The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 didn't really read this post, saw the title, skimmed it, time restraints and all.
But I'm no disappointed by the Gamecube, or what I have read about it.
The games sound good.
The games sound different.
They sound like they have used the power of the console to improve more than just the graphics.
I might be wrong, getting caught up in what i believe, and what I want.
Plus the whole GBA-GCN thing. I like that.
My GBA rules, and my Gamecube shall rule with it. Together they will bring me many gaming pleasures, and interact in ways that DO bring something new to gaming.
But I'm no disappointed by the Gamecube, or what I have read about it.
The games sound good.
The games sound different.
They sound like they have used the power of the console to improve more than just the graphics.
I might be wrong, getting caught up in what i believe, and what I want.
Plus the whole GBA-GCN thing. I like that.
My GBA rules, and my Gamecube shall rule with it. Together they will bring me many gaming pleasures, and interact in ways that DO bring something new to gaming.
Here is the best article I know of talking about the emotion engine;
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/playstation2/ee-1.html
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/playstation2/ee-1.html
It is rather ridiculous yet people still believe that clock speed is it all.
It is used as a marketing idea, AMD and Intel both use it but now that 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'll need to check out the PS2 and X-Box (maybe gameCube too) in more detail just to see which is really the more powerful.
It is used as a marketing idea, AMD and Intel both use it but now that 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'll need to check out the PS2 and X-Box (maybe gameCube too) in more detail just to see which is really the more powerful.
AliBoy wrote:
> Seems like a good place to post something.
One thing that annoys me is the
> whole clock speed ratings being used to sell processors, In PC's and consoles,
> you wouldn't buy a car purely on the rev number so why buy a processor based on
> its clock speed?
Those of you who are educated will know what I am going on
> about, there is a lot lot more to a processor than a clock speed and sometimes a
> slower clock speed processor is faster than a highly clocked one.
Want an example?? An AMD Athlon 1.4ghz is faster than an Intel P4 1.8ghz at rendering in 3D studio max, when the same video card etc. is used.
> Seems like a good place to post something.
One thing that annoys me is the
> whole clock speed ratings being used to sell processors, In PC's and consoles,
> you wouldn't buy a car purely on the rev number so why buy a processor based on
> its clock speed?
Those of you who are educated will know what I am going on
> about, there is a lot lot more to a processor than a clock speed and sometimes a
> slower clock speed processor is faster than a highly clocked one.
Want an example?? An AMD Athlon 1.4ghz is faster than an Intel P4 1.8ghz at rendering in 3D studio max, when the same video card etc. is used.
Goten wrote:
> So Bonus, is the fact that PS2 has four processors the reason why it is/was hard
> to make games for?
Yes, and the fact that the emotion engine was designed specifically for the PS2, nothing like it had been used before.
> So Bonus, is the fact that PS2 has four processors the reason why it is/was hard
> to make games for?
Yes, and the fact that the emotion engine was designed specifically for the PS2, nothing like it had been used before.
Seems like a good place to post something.
One thing that annoys me is the whole clock speed ratings being used to sell processors, In PC's and consoles, you wouldn't buy a car purely on the rev number so why buy a processor based on its clock speed?
Those of you who are educated will know what I am going on about, there is a lot lot more to a processor than a clock speed and sometimes a slower clock speed processor is faster than a highly clocked one.
There is a standard way of working out performance for processors, SPEC benchmarks, but sadly console processors don't really get tested. All this microsoft marketing with "Most powerful processor" may well be true (Not looked into it in detail) but who cares? There is a lot more to it than that.
I do agree with you Bonus, very little has changed, maybe with all three competing it will mean next time round one of the companies is releasing a console they will make sure it is something special.
The reason the PS2 is hard to design games for is because of it's internal architecture it allows the developer a lot of choices and realisticly they could do just about anything in a game. The problem is getting used to it and taking the time to get used to techniques of doing things on it. Could see a jump in the standard of PS2 games soon.
One thing that annoys me is the whole clock speed ratings being used to sell processors, In PC's and consoles, you wouldn't buy a car purely on the rev number so why buy a processor based on its clock speed?
Those of you who are educated will know what I am going on about, there is a lot lot more to a processor than a clock speed and sometimes a slower clock speed processor is faster than a highly clocked one.
There is a standard way of working out performance for processors, SPEC benchmarks, but sadly console processors don't really get tested. All this microsoft marketing with "Most powerful processor" may well be true (Not looked into it in detail) but who cares? There is a lot more to it than that.
I do agree with you Bonus, very little has changed, maybe with all three competing it will mean next time round one of the companies is releasing a console they will make sure it is something special.
The reason the PS2 is hard to design games for is because of it's internal architecture it allows the developer a lot of choices and realisticly they could do just about anything in a game. The problem is getting used to it and taking the time to get used to techniques of doing things on it. Could see a jump in the standard of PS2 games soon.
Sibs wrote:
I mean maybe PS2 can calculate all this stuff, but F-Zero X (N64) had 30
> vehicles and all could be on screen at once, each has individual stats like
> grip, boost power, and its energy, as well as player defined acceleration/ top
> speed ratio AND a weight which affects damage done to enemies, speed,etc. and it
> managed fine and runs (I think) at 60 FPS constnt.
