will be content would have been content with this a year ago.
As for the Xbox, well, it's a dark horse. People compare it to PCs all the time, but forget that Windows takes up more than 50% of your system resources at any given moment. The Xbox doesn't have Windows, so there are vastly improved levels of system resources available to the games developers. None of us can tell the capabilities of an Xbox. When you consider that the Dreamcast is no more than a PC based console without Windows, then Sega fans may begin to realise that the limited spec of the DC could produce marvelous things, what could the same console have done with a P3 733 and a geforce 3, under it's belt? You may begin to realise that the Xbox is a very exciting technical prospect. But it does have a major issue. It doesn't have any must have games, there isn't anything at the moment which will set it apart from any other system. Some will be attracted to it because of Shenmue and Jet Set Radio, but those same people can see Sonic and PSO heading for the Gamecube. So the best system has the worst games list.
So in the end, the new consoles can be narrowed down and compared to upgrading a PC.
The Playstation 2 is like taking yous PC and fitting a new processor and a not so top of the range graphics card, it will do maths like nothing else, but is limited in terms of graphical output.
The Gamecube is like spending most of your dosh on a geforce 2 graphics card, and a not so hot CPU. It will do as much math as you need, but it will struggle to do really advance calculations simultaneously.
The Xbox will be like buying the ultimate PC, better than anything else. Shame that it dosn't support PS2 software, or it would have won the console war no bother at all.
This time around, nothing new is being done by the guys who make the consoles, simply because nothing new has become available to the mass market. This will lead people to feel underwhelmed and disappointed in their new console. I do have examples to show this, so please just hear me out.
First we take the Playstation 2.
What exactly can the PS2 do, that the PSX can't? Emmm, not much really. In terms of graphics, yes there will be massive advances forward, and this is already visible, all you have to do is compare the original Ridge Racer, to Ridge Racer 5 on the PS2. Massive graphical difference between the two, and in terms of gameplay, well, RRV is just RRIV in disguise isn't it?? Yes, it is, and that's because the initial launch games of the Playstation 2 were no better than PSOne games with a higher frame rate, and nicer graphics, yes, that counts for SSX too. The big advances for the PS2 will come when MGS2 is released, simply because of the vastly accurate representation of real actions included in the game. This is possible because of the amount of math which the PS2 can churn through, which isn't to do with graphics. (Yes, for those of us who care little for how much better the GC or Xbox graphics look than the PS2, be content that it can handle the gameplay no bother at all.) But in terms of visual impact or presentable qualities, most people who don't appreciate the finer things in life, like melting Ice Cubes, the impact will be minimal.
As for the Gamecube, it will be more impressive visually than the Playstation 2, and it will support massive frame rates, so the F-Zero Next-Gen non-sequel, will run faster than ever before. But the system doesn't do maths at the drop of a hat. Listen to the same Ninties who told you that graphics don't matter to games a couple of years ago, and they have all becoma expert games developers, and know everything there is to know about texture compression, Hardware Transformation and Lighting, memory latency and disc buffers. All of which have everything to do with graphics, ask them about FPU calculations dedicated to AI, Physics and geometry, and that is now what doesn't count, the things which important to gameplay. Basically, what we will see from the NGC is exactly what Nintendo wanted the N64 to be, a bright, colourful and simple console, nothing too extravagent, nothing too complicated. N64 games at 60fps, some of us will be content would have been content with this a year ago.
As for the Xbox, well, it's a dark horse. People compare it to PCs all the time, but forget that Windows takes up more than 50% of your system resources at any given moment. The Xbox doesn't have Windows, so there are vastly improved levels of system resources available to the games developers. None of us can tell the capabilities of an Xbox. When you consider that the Dreamcast is no more than a PC based console without Windows, then Sega fans may begin to realise that the limited spec of the DC could produce marvelous things, what could the same console have done with a P3 733 and a geforce 3, under it's belt? You may begin to realise that the Xbox is a very exciting technical prospect. But it does have a major issue. It doesn't have any must have games, there isn't anything at the moment which will set it apart from any other system. Some will be attracted to it because of Shenmue and Jet Set Radio, but those same people can see Sonic and PSO heading for the Gamecube. So the best system has the worst games list.
So in the end, the new consoles can be narrowed down and compared to upgrading a PC.
The Playstation 2 is like taking yous PC and fitting a new processor and a not so top of the range graphics card, it will do maths like nothing else, but is limited in terms of graphical output.
