The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
It is a waste of money and is no where near as good as a N64 or a PC. Also if it is like any of the Playstation 1 games it will be rubbish
Page:
All perfectly reasonable. But one point...
> The resolution is 640*480. We're also going to say that the games
> will run at 60fps
[snip]
> Now kindly explain why you would need to push 75 million polys. a
> second when you couldn't even display that many even if they were
> only 1 pixels big when rendered.
GT3 is currently running at a resolution of 1280x480, 20-million polys, at 60fps, which following your logic would require more polygons.
Just pointing it out, not arguing with your logic.
> The resolution is 640*480. We're also going to say that the games
> will run at 60fps
[snip]
> Now kindly explain why you would need to push 75 million polys. a
> second when you couldn't even display that many even if they were
> only 1 pixels big when rendered.
GT3 is currently running at a resolution of 1280x480, 20-million polys, at 60fps, which following your logic would require more polygons.
Just pointing it out, not arguing with your logic.
This is mainly to Kieran, who I now see takes things far too personally.
But just to give you a reply (you gotta admit this is fun, and passes the morning at work :) )
Firstly I didn't realise magazines were the be-all and end-all on console knowledge I thought they were just journalists, I guess all that stuff I read in the tabloids must be true as well then as they couldn't possibly be wrong either.
As for 75 mil Polys per sec. Let me just explain something for you (this is not my opinion either):
The resolution is 640*480. We're also going to say that the games will run at 60fps, so lets do a quick calculation shall we:
640*480 = 307200 (this is the number of pixels that can be displayed in any one frame).
As we're at 60 frames per second, in one second we can display 307200 * 60 pixels = 18432000 pixels displayed in one second.
We'll round this number up to say 18.5 million pixels are used to display 1 second of game at 640*480 @ 60fps.
Now kindly explain why you would need to push 75 million polys. a second when you couldn't even display that many even if they were only 1 pixels big when rendered.
Even if we take into account a Z-sort and the back-plane culling that takes place we would still only need 18.5 mil * 2 at the very most.
It's nice to see these companies outdoing each other with their polgon counts but you've got to realise the it is all just the marketing people talking trash to impress the general public.
(In case your interested these calulations came from my brain not a magazine, which I also used once ;) before in 1992-96 to get a comp-sci degree)
Either way enjoy your PS2 this weekend.
(BTW: The moment people have to swear to put forward an argument you know their reaching the limits of their intelligence ;) )
But just to give you a reply (you gotta admit this is fun, and passes the morning at work :) )
Firstly I didn't realise magazines were the be-all and end-all on console knowledge I thought they were just journalists, I guess all that stuff I read in the tabloids must be true as well then as they couldn't possibly be wrong either.
As for 75 mil Polys per sec. Let me just explain something for you (this is not my opinion either):
The resolution is 640*480. We're also going to say that the games will run at 60fps, so lets do a quick calculation shall we:
640*480 = 307200 (this is the number of pixels that can be displayed in any one frame).
As we're at 60 frames per second, in one second we can display 307200 * 60 pixels = 18432000 pixels displayed in one second.
We'll round this number up to say 18.5 million pixels are used to display 1 second of game at 640*480 @ 60fps.
Now kindly explain why you would need to push 75 million polys. a second when you couldn't even display that many even if they were only 1 pixels big when rendered.
Even if we take into account a Z-sort and the back-plane culling that takes place we would still only need 18.5 mil * 2 at the very most.
It's nice to see these companies outdoing each other with their polgon counts but you've got to realise the it is all just the marketing people talking trash to impress the general public.
(In case your interested these calulations came from my brain not a magazine, which I also used once ;) before in 1992-96 to get a comp-sci degree)
Either way enjoy your PS2 this weekend.
(BTW: The moment people have to swear to put forward an argument you know their reaching the limits of their intelligence ;) )
Yesss, I will decide for myself on that one. You can guess what I think...
Babylonian, you're in high spirits!! Haven't been here for a while, how's it going??
Babylonian, you're in high spirits!! Haven't been here for a while, how's it going??
> Firstly, polygon counts - This simply doesnt matter because you
> are stationg the polygons without effects for the PS2,
like Sony
> has,
From Dreamcast.co.uk
"GRAPHICS ENGINE: Power VR Second Generation (rated at 3 million polygons per second)"
PS2 runs around 75 million polys/sec with no effects. GT3 is currently running at 60fps with 20 million polys/sec, using effects and stacks of textures.
>In reality, the PS2 can not handle the effects on the
> polygons that the DC can as it only has 4MB SDRAm whilst the DC
> has 8MB SDRAM
With a bus speed of 3.2Gb/sec (same as Intel's new P4, by the way), graphics data can be dumped into VRAM at such speeds as to make this irrelevant. I've not seen one game yet that appears to suffer in any way as a result of this, either. Just look at the textures and effects in GT3 and you'll realise that this isn't even worth discussing.