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.
now that soed seem a lot of
> calculating to me, considering each craft can also boost, which reduces health a
> set amount, recharge health on the pads, tkae damage from enemies and barriers,
> and, if travelling to fast can fly off the track when there is a (relatively
> small) bumb.
not tough stuff to do, especially when the other elements of the game were reduced for these to be possible.
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.
Ninty can make realistic racers
> (Wave Race, 1080), cartoony racers (mario kart), Platformers, Party type games,
> Adventures, shooters (space shooters eg. Lylatwars) and just about any other
> genre they tackle. Same with rare. They have made fighters (Killer Instinct),
> shooters (Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, Jet Force Gemini), Platformers, Misc games
> (Blast Corps) and again can make a good game from any genre they choose.
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
PS2
> may have more POTENTIAL, but I think GC will exploit its potential to the
> fullest with great first and second party developers who will communicate to get
> best results for games. PS2 will only have third party developers, so they won't
> communicate to help create better games, as they are competing.
That isn't why the GC will be a successful development platform. The Gekko processor has been used in high end graphics workstations as IBMs PowerPC system. The code already written to carry out calculations and routines with this system are all in place already as guides and/or for developers to use directly. The libraries of what can be done, and how to do it are huge. The PS2 on the other hand has nothing. The Emotion Engine was designed specifically for the PS2, and that's why developers are having such a hard time compared to Gamecube developers.
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 mean maybe PS2 can calculate all this stuff, but F-Zero X (N64) had 30
> vehicles and all could be on screen at once, each has individual stats like
> grip, boost power, and its energy, as well as player defined acceleration/ top
> speed ratio AND a weight which affects damage done to enemies, speed,etc. and it
> managed fine and runs (I think) at 60 FPS constnt.
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.
now that soed seem a lot of
> calculating to me, considering each craft can also boost, which reduces health a
> set amount, recharge health on the pads, tkae damage from enemies and barriers,
> and, if travelling to fast can fly off the track when there is a (relatively
> small) bumb.
not tough stuff to do, especially when the other elements of the game were reduced for these to be possible.
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.
Ninty can make realistic racers
> (Wave Race, 1080), cartoony racers (mario kart), Platformers, Party type games,
> Adventures, shooters (space shooters eg. Lylatwars) and just about any other
> genre they tackle. Same with rare. They have made fighters (Killer Instinct),
> shooters (Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, Jet Force Gemini), Platformers, Misc games
> (Blast Corps) and again can make a good game from any genre they choose.
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
PS2
> may have more POTENTIAL, but I think GC will exploit its potential to the
> fullest with great first and second party developers who will communicate to get
> best results for games. PS2 will only have third party developers, so they won't
> communicate to help create better games, as they are competing.
That isn't why the GC will be a successful development platform. The Gekko processor has been used in high end graphics workstations as IBMs PowerPC system. The code already written to carry out calculations and routines with this system are all in place already as guides and/or for developers to use directly. The libraries of what can be done, and how to do it are huge. The PS2 on the other hand has nothing. The Emotion Engine was designed specifically for the PS2, and that's why developers are having such a hard time compared to Gamecube developers.
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
Yeah, but Bonus the thing is can anyone tap into the power of those ighty Vector Units? N64 had em and only times the full power was displayed (probably never FULLY actually) was in games like Zelda, Perfect Dark and Conkers BFD.
Great graphics, AI and explosions, etc.
And that was with Ninty and Rare, two highly experienced and skilled developers. Not many third parties will unlock the VUs and I doubt anyone will ever get close to their full potential
Great graphics, AI and explosions, etc.
And that was with Ninty and Rare, two highly experienced and skilled developers. Not many third parties will unlock the VUs and I doubt anyone will ever get close to their full potential
Right, Strafex, I get your point, but the processor isn't just doing AI, it's doing everything to do with the game. Working out abject trajectories, sorting out explosions, user interaction and on and on and on. I made more examples further down using wipeout fusion if you can find it. This is something the design of the PS2 lends itself well to. the emotion engine has two vector units and a core. So basically, there are three processors all going at the same time. The core sorting out mundane tasks, one vector unit doing AI, physics etc, and the other doing vector calculations and transformations. Then there is the Graphics Synthesiser producing the image.
The Gamecube on the other hand has one processor doing all the AI, Physics etc, and one processor doing all the graphics stuff. So to the PS2s 4 processors, the GC has 2.
Now, before I get shouted at, thats a very crude and basic explanation, because going into more detail just gets complicated and I don't know the whole story myself, I just know that the PS2 can do better maths than the GC, but the PS2 is hard to actually get to work.
The Gamecube on the other hand has one processor doing all the AI, Physics etc, and one processor doing all the graphics stuff. So to the PS2s 4 processors, the GC has 2.
Now, before I get shouted at, thats a very crude and basic explanation, because going into more detail just gets complicated and I don't know the whole story myself, I just know that the PS2 can do better maths than the GC, but the PS2 is hard to actually get to work.
Page: