PSX5Central

Playstation/Gaming Discussions => PS3 Discussion => Topic started by: Troglodyte on September 17, 2002, 07:00:26 PM

Title: Ratchet and Clank
Post by: Troglodyte on September 17, 2002, 07:00:26 PM

Just saw an amazing vid on Ratchet and Clank, can\'t remember where it came from, maybe one of the freebies from Gamespot.com.

Beautiful Platformer, said to only use 50% of Ps2\'s ultimate power.  The game is remarkable, you can see for "miles" in the distance w/o the ever-popular haze.

Is it november yet?  I\'m ready for a k.a. platformer!

Title: Ratchet and Clank
Post by: Paul on September 17, 2002, 08:36:38 PM

Omigosh!! They\'re still using the 50% power marketing trick??

Bah!

Title: Ratchet and Clank
Post by: seven on September 18, 2002, 08:27:00 AM

What "marketing trick"?

Title: Ratchet and Clank
Post by: Bozco on September 18, 2002, 09:31:25 AM

It seems every beautiful looking PS2 game is said to use 50%.

Title: Ratchet and Clank
Post by: seven on September 18, 2002, 10:29:23 AM

This would be the second game that is said to be using a specific amount of performance which could be considered a valid estimate - first being Gran Turismo 3 which is indeed only using around 25% of said performance.

Also, the quote is slighty wrong - as there\'s no such thing as a game only using x % of performance. Games usually use up full 100% performance, but the question is "how efficiant is it running"? You can have as much as 1000 polygons per second and you\'d be still able to max out the system to a full 100%. No doubt, this would be very unefficiant, as you could program your code differently and have the same 1000 polygons using much much less performance.

Title: Ratchet and Clank
Post by: Unicron! on September 18, 2002, 10:35:10 AM

We are talking about Rachet and Clanks general performance.Not just polygon wise.

Title: Ratchet and Clank
Post by: seven on September 18, 2002, 11:11:02 AM

Unicron! you don\'t need to point that out. It should have been clear that the polygons was just an example to why the above statement is not quite accurate. If there\'s anything that\'s at 50%, it\'s efficiancy of the program and not the performance.