The Gamecube is like spending most of your dosh on a geforce 2 graphics card, and a not so hot CPU. It will do as much math as you need, but it will struggle to do really advance calculations simultaneously.
The Xbox will be like buying the ultimate PC, better than anything else. Shame that it dosn't support PS2 software, or it would have won the console war no bother at all.
Page:
I agree Strafex, and that's what I mean.
PS2 may have more POTENTIAL for better AI, etc. but GameCube will be able to exploit its full potential much better than the PS2 will be able to.
PS2 may have more POTENTIAL for better AI, etc. but GameCube will be able to exploit its full potential much better than the PS2 will be able to.
G-Sufers would be difficult to make on the Gamecube (if not impossible) because the way in which it works requires heavy polygon pushing.
I've no doubt that polygon texturing will be lacking the game and it's a worthwhile trade off.
So it wouldn't work to well with the Gamecube's limited polygons but wonderful textures set up.
There's no reason why MGS2 wouldn't work though.
Anyway, the Gamecube's main processor out performs the PS2's and although it has to do more task's like sound, it seems to juggle multiple tasks effortlessly because of large cache memory.
I can't properly argue until I research and understand the way things work perfectly, but even if the PS2 does have an advantage in the AI department, Pikmin shows that the Gamecube's capabilities are more than adequate for strong AI and much better than what programmers can actually make out of the PS2.
I've no doubt that polygon texturing will be lacking the game and it's a worthwhile trade off.
So it wouldn't work to well with the Gamecube's limited polygons but wonderful textures set up.
There's no reason why MGS2 wouldn't work though.
Anyway, the Gamecube's main processor out performs the PS2's and although it has to do more task's like sound, it seems to juggle multiple tasks effortlessly because of large cache memory.
I can't properly argue until I research and understand the way things work perfectly, but even if the PS2 does have an advantage in the AI department, Pikmin shows that the Gamecube's capabilities are more than adequate for strong AI and much better than what programmers can actually make out of the PS2.
I dunno about the other two you said (don't know much about em) but Burnout doesn't actually look like it uses that many calculations. Sure it has to do all the crashes etc. but loads of games do 'realistic' crashes without the PS2 processing power, and it only has to keep track of the damage of your car, so not loads of different cars at the same time.
I think a better example might be that stunt game... Stuntdriver or something?
That looks like it would have to have a lot of calculating, etc. in it, but that doesn't necessarilt make it a good game.
Games don't need to be complex to be good. Look at Tetris. The more complex later versions have never sold anywhere near as well as the GB original. The new stuff just clogged up the game, and it lost the 'pick up and play' element.
I think a better example might be that stunt game... Stuntdriver or something?
That looks like it would have to have a lot of calculating, etc. in it, but that doesn't necessarilt make it a good game.
Games don't need to be complex to be good. Look at Tetris. The more complex later versions have never sold anywhere near as well as the GB original. The new stuff just clogged up the game, and it lost the 'pick up and play' element.
Maths really is the most important element of a console's power. Without the immense mathmatical capabilities of the PS2, games like Burnout, G-Surfers and MGS2 would not be possible. Neither are they possible on the GameCube, some of the developers have said.
First time I heard that... Originality????
Where? Where? KILL IT KILL IT NOW
Where? Where? KILL IT KILL IT NOW
I don't care that one console has more must have games than another. As long as I can play a good enjoyable game, regardless of the quality of graphics, then I'm happy. I've recently bought a PS2, for two reasons:
1) Its got good games out, and will have good games coming out in the future.
2) It's out now. I don't want to have to wait till next year, and I don't want to spend £500 to get a games machine imported from somewhere it costs less to buy than over here... when it eventually arives
1) Its got good games out, and will have good games coming out in the future.
2) It's out now. I don't want to have to wait till next year, and I don't want to spend £500 to get a games machine imported from somewhere it costs less to buy than over here... when it eventually arives
Bonus wrote:
(talking about F-Zero X)
This game had massive slow down, and 30 vehicles all on the screen
> at once, not in the version I played anyway. The game also had it's graphics
> toned down to reach those speeds, because the system couldn't cope otherwise,
> the draw distance was poor, and the scenery was almost non-existent.
I'm not sure what version you were playing? The Snes one? I have had the game since release and have spotted no noticable slow down. Maybe it doesn't ALWAYS run at 60FPS (not sure...) but I have never noticed it slow down and as long as it doesn't drop below about 30FPS it doesn't affect gameplay anyway. Yes the graphics were minimal, but this is a prime example of how a game doesn't have to have the greatest graphics ever to be the leader in its field. I think F-Zero X is a VERY strong contendor for best space age racer.
That seems a hell of a lot of stuff to me. and the Gc is
> more
> powerful. The point I'm saying is that does the PS2 NEED all the
> power? There
> were great games on 16 bit consoles even by todays standards,
> and games just as
> great going even further back. Will the PS2 ever use all
> that calculating power?
> I don't know. I don't know if the GC will use all
> its calculating power, but in
> the end it's not the complex calculations
> that make a game, it is playability. The calculations etc. may help make complex
> games but games do not have to be
> complex to be good. What I mean is PS2
> may have all this potential, but it may
> never fully be used. In my opinion
> Nintendo and Rare (Sega too) are the top
> console developers, and also most
> versatile.
At last someone who understands where what he wants. But put it
> this way, if you get a Gamecube, would you be happy playing Pong?? I don't
> think you would. 2D platformers similar to your GBA?? No, you want a new
> console to have all the bells and whistles and create new Gameplay experiences.
> Something which, in the end, always comes down to the amount of maths which a
> console can handle.
I wouldn't want a game as simple as pong, but take something like Zelda on the Nes and Snes. I would be very happy for a game like those (even top down) to come out on GC with good (albeit 2D) graphics, if the gameplay were good enough. Now at this stage in gaming, where games are becoming increasingly complex it is not necessarily good for games to become more complex. Yeah, it can be good, but many developers are going to try and use all this complex calculations, etc. and find that they end up with loads of maths, but ultimately lacking in gameplay, as the game gets too complex. Yeah, I'm sure some developers WILL pull it off, but even then, is it really necessary to have all the PS2s power? I doubt any will use all of it.
Fair point, not all Nintendo games, but it shows the versatility of
> the N64 console. But rememberm there weren't many more good games than those you
> have listed :D
I'd disagree, but that is a matter of opinion...
Also the
> Zelda
> example. Bad example. If the new final fantasy game had an ultra realistic
>
> movie released, that made it look virtually real, then it was changed to a
>
> cel-shaded cartoon look PS2 fans would be up in arms about it. The thing
> with
> Zelda on N64 was the worlds were so incredible to just look in
> wonderment at.
> People feel they are going to lose that sense of grandeur,
> etc. but after
> talking and discussing this a lot (I argued the point in
> Zelda forum in game
> forums) most people decided that they couldn't yet
> judge the game on purely
> graphics. And most who said stuff like 'I doubt
> I'll get the new Zelda now' then
> decided they probably would as long as
> gameplay wasn't affected.
Zelda, good example, I was one of the few who
> actually sttod up for it, although OOT was crap, sorry to say. And as for the
> huge environments, fair enough, but you couldn't see further than a few metres
> because of the FOG. :D
I don't think OOT was crap. It was a bit of a let down, but that's cos it was over-hyped. The main problem for me was it was too short! The main game wasn;t as long as Link to the Past OR Links Awakening, the previous two I had playe in the series. Oh, and how can you talk about fog? There is hardly any fog in Zelda, especially when compared to most games on PSX!
Still you're point was that Ninty fans were outraged at the change, and I bet you anything, that if the same happened with the next FF game, PS2 owners would be up in arms about it just as much (or more) than Ninty fans were about Zelda. Maybe not you, but not all Ninties minded the changes to Zelda, and I also defended them.
Anyway, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE is going to deny me my Cube!!!
(talking about F-Zero X)
This game had massive slow down, and 30 vehicles all on the screen
> at once, not in the version I played anyway. The game also had it's graphics
> toned down to reach those speeds, because the system couldn't cope otherwise,
> the draw distance was poor, and the scenery was almost non-existent.
I'm not sure what version you were playing? The Snes one? I have had the game since release and have spotted no noticable slow down. Maybe it doesn't ALWAYS run at 60FPS (not sure...) but I have never noticed it slow down and as long as it doesn't drop below about 30FPS it doesn't affect gameplay anyway. Yes the graphics were minimal, but this is a prime example of how a game doesn't have to have the greatest graphics ever to be the leader in its field. I think F-Zero X is a VERY strong contendor for best space age racer.
That seems a hell of a lot of stuff to me. and the Gc is
> more
> powerful. The point I'm saying is that does the PS2 NEED all the
> power? There
> were great games on 16 bit consoles even by todays standards,
> and games just as
> great going even further back. Will the PS2 ever use all
> that calculating power?