> Onto speed - The speed on the PS2 can not be utilised as the PS2
> has not got antialiasing built in, the DC has. Thi effect takes up
> to a half of the processing power of the PS2 to perform properly,
> which means, if you can do maths leaves it SLOWER than the DC.
Potentially, nonsense. One developer - and I've tried desperately to find the article, but can't - has recently said that, while some methods of anti-aliasing do slow the machine somewhat, they have devised a method which gives 'little or no performance hit'. Oh, and surely if you don't use any effects, the full speed can indeed be utilised?!
I've read lots about the jaggies in Ridge V, and some of the screenshots do look poor. But having seen the footage of it on PSW's DVD, I have to say that the game is SO DAMN FAST (sometimes seemingly TOO fast) that you can't see the jaggies anyway. The same applies to TimeSplitters.
> On top of this, the DC is £150 cheper
Yes, it's been out nearly two years, they can afford to drop the price now. 6 months from now, PS2 will also be cheaper. Then again, the Amiga was always more expensive than the Atari ST, but that didn't stop it being the bigger selling machine.
> Also, the PS2 will have 30 games by Christmas, the DC will have
> almost 200. 50 of those are riple A, I have not played one PS2
> game that is of as high quality as Metrolpolis Street Racer etc.
Again, you are talking about a machine that's been around a while. As such you may as well compare Dreamcast to PS1, which fares even better!
Why do the words "clutching" and "straws" come to mind whenever you post...
You have raised some very good points on a few occasions, but sadly your posts usually have more holes than a fishing net. As for being unbiased, well - I'll leave the others to make up their own minds on that one.
> are stationg the polygons without effects for the PS2,
like Sony
> has,
From Dreamcast.co.uk
"GRAPHICS ENGINE: Power VR Second Generation (rated at 3 million polygons per second)"
PS2 runs around 75 million polys/sec with no effects. GT3 is currently running at 60fps with 20 million polys/sec, using effects and stacks of textures.
>In reality, the PS2 can not handle the effects on the
> polygons that the DC can as it only has 4MB SDRAm whilst the DC
> has 8MB SDRAM
With a bus speed of 3.2Gb/sec (same as Intel's new P4, by the way), graphics data can be dumped into VRAM at such speeds as to make this irrelevant. I've not seen one game yet that appears to suffer in any way as a result of this, either. Just look at the textures and effects in GT3 and you'll realise that this isn't even worth discussing.
> Onto speed - The speed on the PS2 can not be utilised as the PS2
> has not got antialiasing built in, the DC has. Thi effect takes up
> to a half of the processing power of the PS2 to perform properly,
> which means, if you can do maths leaves it SLOWER than the DC.
Potentially, nonsense. One developer - and I've tried desperately to find the article, but can't - has recently said that, while some methods of anti-aliasing do slow the machine somewhat, they have devised a method which gives 'little or no performance hit'. Oh, and surely if you don't use any effects, the full speed can indeed be utilised?!
I've read lots about the jaggies in Ridge V, and some of the screenshots do look poor. But having seen the footage of it on PSW's DVD, I have to say that the game is SO DAMN FAST (sometimes seemingly TOO fast) that you can't see the jaggies anyway. The same applies to TimeSplitters.
> On top of this, the DC is £150 cheper
Yes, it's been out nearly two years, they can afford to drop the price now. 6 months from now, PS2 will also be cheaper. Then again, the Amiga was always more expensive than the Atari ST, but that didn't stop it being the bigger selling machine.
> Also, the PS2 will have 30 games by Christmas, the DC will have
> almost 200. 50 of those are riple A, I have not played one PS2
> game that is of as high quality as Metrolpolis Street Racer etc.
Again, you are talking about a machine that's been around a while. As such you may as well compare Dreamcast to PS1, which fares even better!
Why do the words "clutching" and "straws" come to mind whenever you post...
You have raised some very good points on a few occasions, but sadly your posts usually have more holes than a fishing net. As for being unbiased, well - I'll leave the others to make up their own minds on that one.
Tigerblade wrote:
> OK.
> I am completely unbiased.
> And Ill prove it.
> i have owned an imported PS2 for A LONG time now and a UK DC for
> just as long.
> illl tell you now that polygon counts and speed in mhz. doesnt
> matter with the PS2 for many good reasons.
> Firstly, polygon counts - This simply doesnt matter because you
> are stationg the polygons without effects for the PS2, like Sony
> has, and the polygons for the DC including all effects as said by
> Sega. In reality, the PS2 can not handle the effects on the
> polygons that the DC can as it only has 4MB SDRAm whilst the DC
> has 8MB SDRAM so Sony quote their specs without effects. in
> reality, if the effects could be used, it would be around the same
> as the DC.
>
> Onto speed - The speed on the PS2 can not be utilised as the PS2
> has not got antialiasing built in, the DC has. Thi effect takes up
> to a half of the processing power of the PS2 to perform properly,
> which means, if you can do maths leaves it SLOWER than the DC.
>
> On top of this, the DC is £150 cheper and comes with three
> free games in you local Dixons or you can get one with all that
> included and a REGION FREE DVD player for £300.
>
> So, a PS2 with three games, xtra controller etc. - £450
> DC, three games, all extras, region free DVD - £300
>
> Also, the PS2 will have 30 games by Christmas, the DC will have
> almost 200. 50 of those are riple A, I have not played one PS2
> game that is of as high quality as Metrolpolis Street Racer etc.
>
> So, my professional, unbiased opinion is that the Dreamcast is
> better than the PS2 AND you will be able to buy one at Christmas
> becasue Sega have made more than 165,000 units and are going to
> sell ALOT more than Sony..
The only problem with this being, buying a DC now means that you would be taking a step back. It's like buying an S-reg car, it's like new, but not quite.
> OK.
> I am completely unbiased.
> And Ill prove it.
> i have owned an imported PS2 for A LONG time now and a UK DC for
> just as long.
> illl tell you now that polygon counts and speed in mhz. doesnt
> matter with the PS2 for many good reasons.
> Firstly, polygon counts - This simply doesnt matter because you
> are stationg the polygons without effects for the PS2, like Sony
> has, and the polygons for the DC including all effects as said by
> Sega. In reality, the PS2 can not handle the effects on the
> polygons that the DC can as it only has 4MB SDRAm whilst the DC
> has 8MB SDRAM so Sony quote their specs without effects. in
> reality, if the effects could be used, it would be around the same
> as the DC.
>
> Onto speed - The speed on the PS2 can not be utilised as the PS2
> has not got antialiasing built in, the DC has. Thi effect takes up
> to a half of the processing power of the PS2 to perform properly,
> which means, if you can do maths leaves it SLOWER than the DC.
>
> On top of this, the DC is £150 cheper and comes with three
> free games in you local Dixons or you can get one with all that
> included and a REGION FREE DVD player for £300.
>
> So, a PS2 with three games, xtra controller etc. - £450
> DC, three games, all extras, region free DVD - £300
>
> Also, the PS2 will have 30 games by Christmas, the DC will have
> almost 200. 50 of those are riple A, I have not played one PS2
> game that is of as high quality as Metrolpolis Street Racer etc.
>
> So, my professional, unbiased opinion is that the Dreamcast is
> better than the PS2 AND you will be able to buy one at Christmas
> becasue Sega have made more than 165,000 units and are going to
> sell ALOT more than Sony..
The only problem with this being, buying a DC now means that you would be taking a step back. It's like buying an S-reg car, it's like new, but not quite.
Xizor wrote:
> >>DC - 20-30 Million/Sec
> >>PS2 - 75 Million/Sec
>
> LM-F-AO, where the hell did you find these fictional figures,
> thats too funny :D
>
> As for quoting processor speeds, when will you wake up, whilst the
> speed a processor clock ticks at may have a baring on processors
> that are designed exactly the same the real speed increases come
> from cleverly designed architecture.
>
> >>the PS2 IS the best console for sale at the moment.
> Except you can't actually buy it anywhere :)
Listen ar$e wipe, i only quoted those figures as a frame of reference, and as for them being fictional, you're fcuking wrong. Those figures were from a gaming magazine, a completely un-biased games magazine so why would they want to lie.
In the future do yourself and others a favour and stop being a forum fcuk face. By all means give your opinion, but don't come around shooting people down in flames just because they don't like the same consoles as you.
LMFAO my ar$e.
> >>DC - 20-30 Million/Sec
> >>PS2 - 75 Million/Sec
>
> LM-F-AO, where the hell did you find these fictional figures,
> thats too funny :D
>
> As for quoting processor speeds, when will you wake up, whilst the
> speed a processor clock ticks at may have a baring on processors
> that are designed exactly the same the real speed increases come
> from cleverly designed architecture.
>
> >>the PS2 IS the best console for sale at the moment.
> Except you can't actually buy it anywhere :)
Listen ar$e wipe, i only quoted those figures as a frame of reference, and as for them being fictional, you're fcuking wrong. Those figures were from a gaming magazine, a completely un-biased games magazine so why would they want to lie.
In the future do yourself and others a favour and stop being a forum fcuk face. By all means give your opinion, but don't come around shooting people down in flames just because they don't like the same consoles as you.
LMFAO my ar$e.
Page: