PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: ##RaCeR## on August 23, 2002, 03:20:49 AM
-
I hate how all the games have this \'overly bright textured look\'. The games just don\'t seem to look realistic in a photo realism sense. I find that PS2 uses more gritty colours, and gives the overall look of games a realistic appearance.
Is this to do with the XBOX hardware? Is it possible to use these same gritty colour\'s on XBOX?
Here is an example of what I am talking about. Below are pics from the PS2 and XBOX version of NFS:HP2.
See what I mean when it comes to the colours?
PS2
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fps2media.ign.com%2Fps2%2Fimage%2Fnfshp2_071802_1.jpg&hash=7b9f01463afd9b7b47d38d91e617b433d1fd73dc)
XBOX
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tothegame.com%2Fscreens%2Fxb_nfshp2%2F%2F2002-08-15%2Fscreen18_large.jpg&hash=f0bff67e493109759d4c34ce8fd1a0a1e4352e83)
I know its kinda hard to tell from the screens, but I think you all get my drift.
-
THe PS2 version looks dirty (I don\'t know how to explain this) and the Xbox version looks fruity. Maybe you should get better pics to compare?
-
Thats what I am talking about though! PS2 games look gritty, where as XBOX games have this smooth bright coloured sorta thing about it.
I dunno, I might need to find better pics.
-
I think what racer means is that the Xbox version looks pasted on. Sorta like taking pictures of cars and pasting them to another photo of a different quality. Hence....the cookie-cutter look.
I do agree. But there are some games on Xbox beautifully executed. Some. Munch\'s Oddysee for one.
-
All I know is when I get the games home, the PS2 can\'t touch the textures on xbox. The games just look better.
-
X-Box- To bright
PS2- To gritty
NGC- Just right ;)
-
yeah, if it wasnt for the shitty controller, the NGC would be looking fabulous
-
"Shitty" is subjective, my friend.. :)
-
I always reffered to it as the DirectX look, but what do I know?
;)
-
I prefer the ultra colorful Xbox graphics over the gritty PS2 graphics; just a personal preference.
-
Actually, the controller is the only thing I like about the NGC right now.
What I dislike about PS2\'s graphics is how it seems like most games only have a dozen colours in them.
-
I can see both points of view. I used to argue this point a lot back in the DC vs. PS2 day. I do like the grittier color scheme in -SOME- games.. because some games have an atmosphere which just demands dark and realistic looking color pallets. The PS2 seems to get these games down excellently.. but you really don\'t see any of the overly colorful and impressive scenes that you will on Xbox, NGC, or DC. Some games just demand bright and colorful graphics.. like Crazy Taxi for example. "Dirty" jus dosen\'t cut it.
For me tho.. I enjoy texture detail far more than color schemes. What\'s the point in realistic coloring if the textures are all washed out and faded? This is one of the PS2\'s biggest hurdles (along with AA).. and we know it can be overcome. It\'s just a question of how often we\'ll see it. In the end it all comes down to gameplay tho.. graphics are only impressive for about 20 minuites on average. After that, you\'re stuck with what\'s beneith all the flash..
-
I think the Xbox games have cleaner images. I found some info.
PS2 vs. Xbox: Graphics Processors
Here is where the PS2 and Xbox differ tremendously in approaches to graphics processor design. Again we\'ll start out with the PS2 first. The task of rendering is left to the Graphics Synthesizer (GS) which is a massively parallel graphics core running at 150MHz. The low clock speed of the core is theoretically made up for by the fact that it has 16 pixel pipelines giving a theoretical pixel fill rate of 2.4 gigapixels/s and a peak theoretical texel fill rate of 1.2 gigatexels/s for single textured games. We all know how reliable theoretical fill rates are so we\'ll leave the specs at that, but it is pertinent to point out that these fill rates are entirely dependent on 100% utilization of the 16 pixel pipelines of the GS. As we know from our experience with execution units in CPUs, that sort of assumption should never be made.
In order to keep those pipelines filled, Sony designed the GS around 4MB of embedded DRAM on the die of the GS and connected to the pixel pipelines by a 2560-bit (that\'s not a typo) bus. When operating at 150MHz this gives the GS a 48GB/s path to its 4MB of eDRAM. The theory behind this is that with that much bandwidth, keeping all 16 pixel pipes filled should not be a problem. This is one of the strong points of the GS design although it is highly unconventional due to the sheer die space and bandwidth requirements of the massively parallel pixel pipeline design.
The problem is that as you very well know, 4MB is not enough to store all of the information necessary to render frames that are supposed to be displayed at 60 fps. Thus the GS is in need of a high speed external memory bus. As with all consoles, the graphics processor and host CPU share the same memory space and bus. In the case of the PS2, Sony decided to go the Rambus route and outfitted the PS2 with 32MB of dual channel PC800 RDRAM. This is the same memory bus configuration as the Pentium 4 and thus offers 3.2GB/s of memory bandwidth to be shared between the EE and GS. This is hardly enough memory bandwidth and hardly enough memory storage for game execution code as well as high resolution textures. This is generally why most PS2 games are limited to relatively low resolution textures compared to what we\'re used to seeing on PCs. While the embedded DRAM of the GS core definitely helps out, there is still room for improvement.
Anti-aliasing can be done by the GS however memory bandwidth and fill rate constraints are very present since as far as we know, the GS was not designed around a multisampling AA algorithm in mind. The culmination of all of this is that PS2 games have been branded as being very aliased and poor in image quality mostly because of the lower resolution and lower detail levels that game developers are forced to use for textures combined with the usual aliasing issues.
We\'ve already discussed the merits of the Xbox GPU as it is undoubtedly the most powerful GPU on the market today. It\'s a tried and true solution that is a direct derivative of the NV20/NV25 cores and is given twice the memory bandwidth of the PS2\'s GS. In fact, the only area in which the NV2A core falls behind is in the lack of any embedded DRAM. What is quite important is that developers are currently taking advantage of the NV2A\'s pixel and vertex shaders which bodes very well for the PC gaming market since it will hopefully show PC developers how easy these programs are to implement and how stunning the after effects can be.
The AA support provided for by the GPU also makes a lot of sense however developers do need to enable it in order for gamers to realize its benefits. Another limitation is that most developers are used to having the host CPU handle the T&L calculations while with the Xbox they must get used to using the GPU and its programmable T&L pipeline for all of that.
-
pstwo.. do you even have your own opinion or did someone copy/paste your views into your head? :p I think they were asking for personal preference.. not necessarily a tech analysis.
-
The only thing that pisses me off about Xbox is that montrosity of a controller. The graphics are already far beyond anything the PS2 can handle IMO. Also, just because one Xbox port has brighter colors it doesn\'t mean all of the games have it. I would like to hear some of these other games that supposedly have this "overly bright textured look".
PS2\'s aliasing problem really bothers me. GameCube and Xbox have great anti-aliasing so it\'s hard to look at PS2\'s games sometimes. That\'s why I prefer N64\'s graphics over PSX\'s even with the blurro-mania textures. Just my odd preference.
-
Originally posted by D-Day
aliasing problem really bothers me. GameCube and Xbox have great anti-aliasing so it\'s hard to look at PS2\'s games sometimes. That\'s why I prefer N64\'s graphics over PSX\'s even with the blurro-mania textures. Just my odd preference.
Lol, that\'s funny. You think PS2 games are hard to look at? Have tried sticking in an old PS2 game lately? After I got GT3, I couldn\'t remember all the cars I had in GT2, so I went to look and race a couple races. I nearly had a seizure from looking at the screen. PS2 is just fine, IMO. I really don\'t see what the big deal is.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
What I dislike about PS2\'s graphics is how it seems like most games only have a dozen colours in them. [/B]
Things are getting better for the PS2 though. Sly Cooper, Burnout 2, Primal, and GTA:VC are examples of this. The developers are still learning how to use the PS2 to it\'s full potential, so the curse of the bland colors and muddy textures may soon be broken.
-
I think its just resolution, lower resolution has its good/bad side, high resolution has its good/bad side
-
Originally posted by nataku
Lol, that\'s funny. You think PS2 games are hard to look at?
No, I never said that. I just said "jaggies" really bother me for some reason. I prefer the smooth look of Xbox and GameCube games. I really don\'t mind looking at graphically weak games, for any system really. I think GTA3 on my Geforce 2 looks great despite all it\'s jags.
The developers are still learning how to use the PS2 to it\'s full potential, so the curse of the bland colors and muddy textures may soon be broken.
It doesn\'t look like it\'s going to be sooner than later though. Sure the graphics are improving, but slowly. Check your pm\'s btw.
-
The X-BOX can have all the texture and fill rate and what\'s not but it ain\'t gonna have FFX,FF12,FF nth,Kingdom Hearts, Star Ocean 3, Suikoden 3, Legends of Legia and the DMC series and all the other fab Japanese RPG\'s
What\'s the use of having a Porsche if u ain\'t got nowhere to go??
MUA-HAAAA-HAAAAA-HAAAAAAAAAA!!!
=================
Gameplay over Graphics
=================
-
Originally posted by Paul
MUA-HAAAA-HAAAAA-HAAAAAAAAAA!!!
=================
Gameplay over Graphics
=================
:laughing: That\'s a good one!
-
I find that Tekken 4 is one of the few PS2 games that actually has fully bright colours. It looks excellent. It shows that the PS2 can not only do anti aliasing well at 60fps, but also have super bright, but not overtly creamy colours.
-
oh pstwo pleeeeaaase. That article is full of crap. If my memory serves me correct, you posted that off the amandtech review which is not only false but also gives a very wrong impression of both architectures. Yes, the NV2a is the most powerful GPU, but guess what? It can\'t even compete with the graphics synthesizer because both have different tasks to fullfill. It\'s like saying the EE is better than a Pentium 4.. duh! Of course it is, with the difference that the EE has to do a lot more work so it needs to be more powerful. The same goes for the NV2a... it\'s more powerful, because it also has to handle lots more tasks then the GS that is basically only there for rendering displaylists and texture mapping (along with very few effects).
Please leave technical articles out of this, because they ultimatly lead to false impressions. Thank you.
-
Too bad Tekken 4 sucks...
-
/me realizes his post was complete crap and had no foundation to it what so ever. Therefor he removed his own post, for the better of the community, not to mention so he won\'t look so lame.
Any questions?
;)
-
You could\'ve gained respect here until your last 3 words...
I predict us mods are gonna have fun with you...
-
Originally posted by Ashford
Too bad Tekken 4 sucks...
It doesn\'t flat out "suck", but it isn\'t as good as previous Tekkens.
-
Originally posted by IronFist
It doesn\'t flat out "suck", but it isn\'t as good as previous Tekkens.
It is our fault.Tekken evolved on 2d and thats the Tekken style we were playing and liked.We demanded 3d and we got Tekken4.Namco heard us,the tekken fans\' demands.
Although it lost its original tekken depth Namco took into consideration some complaints for the previous tekkens including the number of clones and the "robot" looking animation.Absence of clones and smoother more realistic animation are in T4.There are also some other things Namco took into consideration I cant think of now but IMO Tekken4 is great as a first atempt to take the series into 3d.If there will be tekken5 they will improve what made Tekken4 a not perfect sequel as its is going to be the second attempt.
Namco said that Tekken4 is only 30% of what they want to accomplish with Tekken.
-
Originally posted by seven
Please leave technical articles out of this, because they ultimatly lead to false impressions. Thank you.
False Impressions? :laughing: Try again.
-
Explain pstwo. I can tell people that the earth really revolves around the moon and up a lil laughing emoticon in there.. but if I don\'t explain why I see it that way then the comment is pretty worthless.
KuJoBLeeK: - We\'re trying to keep the bare minimum IQ requirement of these forums over 40. It would be appreceated if you try to accomodate. Thank you.
-
Sonyfan, you tell me about this tech matters than. If you know more than that site about the Xbox. Let\'s here it. I can get more out but lets here it from you first.
-
I\'m trying to encourage discussion here pstwo.. and you can\'t discuss/debate an issue by simply using copy/pastes of editorials from other sites. You can use experts and examples to elaborate on your own explanations, but don\'t sit here and just post articals then laugh at people who actually take the time to put some thought into their posts. It makes you look brainwashed, and you\'re better than that pstwo.
-
pstwo needs to grow some balls and explain himself.
Tekken 4 was an excellent first attempt at a fully 3D environment. It is also a graphical masterpiece. NAMCO have said that its fixed alot of probs in the PAL version.
-
Originally posted by ##RaCeR##
pstwo needs to grow some balls and explain himself.
:laughing:
-
pstwo - that "tech site" (I am overly confident that you copy/pasted that off amandtech\'s review) gives a wrong impression and furthermore is full of mistakes. For example, they state a bus of 3.2 GB/s between the EE and the GS, when infact it\'s only a 1.2 GB/s connection. I could go on about the mistakes in that article but it really isn\'t worth it.
Posting articles to prove a point is really lame - especially if you don\'t understand shit. ;)
-
Technically, doesn\'t the GS kill the Nvidia?
-
Hardly.. maybe in one or two pretty insignificant areas, but overall the Nvidia is far more powerful.
Xbox = GPU does the bulk of the graphics processing.
PS2 = EE does the bulk of the graphics processing.
Xbox = Weak ass processor
PS2 = Hulking goliath of a processor
Least, that\'s how I\'ve always understood it.
-
I don\'t care which hardware is technically superior. All I need to do is look at th ened result on my TV and all the specs you can throw at me don\'t mean shit.
-
Why doesn\'t the GS do the bulk of PS2 graphics? Isn\'t the EE designed for things like AI?
-
Because the PS2 was designed somewhat logically. The GS only renders and performs certain effects that are mostly only implemented before the rendering process beginns (i.e. AA). Also, the bandwidth isn\'t all that much (1.2 GB/s), so devs should only send displaylists and textures to achieve good results.
On Xbox, you have a GPU that has to do way more than just rendering. The NV2a even has to perform complex perspecticve transformations - a task which on PS2 is handled by one vector-unit. All in all, bandwidth requirement on Xbox should be much higher because they all connect via a UMA. That\'s also a reason to why AA is not used in 90% of Xbox games (yet).
-
Its all so friggen confusing.
-
All I care is what is on my TV. I don\'t care about power. I just use it for bragging rights ;)
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
I don\'t care which hardware is technically superior. All I need to do is look at th ened result on my TV and all the specs you can throw at me don\'t mean shit.
For once, ur rite. :)
get over it people.
The XBOX is superior hardware.
THE END.
But the PS2 is the king of this console generation.
THE END
Coz superior hardware DOES NOT EQUAL superior games!!!!
THE END!!!!!
-
Originally posted by KuJoBLeeK
My friend with an Xbox raves about it 24/7 aobut how tis so much better then ps2 and blah blahb blah and how live is gonna be so much better then the ethernet adapter. i needs peopels opinions on taht cause he gets the idea of games other than MMORPG\'s are gonna ask for your money to play it
I dont think that XBOX live will play such a crucial role to the industry like many people think. I still and will always prefer my PC for FREE quality online gaming and all that with a humble 64K ISDN line. I get pings around 110 to 150 and have little problems or lags whatsoever. Its like playing single player. But XBOX-live demands a broadband connection when the majority of the US (not to say the entire world) is online with plain old narrowband. In my opinion, XBOX live will be in the beggining a priviledge of the few, a "made by US and for the US" feature. At least for sometime until broadband evolves and becomes more available. But even then, i doubt that XBOX owners that already have a PC will jump on to the XBOX as their online gaming "solution". I hope it will succeed for Microsoft but as long as PC online gaming exists, i doubt that XBOX-live will have the results that Microsoft expects.
-
I think what Watchdog and Racer (and others, sorry to single you two out) is that you are using examples of a few choice games.
What I dislike about PS2\'s graphics is how it seems like most games only have a dozen colours in them
I find that Tekken 4 is one of the few PS2 games that actually has fully bright colours. It looks excellent. It shows that the PS2 can not only do anti aliasing well at 60fps, but also have super bright, but not overtly creamy colours.
It\'s pretty easy to do that to the opposite effect as well. I could simply say, go play Jak & Daxter, Klonoa, Final Fantasy X blah blah blah. As many PS2 (and XBox) games that suffer with these problems, there are as many that do NOT.
I don\'t even know what point I was making. :confused:
-
This is Console Discussion, not debate. This sort of attacking won\'t be tolerated here. I don\'t mean to single you out, but since this thread started in debate.. I\'m going to leave the rest of it pretty much in-tact. I am about two clicks away from closing it down, so clean it up REAL frickin fast guys if you want this to continue.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
It is our fault.Tekken evolved on 2d and thats the Tekken style we were playing and liked.We demanded 3d and we got Tekken4.Namco heard us,the tekken fans\' demands.
Although it lost its original tekken depth Namco took into consideration some complaints for the previous tekkens including the number of clones and the "robot" looking animation.Absence of clones and smoother more realistic animation are in T4.There are also some other things Namco took into consideration I cant think of now but IMO Tekken4 is great as a first atempt to take the series into 3d.If there will be tekken5 they will improve what made Tekken4 a not perfect sequel as its is going to be the second attempt.
Namco said that Tekken4 is only 30% of what they want to accomplish with Tekken.
I\'ve heard it all. It is "our fault" that Tekken 4 is pretty much broken and as for the 30% crap, we have already went over that. Five games later I would hope they acheived more than 30% of what they aimed for.
Plain and simple: Namco rushed Tekken 4 out for a quick cash in and most people are dissapointed with it or will be dissapointed with it. Only the diehard Namco / Tekken fans think the game lives up to previoius standards.