> I don't know. I don't know if the GC will use all
> its calculating power, but in
> the end it's not the complex calculations
> that make a game, it is playability. The calculations etc. may help make complex
> games but games do not have to be
> complex to be good. What I mean is PS2
> may have all this potential, but it may
> never fully be used. In my opinion
> Nintendo and Rare (Sega too) are the top
> console developers, and also most
> versatile.
At last someone who understands where what he wants. But put it
> this way, if you get a Gamecube, would you be happy playing Pong?? I don't
> think you would. 2D platformers similar to your GBA?? No, you want a new
> console to have all the bells and whistles and create new Gameplay experiences.
> Something which, in the end, always comes down to the amount of maths which a
> console can handle.
I wouldn't want a game as simple as pong, but take something like Zelda on the Nes and Snes. I would be very happy for a game like those (even top down) to come out on GC with good (albeit 2D) graphics, if the gameplay were good enough. Now at this stage in gaming, where games are becoming increasingly complex it is not necessarily good for games to become more complex. Yeah, it can be good, but many developers are going to try and use all this complex calculations, etc. and find that they end up with loads of maths, but ultimately lacking in gameplay, as the game gets too complex. Yeah, I'm sure some developers WILL pull it off, but even then, is it really necessary to have all the PS2s power? I doubt any will use all of it.
Fair point, not all Nintendo games, but it shows the versatility of
> the N64 console. But rememberm there weren't many more good games than those you
> have listed :D
I'd disagree, but that is a matter of opinion...
Also the
> Zelda
> example. Bad example. If the new final fantasy game had an ultra realistic
>
> movie released, that made it look virtually real, then it was changed to a
>
> cel-shaded cartoon look PS2 fans would be up in arms about it. The thing
> with
> Zelda on N64 was the worlds were so incredible to just look in
> wonderment at.
> People feel they are going to lose that sense of grandeur,
> etc. but after
> talking and discussing this a lot (I argued the point in
> Zelda forum in game
> forums) most people decided that they couldn't yet
> judge the game on purely
> graphics. And most who said stuff like 'I doubt
> I'll get the new Zelda now' then
> decided they probably would as long as
> gameplay wasn't affected.
Zelda, good example, I was one of the few who
> actually sttod up for it, although OOT was crap, sorry to say. And as for the
> huge environments, fair enough, but you couldn't see further than a few metres
> because of the FOG. :D
I don't think OOT was crap. It was a bit of a let down, but that's cos it was over-hyped. The main problem for me was it was too short! The main game wasn;t as long as Link to the Past OR Links Awakening, the previous two I had playe in the series. Oh, and how can you talk about fog? There is hardly any fog in Zelda, especially when compared to most games on PSX!
Still you're point was that Ninty fans were outraged at the change, and I bet you anything, that if the same happened with the next FF game, PS2 owners would be up in arms about it just as much (or more) than Ninty fans were about Zelda. Maybe not you, but not all Ninties minded the changes to Zelda, and I also defended them.
Anyway, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE is going to deny me my Cube!!!
Each company has different processors at 1600 MHz, ie the motherboard on each varies a little. Macking them slightly better. It also depends on what you want to use it for as to which may be better.
The two are quite similar in there SPEC benchmark values but if you are geting a "Gigabyte GA-7DX Motherboard, AMD Athlon (TM) XP 1600+" then it seems to get the highest score out of them all.
The two are quite similar in there SPEC benchmark values but if you are geting a "Gigabyte GA-7DX Motherboard, AMD Athlon (TM) XP 1600+" then it seems to get the highest score out of them all.
AliBoy wrote:
> AMD can't keep up with Intel they say that clock speed isn't whats important. In
> saying that it is very true, there latest processor out performs the P4 although
> the clock speed is slower.
I'm getting a new PC next week, and i'm either gonna get one with a 1600+ athlon xp, or pentuim 4 1.6ghz. The price is about the same, but which is better?
> AMD can't keep up with Intel they say that clock speed isn't whats important. In
> saying that it is very true, there latest processor out performs the P4 although
> the clock speed is slower.
I'm getting a new PC next week, and i'm either gonna get one with a 1600+ athlon xp, or pentuim 4 1.6ghz. The price is about the same, but which is better?
Using Meka as an example........ :D
That's all gaming needs to be to the gamer, it's those of us who want to develop games for consoles that need to bother about how quickly it adds 1+1, and whether or not it gets the answer right.
That's all gaming needs to be to the gamer, it's those of us who want to develop games for consoles that need to bother about how quickly it adds 1+1, and whether or not it gets the answer right.
Page: