PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => PS3 Discussion => Topic started by: Unicron! on March 25, 2004, 06:51:38 AM
-
http://pc.ign.com/articles/501/501368p1.html
IGN: But if you make it easier for triple-A titles to make it to shelves, isn\'t there a potential to muddy the market as more money gets spent on marketing?
J Allard: I don\'t know that that\'s necessarily the case; production costs aren\'t going to ceiling out as a result of better software. Dean was talking about advances in power and sophistication in hardware, that power and sophistication means more complexity. With each successive generation, we\'ve utilized the hardware less and less.
Look at the first generation PS2 games. They were using 40% of the hardware on Day One. We don\'t want that to be the case. Look at the new 007 games. Gamers want Hollywood talent in their games. Look at online games like Rainbow Six. People want competitive and collaborative multiplayer with voice in every one of my games. Look at the visual quality in Halo and the depth of story in Half-Life 2; gamers want those as well.
What we\'re not saying is that people are going to spend less money on games. What we think is going to happen is that less of the money, time and energy are going to be on the basic and fundamentals of getting the game to work and getting a pipeline up. There\'s so much opportunity -- be it high-def gaming, online gaming, character development, story development, free design -- that it mandates we spend more time in design. What\'s happening today is that more time in design is turning two-year projects into four-year projects. What we want to do is make the first eighteen months of today\'s projects as close to free as possible so that the design time and design expense is put into the stuff that matters.
What would a Direct X supporter know about PS2????Especially the head man for Microsoft\'s Windows Gaming Group??????
This guy is stupid.If there is one thing that is a step back when it comes to evolution in programming and extending knowledge and skill its the Direct X thing.
Its funny that developers complained that they didnt know much about the Hardware in the first generation of PS2\'s games.How could they reach 40% so fast?The first Performance Analyzewr showet that on PS1 Tekken 2 used only around 30-40% of its power.And PS1 was easier to develop on.
PC game developers find everything ready.They only know what "this tool does" and "what that tool does".They never experiment with the hardware.
If you\'re a PSX programmer and then you\'re a PS2 programmer, holy crap, you have to throw away all your code and everything you knew and go from 95% effective utilization of hardware to 40%. That\'s why the first generation games didn\'t look so good. They looked like great PSX games.
Thats the whole point.And what do the first gen games mean if developers get used to the hardware and develop superb titles for the next generation and also become familiar with a hardware architrecture that can be used in the future??Thats no longer an issue since back then it was something new.It was expected
We also got various titles each showing different uses of the heardware and techniques.
I didnt know the guy programmed on PS2 and tried the performance analyzer either
-
I don\'t know how anyone can read that interview and think they are wrong. They make absolute sense. It is not an Xbox vs. PS2 thing. Its about making console development easier and cheaper all around.
I\'m all for it. If what they are trying to do opens up development to more/smaller talent then it is nothing but beneficial to gamers.
I like the analogy J.Allard used.IGN: Let me clarify. In your quest to develop XNA as a standard, you\'re not advocating a one-size-fits-all approach. You\'re allowing developers to choose a suite of tools?
J Allard: Yeah, you\'re my general contractor and we\'re building a house together. What do you do? You go down to Sears and you buy a Stanley hammer, a Black and Decker saw, you\'re gonna buy a MAKITA drill, you\'re gonna mix and match tools that are appropriate for you. When you walk out the door, hopefully you don\'t have to make another trip. If you\'re remodeling the kitchen instead of building a new house you\'ll make a different set of selections; your budget is different and the scale of your team might be different. Every GC\'s trip to Sears looks a little different but Sears arranges everything on pegs and you\'re guaranteed that your power tools will all work in a three-prong outlet. There are standards in terms of nails and hammers and weights and gauges that allow interoperability between the guys that make the screws and the guys that make the screwdrivers.
If the three of us want to make a game, where\'s Sears? There isn\'t. We send you out to the Black and Decker store, and Dean to the Makita store and I go to the Craftsmen store. When we come back, hopefully, we have enough stuff to build the house but we\'ll probably have to make a few return trips. And then none of the stuff plugs into the same outlets. We have to rewire the freaking house before we even start to remodel. That\'s what game development is like today.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
If there is one thing that is a step back when it comes to evolution in programming and extending knowledge and skill its the Direct X thing.
So are you saying that PC gaming would be better off if developers had to learn a new development architecture for every new video card that came out?
Originally posted by Unicron!
PC game developers find everything ready.They only know what "this tool does" and "what that tool does".They never experiment with the hardware.
This is bad? If I need a physics engine for my game is it better for me to waste time/money to develop one or use a premade one that does everything that I need perfectly?
-
http://media.xbox.ign.com/articles/501/501621/vids_1.html (http://media.xbox.ign.com/articles/501/501621/vids_1.html)
-
You know, it is possible to put that into ONE friggin reply, without the double (let alone triple) post.
His analogy is wrong anyways. He said "go to the makita store, black and decker store, and craftsman store" rather than finding those tools all together at the same store. The point is you don\'t go to the same tools at all with PS2, you go to a specialty drill store, specialty hammer store, etc, and each of the individual tools you make would be better than the generic find-em-at sears (directx) brands.
-
Black Samurai:They can develop tools based on programming the hardware as well as experimenting with it.Then distribute the tools.Prgramers gain knowledge and can get more out of the hardware capabilitites when they cet used to it.They also extend their knowledge.They can do more than what the tools let them.How many PC games reach the total specs and performance of 3D acceleration graphics cards shown on paper?None probably?Developers with Direct X do only what the tools enable them to do.
Actually its what FatalXception said.
-
Originally posted by FatalXception
You know, it is possible to put that into ONE friggin reply, without the double (let alone triple) post.
Really?!?!? :rolleyes:
Originally posted by FatalXception
His analogy is wrong anyways. He said "go to the makita store, black and decker store, and craftsman store" rather than finding those tools all together at the same store. The point is you don\'t go to the same tools at all with PS2, you go to a specialty drill store, specialty hammer store, etc, and each of the individual tools you make would be better than the generic find-em-at sears (directx) brands.
You really don\'t understand. You should read the article.
It\'s not about avoiding going to one store. It\'s about knowing what tools you need for the job and going to get tools, that you already KNOW can do what you want, as opposed to knowing what tools you need and having to build them all yourself and having to waste time making sure they do what you want.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Black Samurai: They can develop tools based on programming the hardware as well as experimenting with it. Then distribute the tools. Programers gain knowledge and can get more out of the hardware capabilitites when they get used to it.They also extend their knowledge.They can do more than what the tools let them.
Think about what you are saying. Do you really think it is better for game development when a company has to waste months of development and millions of dollars to "experiment". If there was a standard we could be playing fourth/fifth generation games when a console launches. Why? Because there was no need for experimenting, they knew the system because it was the same architecture and development environment as all the previous consoles they worked on.
Originally posted by Unicron!
How many PC games reach the total specs and performance of 3D acceleration graphics cards shown on paper?None probably? Developers with Direct X do only what the tools enable them to do.
PC Developers have to design their games to work on as many rigs as possible. If they could say f*ck it lets work for the best PCs out there PC games would look even better than they do now. That is why this is so good for Console developers.
Standard development architecture WITH a standard hardware layout is incredible. Do you know how many good games we\'ll see in a shorter timespan and from more varied developers? Something like this would mean more and maybe even cheaper games.
-
Quit double posting, you spammer!
Anyways, I understand the beauty of set software tools, and hardware, but the problem is that you have nowhere to go. Very minor tweaks may be made, but really, there will be no major improvement with each generation.
The PS3\'s hardware will be constant, so that isn\'t a detriment, but the software guys will make more and more impressive leaps in their tools, eventually surpassing any pre-set static tools you have. Look at GT4, and what\'s it\'s getting out of the PS2\'s hardware.
-
Originally posted by FatalXception
Anyways, I understand the beauty of set software tools, and hardware, but the problem is that you have nowhere to go. Very minor tweaks may be made, but really, there will be no major improvement with each generation.
The PS3\'s hardware will be constant, so that isn\'t a detriment, but the software guys will make more and more impressive leaps in their tools, eventually surpassing any pre-set static tools you have. Look at GT4, and what\'s it\'s getting out of the PS2\'s hardware.
Nowadays there are no major improvements besides graphics.
Plus, There are people who do nothing BUT work on physics and AI engines. Nothing else. There is almost nothing that a console developer would need that hasn\'t already been made in some capacity and if they do, for some reason, need something else they can ADD to the pre-existing engine. Any new advances would come from developers building on already established platforms. This alone would shave MONTHS of development time. How much time is wasted on fixing little bugs that could have been spent on improving and innovating gameplay experiences?
-
tihs proovs microwesoft will 0wn sony buy teh end of the mnth
-
Err....was there any valid argument at all in this thread????
Making a standard tools is good for everyone. Do you want a 5 year development cycle for each game?? By the time the game came out, it\'s time for the next gen console!!! (not to metion the rising development cost...which the consumers will have to bear eventually...do you want to pay 99 dollars or 49 dollars for a game??)
And yes, indeed Direct X "shit" is > PS2.
PS2 is like a GF2(DX7) with higher poly count and much lower texture.
DX really rocks. It provides a backward compatible platform for developers to work and add new features and functions for each generation. What\'s wrong with that!!!!!
And usually by the 3rd year of a console life span, the graphics improvement will have stale...like the PS2 now..(GT4 is nice, but is hardly any different from GT3).
-
I only want one house, but I want a lot of (different) games. microsoft is trying to ruine that!!! :(
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
Think about what you are saying. Do you really think it is better for game development when a company has to waste months of development and millions of dollars to "experiment". If there was a standard we could be playing fourth/fifth generation games when a console launches. Why? Because there was no need for experimenting, they knew the system because it was the same architecture and development environment as all the previous consoles they worked on.
No.I dont think its better.But Direct X isnt letting developers program directly to the metal.Developers that stand out have the chance to do just that.Many tools are being created and can be distributed among developers or even by Sony.Something similar to the direct X can happen with acrhitecture like the PS2.The developers can choose a variety of tools or if they have the money program directly to the heardware(big developers that can stand out).There is a variety of tools on PS2 already.Its just that this was the first time developers program on such an architecture.It is self evident that for PS2 these problems were unavoidable
PC Developers have to design their games to work on as many rigs as possible. If they could say f*ck it lets work for the best PCs out there PC games would look even better than they do now. That is why this is so good for Console developers.
Ahm....comparing PCs with console when it comes to developer\'s choice of hardware is kind of awkward.
Standard development architecture WITH a standard hardware layout is incredible. Do you know how many good games we\'ll see in a shorter timespan and from more varied developers? Something like this would mean more and maybe even cheaper games. [/B]
As I said PS2 introduced a new method.Its needs time to evolve.If developers continue to support this kind of architecture and programming you ll start seeing the difference I am talking about.
The only reason why you see such a difference in PCs is becuase the evolve fast when it comes to hardware.Faster than what games on PCs seem to show you.You think its the Direct X that does the biggest difference?No.Its the hardware.And most of it is left untapped.
Originally posted by Paul
Err....was there any valid argument at all in this thread????
Making a standard tools is good for everyone. Do you want a 5 year development cycle for each game?? By the time the game came out, it\'s time for the next gen console!!! (not to metion the rising development cost...which the consumers will have to bear eventually...do you want to pay 99 dollars or 49 dollars for a game??)
Thats only the risk paid when you introduce something new
And yes, indeed Direct X "shit" is > PS2.
PS2 is like a GF2(DX7) with higher poly count and much lower texture.
DX really rocks. It provides a backward compatible platform for developers to work and add new features and functions for each generation. What\'s wrong with that!!!!!
And usually by the 3rd year of a console life span, the graphics improvement will have stale...like the PS2 now..(GT4 is nice, but is hardly any different from GT3). [/B]
Do you like Burnout3 sunshine?Thank Middleware.How many racing games on XBOX look as good as Burnout3 or GT4?And XBOX is using Directx tools, on a GF2?Now whats wrong with that?
Its funny that developing on PS2 helped the appearance of a variety of visuals on XBOX when its titles became multiplatform
And thats just the beginning.A new start is always hard.Developers have been accustomed to Direct X for more than a decade.And yet comparing XBOX de direct X GF2 super console(appeared late 2001), with what PS2 has offered (harwdware released in 1999) isnt the huge gap you make it seem to be.
-
This is like trying to teach a monkey to sing.
I don\'t think YOU even know what you are talking about. I\'m sure PS2 developers LOVE doing assembly code for minimal results. I bet they can\'t wait for a new console to launch so they can spend 2-3 years experimenting with what a system can do and forgetting everything they spent the last 5 years learning.
-
Ahm......do you read carefully what I say?Or was that an effort to twist my words?
I said the PS2 introduced new methods and new architecture.Its the risk paid when you introduce something different after something else has been used for years.
You see that developers get great results from it already.Sooner or later developers will be accustomed to that hardware and tools will appear that work best with this architecture giving also the flexibility to developers to tweak things and experiment if they want to.
The next Playstation will most likely use the same hardware logic.The PS2 was just the first risky step to establish new hardware for the future.Thats what firms and companies do with R&D.Sometimes they risk.Sony has been into the multiprocessor thing for years.I didnt say that after the PS2 starts losing life when the PS3 is released developers will have to forget everything they learned from PS2.They will have extensive knowledge on hardware and develop on a console with similar acrhitecture.Tools also will be more complete and ready.
-
There are positives and negatives to this.
DirectX is good because it allows game developers to take advantage of hardware very easily and painless.
It would surely cut development time in half.
Give the smaller devs a chance to get a game up and going.
This would surely be great for a lot guys looking to break into the industry.
Who wants to spend 3-4 years and countless amounts of money trying to learn new hardware? The devs would be able to get game in stores much quicker without having to learn a whole new learning curve.
Negative side technology becomes stagnated with everyone using the samething. You would see no huge leaps in game technology(IMO)
-
Well, I don\'t like it because I don\'t want a homogenized industry. We already have a company that\'s using DX, so devs have the option, they can also go in other directions, should they so choose. Once everyone is using the same tools, and the same code, and the difference is only hardware, what will be the point of having three consoles out? What could one do that the other\'s couldn\'t?
I think that the best code lessons learned from the PS2 will be applied to the PS3, and I\'m sure that there are dev tools that everyone uses, they just aren\'t DX. If they really didn\'t want to spend the time working on improving their tools and code, they don\'t have to... they can just make Xbox games. The fact that many companies still release games on PS2 tells me that they don\'t consider that a waste of time.
I can be clear about our business model. We\'re not building a tools business -- it\'s about licenses. On Dean\'s side of the house, it\'s about selling Windows licenses; one my side of the house, it\'s about collecting game licenses
This is the way microsoft works/starts. Benevolent for now, once they have the industry using one model and standard... that\'s when they will begin to aquire actual tool licenses, until they will be the ones with control over the best tools and code.
-
Originally posted by FatalXception
Well, I don\'t like it because I don\'t want a homogenized industry. We already have a company that\'s using DX, so devs have the option, they can also go in other directions, should they so choose. Once everyone is using the same tools, and the same code, and the difference is only hardware, what will be the point of having three consoles out? What could one do that the other\'s couldn\'t?
exactly i just said the samething.
-
I love games and want to one day make them in the future. With directX I would already have my foot in the door .
-
DirectX is the lazy mans programming langauge. Its really making games sloppy in coding, compared to what used to be out. Slap it together and throw it out the door...
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
DirectX is the lazy mans programming langauge. Its really making games sloppy in coding, compared to what used to be out. Slap it together and throw it out the door...
What use out?:confused:
I know your not talking about DOS
DirectX is far better
-
Not so much what used to be out, but what used to be used alot more.. OpenGL, 3dfx etc.
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
Who wants to spend 3-4 years and countless amounts of money trying to learn new hardware? The devs would be able to get game in stores much quicker without having to learn a whole new learning curve.
Thats only temporary.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Thats only temporary.
Temporary until the next generation comes out
-
No.Temporary till the industry adjusts.
-
Could u imagine if all the companies built games based around Directx. Arghh all the crappy pc ports and vise visa..
-
Not to mention the similar looking games.On XBOX we see the same effects and similar engines repeated again and angain and again.At the end although they may look great and above anything seen in PS2 (like detailed textures and bumb mapping)they dont impress anymore. "I ve seen that thing done before there.I ve seen that done before here"
-
Yeah you guys are right. I guess it is better to have the smaller developers put out pretty games with no substance(because they spent too much time working on the graphics engine and didn\'t have enough to spend on the gameplay) and wait months for the larger developers to put out a game that looks good AND plays good.
BTW, What was the last AAA game to come out on the PS2? What the was the last one before that? How many AAA PC games have come out in that timespan? I bet PC gamers HATE the development environment they have to put up with.
-
lol, they do when there’s second rate games coming out forcing them to have to update due to sloppy programming and lazy developers. Deus EX 2 is a simple example. It runs like a POS on my machine and it’s not all that great in graphics. Looks like they mastered directx eh. I’ve seen better looking games that are over a year older. That run at double the framerate. Halo was meant to be a complete rebuild and even that game runs like crap. Programmed by the makers of DirectX. Now you figure that out.
Be greatful, without other developing software directx would never be were it is. Competition is what drives technology forward. Opengl is easier to program for then Directx, games even looked better with it, and yet directx took over. Its not because of programming easyness either. Its because of M$ grip on everything.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
Yeah you guys are right. I guess it is better to have the smaller developers put out pretty games with no substance(because they spent too much time working on the graphics engine and didn\'t have enough to spend on the gameplay) and wait months for the larger developers to put out a game that looks good AND plays good.
Hav eyou noticed that a huge number of PC games use a similar interface?
And I cant recall a huge number of PC games that were perfect examples of inovation when compared to console games.
BTW, What was the last AAA game to come out on the PS2? What the was the last one before that? How many AAA PC games have come out in that timespan? I bet PC gamers HATE the development environment they have to put up with.
What was the last AAA title game to come out on the XBOX that uses outdated PC hardware and a direct X to create a unique AAA title?
Ninja Gaiden?It has been in development for years.
Now if we compare PC to consoles (not XBOX included) thats becuase PC\'s evolve faster in hardware than consoles(thus XBOX doesnt do better than PS2 or GC or as well as PCs.Direct X doesnt do much to help.Many usless ports are being released on an outdated PC hardware).And lets bring another question.Why doesnt support on GC exist as much as the PS2?Its much much easier to develop on.But has less support.
Lets face it.Variety in gameplay styles exist more on consoles.The GC has few games but many great if we make a ratio.Still Nintendo spends lots of time to develop ONE great game for GC despite the easiness on programming.There are tons of useless developers on PC though that make games with fairly good graphics and mediocre gameplay in a short period of time.Just becuase its very very easy to create a game on a direct X.They develop a game easily and release it.Its still a game.Just like most PC games.And what about the number of the mediocre and bad PC games.If we make a ratio of : dont expect to find one superb AAA title to appear in a very small number of PC games released in a certain period of time.
Greater numbers of games are being developed for PCs in a certain period of time than any console.Or even all existing consoles combined.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
As I said PS2 introduced a new method.Its needs time to evolve.If developers continue to support this kind of architecture and programming you ll start seeing the difference I am talking about.
The only reason why you see such a difference in PCs is becuase the evolve fast when it comes to hardware.Faster than what games on PCs seem to show you.You think its the Direct X that does the biggest difference?No.Its the hardware.And most of it is left untapped.
1. - New method, old method...who cares. What the consumer wants to see is the end result and developers want to do it in least possible time to save cost. Why spend 10 years to achieve something similar that can be done in 6 months. One rule of development cycle: DO NOT RE-INVENT THE WHEEL.
2. Yes...so there is a lot of untapped power in the PC GPU...who cares...it still looks 20 times better than a PS2 running at 50% of the potential!!! Isn\'t that great!!!
Originally posted by Unicron!
Do you like Burnout3 sunshine?Thank Middleware.How many racing games on XBOX look as good as Burnout3 or GT4?And XBOX is using Directx tools, on a GF2?Now whats wrong with that?
Its funny that developing on PS2 helped the appearance of a variety of visuals on XBOX when its titles became multiplatform
And thats just the beginning.A new start is always hard.Developers have been accustomed to Direct X for more than a decade.And yet comparing XBOX de direct X GF2 super console(appeared late 2001), with what PS2 has offered (harwdware released in 1999) isnt the huge gap you make it seem to be. [/B]
1. Hello...I believe BurnOut 3 will destined to be multiplatform like BurnOut 2. And FYI, BurnOut 2 on XBOX does look SLIGHTLY better than the PS2 version. Comparing GT4 is null and void...there isn\'t a GT4 on XBOX. How about comparing Splinter Cell, NFS:UG, Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil, Soul Calibur 2 etc etc?? The PS2 falls flat on it\'s face...like it\'s texture. And i found no improvement between GT3 and GT4. The PS2 has reached it\'s limit. But i do agreed the GT series (especially GT3) is really the best racing simulator bar none on any platform...too bad i prefer arcade racers.
And so, the BEST VERSION of BO3 will likely be on the XBOX...like BurnOut 2...AGAIN. (and the Dobly Digital 5.1 effects in BO2 is just so much better than the PS2...heavy bass and accurate separation!)
2. Huh XBOX DirectX on GF2?? I was referring to the PS2=GF2+. I hope you realized that the XBOX is actually a GF3.5...an enhanced GF3. That is why you get bump mapping and pixel shaders...PS2 can never do this because it\'s in a generation similar to GF2(DX7) which doesn\'t have these features. The gap isn\'t that huge except for better frame rates, minimal jaggies, higher resolution, detail texture with more variety and mind boogling texture that looks 3D thanks to bump mapping....
:laughing:
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Not to mention the similar looking games.On XBOX we see the same effects and similar engines repeated again and angain and again.At the end although they may look great and above anything seen in PS2 (like detailed textures and bumb mapping)they dont impress anymore. "I ve seen that thing done before there.I ve seen that done before here"
Let me get this straight.....same effects and similar engines??
Ok...so you\'re IMPRESSED by the same bland texture, frame drops and jaggies in nearly every PS2 games and yet you\'re not impressed by the fantastic and superior graphics in nearly every XBOX game (ex: Ninja Gaiden, Panzer Orta..)...and finally maybe 5 years later, some geek managed to the same level of bump mapping and texture on the PS2 and you\'re gonna claim it\'s the next coming??
My replied:"But i\'ve seen it on the XBOX 5 YEARS AGO!!!!!!"
:clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown:
Originally posted by Unicron!
What was the last AAA title game to come out on the XBOX that uses outdated PC hardware and a direct X to create a unique AAA title?
Ninja Gaiden?It has been in development for years.
[/B]
Err....Huh?? Just what the heck r u saying?? Outdated PC hardware? U mean XBOX? of course it is....but Ninja Gaiden still looks better than anything similar on the PS2...(Say..Shinobi?? Urrgghhh..)..and can compare to my respectable Raddy ATI 9700 in terms of graphics quality....
It puts the PS2 even more to shame as a 3 year old "outdated" P3 733Mhz manage to make the PS2 so pale in comparison.
-
I love the way you compare PC based hardware to the EE and GS.
Can\'t do bump mapping wtf! Sorry to tell you man, it can.
Oh and the EE is more powerful then the xbox cpu.
heres a few reasons why
-Data bus, cache memory as well as all registers are 128 bit on the PS2 CPU while the XBox CPU is 32 bits.
-It has a max. performance of 6.2GFLOPS while the XBox CPU can only do a bit over 3 GFLOPS.
-It incorporates two 64-bit integer units (IU) with a 128-bit SIMD multi-media command unit, two independent floating point vector calculation units (VU0, VU1), an MPEG 2 decoder circuit (Image Processing Unit/IPU) and high performance DMA controllers.
All within the EE
3 words dood.
Get a clue.
Not to say the xbox isn\'t more powerful. Although i\'d like to see a ps2 game using 100% of its power compared to a Xbox game with 100% power too. Right now, i doubt theres 1 title that uses 100% of ps2s power. But there most likely is already xbox titles that are close, or even using 100% of its power.
I\'m just saying don\'t compare the hardware via PC wise. the GS isn\'t a GF2, don\'t compare it to one. Just as the EE isn\'t a P3 cpu. What, you thought MHZ means more powerful lol.
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
I love the way you compare PC based hardware to the EE and GS.
Can\'t do bump mapping wtf! Sorry to tell you man, it can.
Oh and the EE is more powerful then the xbox cpu.
heres a few reasons why
-Data bus, cache memory as well as all registers are 128 bit on the PS2 CPU while the XBox CPU is 32 bits.
-It has a max. performance of 6.2GFLOPS while the XBox CPU can only do a bit over 3 GFLOPS.
-It incorporates two 64-bit integer units (IU) with a 128-bit SIMD multi-media command unit, two independent floating point vector calculation units (VU0, VU1), an MPEG 2 decoder circuit (Image Processing Unit/IPU) and high performance DMA controllers.
All within the EE
3 words dood.
Get a clue.
You would think that ps2 would be the most powerful system out then.
The PS2 may have a more innovative, effective and powerful design of hardware but it is also much more complex system to learn and nobody will truely ever know if was more powerful.
But the xbox has the most power Gpu in the game which makes it the more powerful system out. No other console can compare.
When you look at a game like d0a3 there not game on any other console that comes close.
But I do think if devs could some how harnest the full power of ps2 it would really show it\'s true strengths.
-
If you read up on what the GS can do, then you\'d be amazed. Its just untapped power, which may never be used. Shame really. But what can u do.
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
I love the way you compare PC based hardware to the EE and GS.
Can\'t do bump mapping wtf! Sorry to tell you man, it can.
Really?? Please post a screen shot, pleeezzzz!!! I would really love to see EVIDENCE.
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
Oh and the EE is more powerful then the xbox cpu.
heres a few reasons why
-Data bus, cache memory as well as all registers are 128 bit on the PS2 CPU while the XBox CPU is 32 bits.
-It has a max. performance of 6.2GFLOPS while the XBox CPU can only do a bit over 3 GFLOPS.
-It incorporates two 64-bit integer units (IU) with a 128-bit SIMD multi-media command unit, two independent floating point vector calculation units (VU0, VU1), an MPEG 2 decoder circuit (Image Processing Unit/IPU) and high performance DMA controllers.
All within the EE
3 words dood.
Get a clue.
The PS2 CPU > XBOX CPU?? Err...we\'re comparing system as A WHOLE. Not a specific part of the system. The XBOX has many other sub-system to compensate...like the built in Dobly digital encoder, the PS2 will need to sacrifice one VU unit to do it..
What\'s the point of having a P4 3Ghz CPU with a TNT2 M64 GPU?? It\'ll perform worst than a lowly XP1800 with a ATI9800 Pro.
Bottom line: XBOX games graphics > PS2. texture variety and detail, resolution, bump mapping, frame drops is SUPERIOR.
You get a REAL clue.
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
Not to say the xbox isn\'t more powerful. Although i\'d like to see a ps2 game using 100% of its power compared to a Xbox game with 100% power too. Right now, i doubt theres 1 title that uses 100% of ps2s power. But there most likely is already xbox titles that are close, or even using 100% of its power.
I\'m sorry SoulGrind...bwa ha ha!!! That\'s really such a bias unfounded statement. All games actually uses 100% of the CPU power..it\'s just how it\'s optimized. And please don\'t tell me after 5 years and nobody knows how to make use of the so called "PS2 power"...and where did u get the idea that XBOX "already uses 100%" while the PS2 "haven\'t reach 100%" yet???
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
I\'m just saying don\'t compare the hardware via PC wise. the GS isn\'t a GF2, don\'t compare it to one. Just as the EE isn\'t a P3 cpu. What, you thought MHZ means more powerful lol.
I use it as a rough measure to gauge the performance and feature. Without the bump mapping and pixel shaders, the PS2 is definitely in the generation of GF2( with enhanced T&L architecture), but with maybe higher polygon count.
In fact on a white specs comparison, i do agreed that the PS2 CPU is > than Intel\'s P3 733Mhz CPU. But what\'s the use of all those CPU power if it\'s let down by the GPU and inadequate VRAM?( and pls don\'t give me that ancient story about the 4MB VRAM is a buffer..yadda..yadda..and the PS2 can stream 100MB or so texture from the DVD in real-time yadda-yadda...). The PS2 CPU has to compensate and waste it\'s processing power to swap texture in/out and a host of other stuff that is not supported by the GPU as well...
That\'s why PS2=bland texture, jaggies, no 5.1 sound, no bump map and no pixel shading.
If you need evidence, just about 99% of cross platform games look better on the XBOX than PS2. The 1% that don\'t are probably bad ports or lousy developers.
And i really want to see your PS2 bump mapping screen please. It would be interesting.:bounce: And I\'ve like 40+ titles on the PS2 at one time and i haven\'t see one bump map, just FYI.
-
It puts the PS2 even more to shame as a 3 year old "outdated" P3 733Mhz manage to make the PS2 so pale in comparison.
When you were talking about the p3 making the ps2 pale inc omparison, i was simply stating that the p3 processor isn\'t on par with the EE. You said it yourself the directx is far more easier to develope for. How long have developers been using and growing with it now?? and you wanna compare that to a 5 year old system lol. I doubt ps2 is maxed out.
Bump mapping, Primal is said to use it, although i haven\'t played the game. Champions of Norrath is another. Go look em up. Or play them whatever, btw ps2 can do any effect in software. Its just coding.
Nice little read.
The Graphics Chip and VRAM
This is where the images are rendered. The XBox uses an Nvidia Graphics Processing Unit running at 250MHz and the PS2 uses the Graphics Synthesizer running at 150MHz. Again, judging by these specs the XBox looks better. The XBox GPU has a few advantages (or maybe not) over the PS2 GS, for example:
-The XBox GPU can do 125 million polygons (according to Microsoft) while the PS2 GS can only do 75million polygons
-The XBox GPU has a max. resolution of 1920x1080 and the PS2 GS can do 1280x1024, the rest of the graphics chip will be comparable to NV-20 chip.
There are alot of neat effects the XBox GPU can do with its hardware, but all those effects can be done by the Emotion Engine in software too (while the XBox\' CPU is not powerful enough to do complex visual effects in software). But the catch is that these advantages (talking about higher resolutions here) don\'t make a lot of difference on a TV screen, even on an HDTV screen the difference would be barely noticeable (when the console\'s hardware is used properly). So, is the XBox Graphics Processing Unit better than the PS2 GS? It doesn\'t look like it, the architecture of the PS2 GS looks far more advanced. For example, PS2 has a parallel rendering engine that contains a 2,560 bit wide data bus that is 20 times the size of leading PC-based graphics accelerators. The Graphics Synthesizer architecture can execute recursive multi-pass rendering processing and filter operations at a very fast speed without the assistance of the main CPU or main bus access. In the past, this level of real-time performance was only achieved when using very expensive, high performance, dedicated graphics workstations. There is a 48-Gigabyte/sec memory access bandwidth achieved via the integration of the pixel logic and the video memory on a single high performance chip. The quality of the resulting screen image is comparable to high quality pre-rendered 3D graphics. (that is once the game developers have learned how to use it properly) There has also been a misunderstanding about the VideoRAM on the PS2. The VRAM is included in the 32MB of main RAM on the CPU (the developer chooses how much of it he wants to dedicate to VRAM). Everyone thought the 4MB of memory on the GS was the VRAM while that is just a buffer in which all the rendering is done so no external bandwidth is needed (only for texture streaming). Another rumor that\'s been spread by several gaming sites is that the XBox is capable of texture compression and full scene anti-aliasing while the PS2 isn\'t. This is simply not true. The PS2 can compress/decompress textures and do full scene anti-aliasing without causing as much slow-down as on the XBox. And although the XBox GPU can do a lot of effects that are not \'built-in\' in the PS2 GS, the PS2 can do all these effects and more in software mode (but at least at the same quality) through the Emotion Engine. XBox fanboys will probably tell you that the XBox GPU is more powerful because of its vertex shaders while the coprocessors on the Emotion Engine of the PS2 can be used to get the same effects as the XBox\' vertex shaders (but the vertex shaders can\'t do everything that the EE\'s coprocessors can do).
Now let\'s take a look at how Microsoft got the idea that their graphics chip can do 125 million polygons, because this is a little unclear... (I\'m going to go in some tech details now) The PS2\'s Graphics Synthesizer has the highest pixel fill rate of the next generation of consoles. Most remeber the 4.0 GPixels on Microsoft\'s spec comparence sheet. Well, Microsoft was nice to include a "(anti-aliased)" next to it. What does "4.0 GPixels (anti-aliased)", mean? It\'s misleading. The Xbox has hardwired 4x FSAA, when this is turned on the actual total of 1.0 GPixels is re-rendered 4 times to remove aliasing. Another possible reason for Microsoft to say Xbox\'s fill-rate is 4 GPixels per second. Is that the 1 GPixels is with 2 texture layers, if it is NOT used Xbox would not gain any performance and if it is used Xbox wouldn\'t lose any performance. It remains 1.0 GPixels w/ 2 textures, so what MS possibly did was it doubled the fill rate twice. Trying to compare it to PS2\'s fill rate w/ no texture. What MS did was it came up with misleading numbers. The Xbox can\'t go higher than 1 GPixels per second. The NV2a in the Xbox has 4 pixel units running at 250 MHz, that\'s 1 billion pixels/second. While the GS in the PS2 has 16 pixel units running at 150 MHz, which is 2.4 billion pixels every second. Now let\'s talk about polygons. Right here I\'m talking about polygon rendering and not polygon transformations. To calculate polygon rendering performance, you take the pixel fill rate, and write it in millions. So PS2s pixel fill rate is 2400 Million. When Sony says polygons, it is refering to 32 pixel polygons. Divide 2400 Million by 32. You get 75 Million (32-pixel) polygons per second. That is raw and doesn\'t include textures, they use up pixels also. Now let\'s take Microsoft\'s allegged pixel fill rate of 4000 Million, which MS has on it\'s spec sheet and divide it by 32, you get, yes you guessed it, 125 Million (32 pixel) polygons per second. Here\'s the problem, the NV2a doesn\'t have a 4000 M fill rate but a 1000 M fill rate. So it\'s 31 Million (32 pixel) polygons per second. This isn\'t raw, since there\'s also 2 texture units for each pixel unit. So that\'s 31 million with 2 texture layers, the PS2 is around 38 Million with 1 texture layer and 20 million with 2 texture layers. The Xbox maxes out at 31 MPolygons per second, if textures aren\'t placed on those polygons- Xbox will not gain a polygon rendering increase in performance. The PS2\'s Graphic Synthesizer could render 75 MPolygons per second with no texture. The NV2a in the Xbox can\'t render higher than 31 MPolygons per second at all.
Okay now take that all into account and then check out the following... The XBox graphics chip does not really give you the same power you get out of a GeForce3 3D accelerator card. It is only a graphics chip, similar to the one on that card but it shares its memory with the XBox\'s system RAM and has a 250mhz RAMDAC. While a standard GeForce3 accelarator card gives you an additional 64MB of video memory with 350MHz RAMDAC. The NV2A compensates for this by having a second vertex shader, as opposed by the GeForce3\'s single vertex shader. However, Microsoft claims that this second vertex shader instantly bumps the XBox\'s theoretical max poly count from the 31 million that Nvidia lists for the GeForce 3, all the way up to 125 million pps. According to most experts, the area that will actually see the most improvement from this will actually be in Bump Mapping. Microsoft has yet to explain how the second vertex shader yields an additional 94 million polygons per second." I don\'t know enough to go more in detail about this but this is definately an interesting point, and it seems that the XBox doesn\'t have the advantage here.
I can understand that this is all a bit confusing if you\'re not a real tech-freak. It comes down to this: when developers have learned how to use the power of the PS2 GS properly they\'ll get a lot more out of it than XBox developers will get out of the XBox GPU. The PS2 GS combined with the EE can do a lot more advanced visual effects than the XBox GPU combined with its CPU.
Take from it what u will. I personally couldn\'t give a S@#T about whats more powerful really. Its the games that interest me, and by the console/game sales.. most other people too.
-
ps2 games have not been using bump mapping.
Can the ps2 do bump mapping? Not to the extent of the xbox. But I belive it could do it but developers ain\'t got a clue how to impelment it in games.
-
OMG souly you actually wants us to take some internet article for fact?:rolleyes:
I am ashamed you had the nerve to even post that. I have seen that artile it has so many wholes and gaps it in.
The guy is right on the cpu part but totally has no clue after that.
:o tisk...tisk
-
well, explain the gaps. :) I get so many different explanations thrown at me its hard to know who to believe.. You see, this guy makes more sence to me then someone saying. "OMG, he is like, so not right" etc
-
I think the best thing we can all do is ignore UniCorn\'s post.:)
Who cares? Sony won this generation. End of story. Why bother debating a couple year old specs?
-
I can\'t believe you would put your credibility on the line and post something so farts.
I am not even going to waste my time breaking down that trash. Everyone knows the xbox can render more polygons than ps2.
But if you take that guys opinion ps2 is far superior graphically:rolleyes:
Which graphics is not even the point of this topic. So I wont even take this thread there.
That right there reminds me of the good old days when some xbox fanboy would post some stupid xbox pic and brag about the graphics.
tisk...tisk.....
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I think the best thing we can all do is ignore UniCorn\'s post.:)
Who cares? Sony won this generation. End of story. Why bother debating a couple year old specs?
I agree
thanks dad for settling things between us kids;)
-
You still haven\'t explain those gaps ;)
btw. Opengl kicks ass over Direct3d.
Give me back full opengl support
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
You still haven\'t explain those gaps ;)
btw. Opengl kicks ass over Direct3d.
true but what can we do. Microsoft runs the world:(
-
This isn\'t about Xbox being better than PS2 or the EE being better than a Pentium. Its about setting up a framework to try and standardize(probably not the word I\'m looking for) and streamline the game development process to benefit the developers and the gamers.
-
Originally posted by Paul
1. - New method, old method...who cares. What the consumer wants to see is the end result and developers want to do it in least possible time to save cost. Why spend 10 years to achieve something similar that can be done in 6 months. One rule of development cycle: DO NOT RE-INVENT THE WHEEL.
Ok.....let me repaet myself.......THATS THE RISK PAID WHEN SOMETHING NEW IS INTRODUCED!!!THIS IS TEMPORARY!!THE INDUSTRY ADJUSTS!!!
phew
2. Yes...so there is a lot of untapped power in the PC GPU...who cares...it still looks 20 times better than a PS2 running at 50% of the potential!!! Isn\'t that great!!!
Yawn...u just compared a hardware released in 1999 with a todays PC.Congratulations
1. Hello...I believe BurnOut 3 will destined to be multiplatform like BurnOut 2. And FYI, BurnOut 2 on XBOX does look SLIGHTLY better than the PS2 version. Comparing GT4 is null and void...there isn\'t a GT4 on XBOX. How about comparing Splinter Cell, NFS:UG, Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil, Soul Calibur 2 etc etc?? The PS2 falls flat on it\'s face...like it\'s texture. And i found no improvement between GT3 and GT4. The PS2 has reached it\'s limit. But i do agreed the GT series (especially GT3) is really the best racing simulator bar none on any platform...too bad i prefer arcade racers.
Ahm.....Where did I say that you get better results on PS2?I said that the XBOX got a variety of visuals thanks to games developed specifically for PS2.And I wasnt saying that GT4 cant be done on XBOX.I am saying that on PS2 we got great looking titles that vary.On XBOX you dont get that often.Its rare.Unless they release a PS2 port on it.When developers program directly a game on XBOX they porgram on DirectX.
And so, the BEST VERSION of BO3 will likely be on the XBOX...like BurnOut 2...AGAIN. (and the Dobly Digital 5.1 effects in BO2 is just so much better than the PS2...heavy bass and accurate separation!)
Thats NOT the point.Bournout3 is based on tools developed originaly with PS2 on mind.
I am NOT comparing hardware :rolleyes:
2. Huh XBOX DirectX on GF2?? I was referring to the PS2=GF2+. I hope you realized that the XBOX is actually a GF3.5...an enhanced GF3. That is why you get bump mapping and pixel shaders...PS2 can never do this because it\'s in a generation similar to GF2(DX7) which doesn\'t have these features. The gap isn\'t that huge except for better frame rates, minimal jaggies, higher resolution, detail texture with more variety and mind boogling texture that looks 3D thanks to bump mapping....
:laughing: [/B]
WOW ITS USING A GF 3.5????:eek:
And thats only what we get????????
Look.I am bored of seeing the same graphics over and over and over again only in a different form just becuase they use the same tools=thus similar engines.
On PS2 we may not get bumb mapping, etc etc.But thats due to haaaaaaardawwwaaaaareeee limitaaaatiooonnnsss!!
I am comparing.........PROGRAMMING METHOOOOOOOODS....phew.
Originally posted by Paul
Let me get this straight.....same effects and similar engines??
Ok...so you\'re IMPRESSED by the same bland texture, frame drops and jaggies in nearly every PS2 games and yet you\'re not impressed by the fantastic and superior graphics in nearly every XBOX game (ex: Ninja Gaiden, Panzer Orta..)...and finally maybe 5 years later, some geek managed to the same level of bump mapping and texture on the PS2 and you\'re gonna claim it\'s the next coming??
My replied:"But i\'ve seen it on the XBOX 5 YEARS AGO!!!!!!"
:clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown:
You still think I am comparing XBOX with PS2.Dont you.I dare you to mention more games that stand out graphically (btw Ninja Gaiden was in development for years.WAIT A GO DIRECT X).I dont have the time to start explaining in paragraphs why japanese developers get these results either.But I ll only do a summary to the surface.Japanese developers that learned games programming in Japan follow the logic "I want to do that and this.Lets try squeeze it out".PC game developers in USA and Europe "This tool enables me to do this and that.So I ll do just that.I want a better tool.I hope they bring one that can do more than what this enables me to do in the present"
Err....Huh?? Just what the heck r u saying?? Outdated PC hardware? U mean XBOX? of course it is....but Ninja Gaiden still looks better than anything similar on the PS2...(Say..Shinobi?? Urrgghhh..)..and can compare to my respectable Raddy ATI 9700 in terms of graphics quality....
Shinobi? *Unicron thinks of an older game with graphics and gameplay that kicks Shinobi\'s ass" :rolleyes:
I can think of more examples
Sonic heroes on PS2 *Unicron thinks of a few other platform games*
Sega=BORED DEVELOPERS
Oh and I see games on XBOX like Ninja Gaiden EVERYWHERE.....NOT!
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I think the best thing we can all do is ignore UniCorn\'s post.:)
Who cares? Sony won this generation. End of story. Why bother debating a couple year old specs?
I hope you realise that I am not comparing SPECS or which console is better.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I think the best thing we can all do is ignore UniCorn\'s post.:)
Who cares? Sony won this generation. End of story. Why bother debating a couple year old specs?
U r rite. U can\'t argue with people who can\'t accept facts and loves crummy graphics.
I\'m outta here...:yawn:
-
:rolleyes:
Do you really read what I write?
-
i agree with uni on this...if i\'m understanding this correctly,..let the programmers with the real skills shine instead of everybody having the same tools..yeah the graphics will look great from the door, but after that all games will not improve graphic wise over the next 5 years which is not good.
i like knowing that most of the time when a sequel to a game comes out or a newer game comes out the graphics is updated & the physics of the game is updated as well. to me if you have these standard tools there\'s no room to evolve..this seriously hampers your drive to be creative.
hopefully i\'m understanding the theme of this thread,..cause to be honest, when you cats started throwin\' specs around i just skimmed over those posts. ;)
-
To a great degree yes you did catch an idea.The easiness and standards the Direct X offers means more and more developers will appear.Untalented and unskilfull that can program only what the tools enable them to.At the end games are mass produced like music from music programs by many untalented people.No innovation.No variety.No experimenting.Knowledge becomes limited.Tools use the same things used before only with enhanced graphics.Good developers will be lost in an oversupply of untalented employers that only do what the tools enable them to do.
The reason I mentioned XBOX is because it uses old PC technology on which developers still make games using Direct X.(Developers on PC though make games on new PC technology).We see the same engines used again and again and again and the similar games.Its japanese developers that did the most difference on XBOX or developers that worked already on PS2.
Japanese that want to become game developers find things harder in Japan.Most things they are being taught would have been usefull years ago.So they learn things by themselves.First they think what they want to do.And try to achieve that.They arent being taught on tools established everywhere (what happens with Direct X).
And games like Timesplitters2 show some graphical style not seen in other XBOX games.It may not look better than for example DOOM3 but thats not the point.The Burnout series was also developed on tools that were created with PS2 in mind.Whether the port will look better on XBOX is still not the point.
Direct X limits the gaming industry.I hope this will never happen with consoles.Otherwise forget the fame consoles have in the industry.Developers will shift to direct X due to easiness,And since consoles dont evolve technologically every year but every five years, developers wont be supporting consoles since after a couple of years PCs will be already surpassing the consoles.Direct X will do the difference on more powerfull PCs but not in consoles.They can not sgueeze that untapped power left in consoles with direct X.Especially if developers have limited knowldedge and do only what the direct X enables them to.
See what Soulgrind said as well.Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
Could u imagine if all the companies built games based around Directx. Arghh all the crappy pc ports and vise visa..
Now I probably understand the reason of mm\'s attitude towards the XBOX
-
Wow Uni your above post made no sense at all dude.
At the end games are mass produced like music from music programs by many untalented people.No innovation.No variety.No experimenting.Knowledge becomes limited.Tools use the same things used before only with enhanced graphics
Obviously you have no Idea what directX is. And have never even attempted to learn about it. It\'s not easy as your thinking. Just makes it easier for programmers to program.
No innovation in games?
I assume you did not mean to say that but just forgot to edit your post.
You also know that micosoft is ever improving directX right? Right
-
That was a simile.I wasnt talking literally.If you want to believe that I ment "its as ****ing easy as making music on a music progam" to satisfy your arguement then FINE
Microsoft doesnt have the motives to improve it for creative purposes.But mostly for simplifying and get great results faster(yeah the same results we see in most games in a long period) so developers will use their own tools only.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
The easiness and standards the Direct X offers means more and more developers will appear.Untalented and unskilfull that can program only what the tools enable them to.At the end games are mass produced like music from music programs by many untalented people.No innovation.No variety.No experimenting.Knowledge becomes limited.Tools use the same things used before only with enhanced graphics.Good developers will be lost in an oversupply of untalented employers that only do what the tools enable them to do.
1. You are assuming that all new developers are untalented and not as skilled as established developers.
2. ALL DEVELOPERS PROGRAM WHAT THE TOOLS ENABLE THEM TO. Konami is not going to take the same PS3 hardware that Joe\'s Beginner Games Co. has and make high-speed DVD burners while Joe can only make Pac-Man.
3. Development standards (OpenGL/DirectX/etc.) have been in practice for over a decade. Can you honestly say that in that time period console games have been hands down better than PC Games? For every gameplay innovation that is introduced on the console, the PC has about 5. Why is that?
4. All things considered equal the cream will rise to the top. Game design is not about being able to make the best tools its about being the best WITH the tools. Michaelangelo and I could use the exact same paintbrush/canvas but there is a reason his painting would be better than mine. He has more skill.
5. "Knowledge becomes limited."
Knowledge increases because instead of having to know how to do everything ok you know how to do a few things really well. This is the same reason you go to a specialist and not a general practitioner when you need specific medical help.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
1. You are assuming that all new developers are untalented and not as skilled as established developers.
No I didnt say ALL.I said MORE
2. ALL DEVELOPERS PROGRAM WHAT THE TOOLS ENABLE THEM TO. Konami is not going to take the same PS3 hardware that Joe\'s Beginner Games Co. has and make high-speed DVD burners while Joe can only make Pac-Man.
Cant you please find a better example?With logic??I didnt know Naughty Dog had the tools ready for that engine they use in Jak and Daxter
3. Development standards (OpenGL/DirectX/etc.) have been in practice for over a decade. Can you honestly say that in that time period console games have been hands down better than PC Games? For every gameplay innovation that is introduced on the console, the PC has about 5. Why is that?
Becuase MORE development houses develop on PCs so they produce MORE games in one year fof PCs than with consoles(on which the market is separeted) and because PC hardware evolves faster.Developers dont know how to squeezw more out from the console.Mostly japanese developers do becuase they grew up with consoles.Almost every household has one.Whenever 10 games are produced for a console in a period of time a lot more are being produced on PCs.Check the number of games released on PCs in a certain period of time and the number of games released on consoles.There are more crap and mediocre games on PCs as well.
4. All things considered equal the cream will rise to the top. Game design is not about being able to make the best tools its about being the best WITH the tools. Michaelangelo and I could use the exact same paintbrush/canvas but there is a reason his painting would be better than mine. He has more skill.
Oh you dont seem to get it do you?Developers can develop on the tools if they have the knowledge and know how the hardware works.That developer can achieve more.
As for an artist like Michaelangelo and Da Vinci or Van Gogh they had knowledge.They experimented with different techniques.They had their own talent.Their own expression.Thats why they differed from countless of other artists outhere.These were the talented artists.
5. "Knowledge becomes limited."
Knowledge increases because instead of having to know how to do everything ok you know how to do a few things really well. This is the same reason you go to a specialist and not a general practitioner when you need specific medical help.
If you want to do things really well you must know how things really work
If you are just being taught what each medicine does and the dose someone needs of that medicine it doesnt mean you are a doctor or a pharmacist
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
4. All things considered equal the cream will rise to the top. Game design is not about being able to make the best tools its about being the best WITH the tools. Michaelangelo and I could use the exact same paintbrush/canvas but there is a reason his painting would be better than mine. He has more skill.
This is the only one I really wanted to address, since you brought it up. Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, the best of the best... they INVENTED THEIR OWN TOOLS and IMPROVED ON IDEAS ALREADY AROUND. Inventing telescopes, new techniques - that\'s what the REAL best of the best do... and in a confined homogenized direcX environment that won\'t be possible.
If you take 4 groups, 2 talented and 2 standard.
1 talented with static tools = good from the get go. some improvement over time, but not much.
1 talented with evolving tools = Decent but slow starter, most potential of all, no limits on improvings themselves.
1 standard with static tools = nothing special from the get go. Won\'t get better.
1 standard with evolving tools = crappy start, some improvement, but never going to be anything special.
IMO the entire industry already lacks innovation and willingness to experiment, and by closing of an entire branch/area where they could try new things (tool writing), you are limiting an already self-limited industry.
-
Couldnt be said better
-
Originally posted by FatalXception
IMO the entire industry already lacks innovation and willingness to experiment, and by closing of an entire branch/area where they could try new things (tool writing), you are limiting an already self-limited industry.
The tools are still being written. Its not as if Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo is going to ship a physics or graphics engine with their console that everyone has to use. There are companies that are specializing in these things(people like Havok or Meqon) and the large developers will still make their own.
[EDIT]BTW, the tools do not evolve. The hardware evolves and the tools are upgraded accordingly.
-
That only happens with PC.And thats because Direct X made things to be that way on PCs.You ommited a huge part I mentioned earlier.If this was the case with consoles we would have still be getting first gen graphics on PS2 and GC.
-
You know....i really shouldn\'t replied to anymore of Unicorn\'s self proclaiming vision of utopia...but it\'s just too funny to resist!!!
Originally posted by Unicron!
Yawn...u just compared a hardware released in 1999 with a todays PC.Congratulations
Okay then...let\'s take the GF3 then...about 3 or 4 years DX technology....given your logic...since the DX is has so many "untapped pontential"...yet this lowly outdated DX technology still managed to beat the shit out of a PS2?? :laughing:
Originally posted by Unicron!
Ahm.....Where did I say that you get better results on PS2?I said that the XBOX got a variety of visuals thanks to games developed specifically for PS2.And I wasnt saying that GT4 cant be done on XBOX.I am saying that on PS2 we got great looking titles that vary.On XBOX you dont get that often.Its rare.Unless they release a PS2 port on it.When developers program directly a game on XBOX they porgram on DirectX.
I think you did mentioned about how this "shining" effects in BuronOut 3 and challenging the XBOX. :)
"Great variety of visuals"...what?? Where?? Jak 2 - doesn\'t looks like any better than Jak 1. GT4? - no better than GT3. I\'ve 40 over PS2 games and they don\'t show any "Great Variety visuals" other than the common...low-res, jaggies, frame drop, bland texture, blurry texture. If u like this kinda variety, than you can have it.
Originally posted by Unicron!
Thats NOT the point.Bournout3 is based on tools developed originaly with PS2 on mind.
I am NOT comparing hardware :rolleyes:
Even worst...a tool that was originally developed on the PS2 and yet will look better on the XBOX without twitching a muscle? And you are not comparing hardware...yet you keep saying that DX is no good(DX is both hardware+software)...man...you are so screwed.
Originally posted by Unicron!
WOW ITS USING A GF 3.5????:eek:
And thats only what we get????????
Yes...a humble GF3.5...and it\'s still MUCH better than the GF2 generation PS2 graphisc quality. LOL.
Originally posted by Unicron!
Look.I am bored of seeing the same graphics over and over and over again only in a different form just becuase they use the same tools=thus similar engines.
Look. And I was REALLY BORED with the same jaggies, bland texture, blur textures, low frame rates...different tools, yet producing the SAME LOW QUALITY graphics.
]Originally posted by Unicron!
On PS2 we may not get bumb mapping, etc etc.But thats due to haaaaaaardawwwaaaaareeee limitaaaatiooonnnsss!!
I am comparing.........PROGRAMMING METHOOOOOOOODS....phew.
Uh huh.....and you were laughing at the "lowly" GF3.5 just now...:)
So now you\'re comparing "programming methods"?? Do you even know what is that?? (btw, i do software programming and have been tinkering with DX for awhile). But you were comparing DX and tools just now...
So make up your mind what you want to say...but basically, you\'ve no idea what ur talking about.
Originally posted by Unicron!
You still think I am comparing XBOX with PS2.Dont you.
Yes. Of course you r. You\'d mentioned that
"I said that the XBOX got a variety of visuals thanks to games developed specifically for PS2"
Wow. It must be thanks to the PS2 that we get NG, PDO, DOA3, Splinter Cell, and host of other cross platform games that looks infinitely superior on the XBOX. :laughing: :clown:
]Originally posted by Unicron!
I dare you to mention more games that stand out graphically (btw Ninja Gaiden was in development for years.WAIT A GO DIRECT X).I dont have the time to start explaining in paragraphs why japanese developers get these results either.But I ll only do a summary to the surface.Japanese developers that learned games programming in Japan follow the logic "I want to do that and this.Lets try squeeze it out".PC game developers in USA and Europe "This tool enables me to do this and that.So I ll do just that.I want a better tool.I hope they bring one that can do more than what this enables me to do in the present"
Err...just about every other cross platform games LOOKS MUCH BETTER on the XBOX. XBOX Exclusive of couse, are simply not possible on the PS2...unless you want it to looks crummy like Splinter Cell.
And i haven\'t seen anything that says "stands out" from the PS2 since the last 2 years. The PS2 has reached it\'s limit and it\'s as clear as the bland texture and jagginess in every PS2 game produced since 2002.
]Originally posted by Unicron!
Sega=BORED DEVELOPERS
You\'r saying that because SEGA is making all those fab XBOX exclusive which simply cannot be done on the PS2, while dumping the PS2 with crap games. :laughing:
]Originally posted by Unicron!
Oh and I see games on XBOX like Ninja Gaiden EVERYWHERE.....NOT!
Oh and i DON\'T SEE ANYWHERE on PS2 like Ninja gaiden AT ALL.
]Originally posted by Unicron!
And games like Timesplitters2 show some graphical style not seen in other XBOX games.It may not look better than for example DOOM3 but thats not the point.The Burnout series was also developed on tools that were created with PS2 in mind.Whether the port will look better on XBOX is still not the point.
i think you are SERIOUSLY confused by the graphic design by a game developer and the tools. The style in TimeSplitter 2(cartoony graphics) has nothing to do with whether it runs on Linux or Windows or Direct X.
At the end of the day, both ends up being superior on the XBOX. :laughing:
-
^ and yet through out all that crap, ps2 is still outselling xbox.
DirectX isn\'t hardware. Its just software drivers that take advantage of hardware. Its released to developers as a SDK.
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
^ and yet through out all that crap, ps2 is still outselling xbox.
DirectX isn\'t hardware. Its just software drivers that take advantage of hardware. Its released to developers as a SDK.
Yes..PS2 is outselling XBOX...that is beside the point...i don\'t care. I\'ve enough of the crap graphics of the PS2 after being use to the PC. The XBOX has most of the console games and graphics that is comparable to a PC game(and doesn\'t makes you puke) and fulfill my needs for console gaming ( PC just sucks for console type games, regardless of the graphics, the controls and feel is just not there).
And nope, you\'re wrong about DX isn\'t hardware. The development of DX goes hands in hands. MS is in constant discussion and info exchange with hardware developer like ATI and Nvidia when they develope the next gen of DX library. Which is why when Nvidia fails to discuss with MS for DX9 (because theyr\'e too arrogant to attend the meetings and want to have it their way), they mess up the GF FX cards with the "16/32 vs 24 bit precision" thingy and thus giving ATI the advantage of better performing hardware because of it\'s compatibility.
-
wtf is going on in here?
-
again, directx isn\'t hardware. Its just drivers
Whatever ati/nvidia discuss with M$ on what hardware they make compatible with it doesn\'t matter. Directx is software. Its not hardware. If it was you wouldn\'t be able to program under the opengl API on todays or any card designed for directx.
ps... Didn\'t u know? xbox is a pc. ;)
and pc is fine for console type games.. Aslong as you play them the same way you would on consoles.. with the right controls etc.
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
again, directx isn\'t hardware. Its just drivers
Whatever ati/nvidia discuss with M$ on what hardware they make compatible with it doesn\'t matter. Directx is software. Its not hardware. If it was you wouldn\'t be able to program under the opengl API on todays or any card designed for directx.
ps... Didn\'t u know? xbox is a pc. ;)
and pc is fine for console type games.. Aslong as you play them the same way you would on consoles.. with the right controls etc.
Wrong again. That is why OpenGL is dying and DX is blooming. The drivers have to be consistent with what the hardware is doing. Anyway, it doesn\'t matter, have it your way if u wish.
But as for the age old argument that the XBOX is a pc...sigh...tell me what defines a PC??
Does the XBOX plugs straight to a monitor? No
Does it runs Photoshop/MSOffice/Oracle??? No
Does it have keyboard/mouse as default input devices? No
Is the main purpose of the machine a gaming machine to sit in your living room? Yes
So, what makes the XBOX a "PC" and the PS2/GC otherwise?
And don\'t give me that shit about running Windows (so does Dreamcast). PS2 runs Linux too btw. So i guess the PS2 is a Linux PC?? :laughing:
And PC is NOT FINE with console games simply because the control sucks horribly unless you\'re using keyboard/mouse combo. Playing Prince of Persia, BG&E etc, with mouse/keyboard is a disaster....not to mentioned the feeling of sitting in front of the large screen TV is a totally different experince( and especially different when u have a 5.1 HT system in the living room..the Dobly Digital 5.1 of the XB rocks!). PC games just doesn\'t have adequte support for gamepad controllers (especially dual analog sticks). But i believe MS is gonna do something about this with the XNA...possibly the DX will have the XBOX controller gamepad as the common standard.
-
Again, Directx is not HARDWARE. You show me one document saying otherwise.
Its software designed to run hardware.
Saying Dx is hardware is like saying windows is, or the applications on it because they access the cpu, ram, hd, cdroms etc etc..
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/DirectX.html <-- if u still don\'t understand.
Opengl is far from dead.. go read opengl.org once in awhile.
Why xbox can be considered a pc in a box, lets start at who made it.. M$ with Nvidia.
It uses hardware based of PC hardware all onboard
Ethernet, Cpu, Apu, Gpu, harddrive etc
It uses DirectX.
Download Updates, extra levels for games.
Sounds like a pc to me.
http://xbox-linux.sourceforge.net/docs/xboxpc.html
lol, They go into more details if you don\'t believe me...
Microsoft themselves do not think of it as a \'games console\', but as a platform just like a PC
LMFAO.. Wipes tear from eye..
How many of the consoles are using pc based hardware onboard for pretty much everything? GPU, CPU, APU etc etc Xbox comes to mind...
A laptop is portable. That doesn\'t mean it’s a console ;)
As for controllers, i have a logitech rumble gamepad (dual analog) and i have no problems with any of the games i\'ve played with it. Including POP etc. I\'m also using MCP-T chipset (similar to what the xbox uses) for my gaming so i get 5.1 surround in AC3. Its part of the Nforce2 chipset. Kinda like what xbox uses.. lol
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
Why xbox can be considered a pc in a box, lets start at who made it.. M$ with Nvidia.
It uses hardware based of PC hardware all onboard
Ethernet, Cpu, Apu, Gpu, harddrive etc
It uses DirectX.
Download Updates, extra levels for games.
Sounds like a pc to me.
Sorry, I stopped reading after "M$". Can\'t expect an unbiased statement about Microsoft when you see that.
-
Black Samurai:
I ment to reply earlier, but got side tracked. While I do agree with your general stand on the argument of what the strength of the XNA (or in the same way directx) is, but you\'re not allowed to dismiss the clear disadvantages they bring to developers as well.
This isn\'t about Xbox being better than PS2 or the EE being better than a Pentium. Its about setting up a framework to try and standardize(probably not the word I\'m looking for) and streamline the game development process to benefit the developers and the gamers.
...which is always a great thing, but clearly in the perspective of the hardware being fixed platforms over a timeframe of about 5 or more years, also holds geat inefficiency. You can\'t have both: Either it\'s easy with less freedom or difficult with ultimate freedom - the difference between xbox development and PS2. Which is better? Both hold disadvantages after all...
And efficency just as freedom of development is an important strength as shown in many Konami efforts such as ZOE2 which plays to the PS2\'s fillrate strength. When a team develops to that efficiency, the results can be very impressive - things I wouldn\'t expect to see on Xbox as most developers will ultimately be more limited through the set of tools that they use. On a console environment that stays fixed over 5 years, isn\'t this a good thing? Surely, one would have to be blind *cough* Paul *cough* not to see what advantage this has brought the PlayStation 2 platform over time.
Plus, There are people who do nothing BUT work on physics and AI engines. Nothing else. There is almost nothing that a console developer would need that hasn\'t already been made in some capacity and if they do, for some reason, need something else they can ADD to the pre-existing engine. Any new advances would come from developers building on already established platforms. This alone would shave MONTHS of development time. How much time is wasted on fixing little bugs that could have been spent on improving and innovating gameplay experiences?
You think that with XNA/DirectX, people specialized in physics and AI engines will be doing content stuff? Wrong. While those teams might need less people to get the same work load done, they are still needed and only for that tasks as they are specialized in that specific field. Teams consist of various people from content to art, music onto coders. Innovation comes with new technologies, new engines as well.
-
Originally posted by Paul
You know....i really shouldn\'t replied to anymore of Unicorn\'s self proclaiming vision of utopia...but it\'s just too funny to resist!!!
Lets all agree with Paul and make him happy shall we?
Oh oh I see mnore people not agreeing with the whole direct X idea.
Only Paul and the ones that agree with him know their stuff. :rolleyes:
Okay then...let\'s take the GF3 then...about 3 or 4 years DX technology....given your logic...since the DX is has so many "untapped pontential"...yet this lowly outdated DX technology still managed to beat the shit out of a PS2??
oK...I am starting to feel like a human trying to comunicate with a dog by barking to it.I AM NOT COMPARING HARDWARE!!
I ADMIT THAT YOU CAN GET MORE OFTEN GOOD RESULTS WITH A GF3 USING A DIRECT X THAN WITH PS2!!ITS EASIER TO PROGRAM ON, EASIER TO BALANCE IT AND ITS MORE POWERFULL THAN A PS2 IN MANY ASPECTS!!AND THE TOOLS HAVE BEEN USED IN THE INDUSTRY FOR MORE THAN A DECADE!THEY HAVE BEEN SPECIALIASING ON DIRECT X FOR YEARS!!THATS NOT THE POINT WHETHER PS2 IS GENERALLY MORE CAPABLE!!....phew
I already admited that PS2 games like Timesplitters2 do not look as good as games like Doom3
I think you did mentioned about how this "shining" effects in BuronOut 3 and challenging the XBOX. :)
hahaha LOL it was you I called sunshine.I was being sarcastic.I wasnt refering to the graphics with that adjective (NO I AM NOT GAY :p).What I pointed out is that tools that were build with PS2 in mind resulted to a title that is even impressive for XBOX which is supposed to be more powerful and on which developers use directX.Challenging for the xbox?Not at all.You can use tools other than direct X on XBOX as well.DIRECT X IS DOESNT BRING ONLY ADVANDAGES FOR XBOX!!!THIS ISNT HELPING XBOX EITHER!Burnout 3 is a damn fine example of an impressive title build on an older hardware in mind that works differently than PCs based on different tools than Direct X.It might look better on XBOX.Is that the point?NO!The point is developers managed great graphics which means good things for XBOX as well.PS2 ports help the appearance of titles that go beyond the usual standards we see on XBOX.And for god\'s sakes yeah I admit it might look better on XBOX.But I am discussing about different tools used here.
"Great variety of visuals"...what?? Where?? Jak 2 - doesn\'t looks like any better than Jak 1. GT4? - no better than GT3. I\'ve 40 over PS2 games and they don\'t show any "Great Variety visuals" other than the common...low-res, jaggies, frame drop, bland texture, blurry texture. If u like this kinda variety, than you can have it.
We arent talking about variety in quality here (how much resolution etc can you squweeze from an old hardware) but in graphical style mostly and new techniques that imporve the graphics.Jak2 may be using an enhanced engine of Jak1.You are comparing sequels on which developers may improve the same engine.I ll mention different examples.Compare Rachet and Clank with Jak and Daxter.Compare GT3 to Burnout2.Compare Killzone to Timesplitter2.Compare Soul Calibur2 to Tekken4.I am bored to mention more.As for jaggies, frame drop etc it has nothing to do with the tools used but mostly with balancing the hardware which is also 4 years old.I am not comparing hardware
Even worst...a tool that was originally developed on the PS2 and yet will look better on the XBOX without twitching a muscle? And you are not comparing hardware...yet you keep saying that DX is no good(DX is both hardware+software)...man...you are so screwed.
You think I am acting like a fanboy(yeah yeah XBOX beats the hell out of PS2 you said.WHo is the fanboy I wonder) trying to bash XBOX.If you like I ll use different statements so you can get the picture.
Direct X is a step back.Developers should be encouraged to extend further than Direct X.Yes that means XBOX as well.
The reason PS2 is mentioned is because developers are forced to use other tools than Direct X.It may be brutal.But uts still an example of what developeres can achieve if they try to extend further.
I am not comparing XBOX with PS2.And I am not trying to tell everyone PS2 is DE BEST THING EVER.
Yes...a humble GF3.5...and it\'s still MUCH better than the GF2 generation PS2 graphisc quality. LOL.
Read what I ve read in this post.....no...not just this one.The others as well.I happen to repeat myself since you dont get it.Atleast Black Samurai seems to get it and I enjoy doing a conversation with him more since he goes more to the point the more we discuss despite the fact that we disagree.You are still debating how better XBOX is compared to PS2.This was never the point of discussion. and you are talking with assumptions
Look. And I was REALLY BORED with the same jaggies, bland texture, blur textures, low frame rates...different tools, yet producing the SAME LOW QUALITY graphics.
read above
Uh huh.....and you were laughing at the "lowly" GF3.5 just now...:)
read above
So now you\'re comparing "programming methods"?? Do you even know what is that?? (btw, i do software programming and have been tinkering with DX for awhile). But you were comparing DX and tools just now...
So make up your mind what you want to say...but basically, you\'ve no idea what ur talking about.
I used a wrong expression.Forgive me my highness for my not so good english :rolleyes:
Although it still has to do with the subject.They develop on the tools.Its programming on software vs Programming on hardware vs exploiting both
Yes. Of course you r. You\'d mentioned that
"I said that the XBOX got a variety of visuals thanks to games developed specifically for PS2"
Wow. It must be thanks to the PS2 that we get NG, PDO, DOA3, Splinter Cell, and host of other cross platform games that looks infinitely superior on the XBOX. :laughing: :clown:
You like repeating yourself dont you?I answered to that already.Go read my previous posts and stop wasting my time
Err...just about every other cross platform games LOOKS MUCH BETTER on the XBOX. XBOX Exclusive of couse, are simply not possible on the PS2...unless you want it to looks crummy like Splinter Cell.
So?You think I am coMparing PS2 with XBOX?Where did I state clearly that PS2 is more capable than XBOX?PS2 PORTS HELPED XBOX!!AND GOOD FOR XBOX IF THEY LOOK EVEN BETTER!!
And i haven\'t seen anything that says "stands out" from the PS2 since the last 2 years. The PS2 has reached it\'s limit and it\'s as clear as the bland texture and jagginess in every PS2 game produced since 2002.
Man are you an XBOX fanboy??
You\'r saying that because SEGA is making all those fab XBOX exclusive which simply cannot be done on the PS2, while dumping the PS2 with crap games. :laughing:
No.You are making assumptions.This statement alone prooves that you didnt undrerstand anything from what I am saying becuase you cant stand anyone that seem to refer to something negative about the XBOX yet something positive about the PS2.Ofcourse I didnt do that.You are the one making assumptions
Oh and i DON\'T SEE ANYWHERE on PS2 like Ninja gaiden AT ALL.
i think you are SERIOUSLY confused by the graphic design by a game developer and the tools. The style in TimeSplitter 2(cartoony graphics) has nothing to do with whether it runs on Linux or Windows or Direct X.
At the end of the day, both ends up being superior on the XBOX. :laughing: [/B]
:rolleyes:
How many times will I have to explain over and over and over and over.....???
-
Originally posted by seven
You think that with XNA/DirectX, people specialized in physics and AI engines will be doing content stuff? Wrong. While those teams might need less people to get the same work load done, they are still needed and only for that tasks as they are specialized in that specific field. Teams consist of various people from content to art, music onto coders. Innovation comes with new technologies, new engines as well.
I was moreso talking about outsourcing to other companies that do physics engines; but I see where you are coming from.
You do have to realize, though, that even in the environment of DirectX developers STILL make their own engines. DirectX/XNA doesn\'t mean that people can no longer make their own engines. It means that those without the resources are not as hampered by that fact.
-
Black Samurai, i posted some facts about ms.. I personally have nothing against them. I always type out M$ because they are a monopoly and they aren\'t very well liked for there err business tactics.. Its just my little abbreviation. But if you didn\'t read on because of it.. oh well, not really my loss.
-
^^^In all seriousness, I typed out a long post repyling to what you said and I didn\'t like what I put so I just gave an excuse for not saying anything.
Even though you weren\'t talking to me in the first place.
-
I don\'t think some of you even understand what blacksam is saying or what your saying.
He not saying do away with technolgy. He is saying develop some standard that makes programming games easier.
You guys are jumping off into something totally different.
By making it easier for developers it will cut down on cost and production time.
Directx has not hender xbox. The games still look amazing .
Game engines and tools will contiue to be developed. It\'s the game engine that drvies the game anyways.
-
Opengl is easier to develop for then direct3d. Yet, Directx is the standard. As long as the operating system is M$ dominated, the development Sdks will follow suit.
IE is shipped with windows, and is more of a standard. That doesn\'t make it better then all other web browsers.
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
I don\'t think some of you even understand what blacksam is saying or what your saying.
He not saying do away with technolgy. He is saying develop some standard that makes programming games easier.
You guys are jumping off into something totally different.
By making it easier for developers it will cut down on cost and production time.
Directx has not hender xbox. The games still look amazing .
Agreed.
But setting only one standard?One way direction?
Also take into consideration that this works best with the PC market and is less convenient for the future of console gaming that evolve technology every five years.Direct X develops on Technology enhancements.On consoles the developers must sqweeze that extra capabilities out.
Game engines and tools will contiue to be developed. It\'s the game engine that drvies the game anyways.
Yeah but by how many developers do we see game engines that stand out among the countless of other developers on PC?Only a few do try.And also on PCs the style of games is different than of that of consoles.
You can see that by comparing what games sell mostly for PCs and what games sell mostly for consoles.Check the majority of games.The gaming enviroment PC offers is different than that of consoles.Direct X is not ment for consoles.If after a couple of years the console hardware is outdated how can the developer squeeze out with direct X that extra power left untapped?Why should he anyways?Make the same game on PC with the same tools and forget about the console one or make it for both.It will cost less, look better and be ready sooner and the PC version will be the best.Who\'s going to buy the console one?Why should anyone care?Console only games will be minimum since its best for the developers to release it for both if they want to raise income.We already see that PC ports on consoles have huge differences.Only japanese may try to make most from the console\'s untapped power and make a console only game since console gaming is prefered than PCs and every houselhold owns one in japan.Most impressive games on XBOX mentioned are from japanese developers.
Now on the PC market solely, Direct X may be the best thing for a developer since PCs improve on hardware every few months and direct X improves as hardware improves.The developer has no reason to utilise that extra power out from a hardware that seems outdated.They can get the better results easier on newer hardware.
The question though regarding PC gaming though: is it right to use only Direct X while there are also other tools available?Soulgring I assume already answered to that.
MS is trying to bring the Direct X monopoly to the console market as well.If MS succeeds with the XBOX brand to become the no1 dominant for the next generations then forget console gaming the way you knew it.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
oK...I am starting to feel like a human trying to comunicate with a dog by barking to it.I AM NOT COMPARING HARDWARE!!
Damn...look whos\' talking...make up your mind!! Whether you want to compare burgers or computer or hardware!!
I ADMIT THAT YOU CAN GET MORE OFTEN GOOD RESULTS WITH A GF3 USING A DIRECT X THAN WITH PS2!!ITS EASIER TO PROGRAM ON, EASIER TO BALANCE IT AND ITS MORE POWERFULL THAN A PS2 IN MANY ASPECTS!!AND THE TOOLS HAVE BEEN USED IN THE INDUSTRY FOR MORE THAN A DECADE!THEY HAVE BEEN SPECIALIASING ON DIRECT X FOR YEARS!!
I think that already officially ends all debate of Direct X > PS2. :rolleyes:
hahaha LOL it was you I called sunshine.I was being sarcastic.I wasnt refering to the graphics with that adjective (NO I AM NOT GAY :p).What I pointed out is that tools that were build with PS2 in mind resulted to a title that is even impressive for XBOX which is supposed to be more powerful and on which developers use directX.Challenging for the xbox?Not at all.You can use tools other than direct X on XBOX as well.DIRECT X IS DOESNT BRING ONLY ADVANDAGES FOR XBOX!!!THIS ISNT HELPING XBOX EITHER!Burnout 3 is a damn fine example of an impressive title build on an older hardware in mind that works differently than PCs based on different tools than Direct X.It might look better on XBOX.Is that the point?NO!The point is developers managed great graphics which means good things for XBOX as well.PS2 ports help the appearance of titles that go beyond the usual standards we see on XBOX.And for god\'s sakes yeah I admit it might look better on XBOX.But I am discussing about different tools used here.
This probably seals the debate already...the cheaper and more advanced hardware and now...AT A CHEAPER PRICE and guarantees to looks better (99% of the time)...who cares whether it\'s Direct X or OpenGL or whether it\'s running on steam engine?? Your "PS2 helps the XBOX" non-theory is as imaginary as the tooth fairy you see in your dream.
We arent talking about variety in quality here (how much resolution etc can you squweeze from an old hardware) but in graphical style mostly and new techniques that imporve the graphics.Jak2 may be using an enhanced engine of Jak1.You are comparing sequels on which developers may improve the same engine.I ll mention different examples.Compare Rachet and Clank with Jak and Daxter.Compare GT3 to Burnout2.Compare Killzone to Timesplitter2.Compare Soul Calibur2 to Tekken4.I am bored to mention more.As for jaggies, frame drop etc it has nothing to do with the tools used but mostly with balancing the hardware which is also 4 years old.I am not comparing hardware
Again...you\'ve pretty much confirmed my suspicion that you really have NO F*** IDEA on what\'s the heck u r talking about. Jak looks different from R&C because IT IS A DIFFERENT GAME, DONE BY DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS, THUS THE GRAPHICS STYPE ARE DIFFERENT!!! Get it?? Graphic Style is up to the Art designer and has nothing to do with the tools! Am i talking to a monkey??
You think I am acting like a fanboy(yeah yeah XBOX beats the hell out of PS2 you said.WHo is the fanboy I wonder) trying to bash XBOX.If you like I ll use different statements so you can get the picture.
Yes you are, Mr Fanboy. If you\'re not a fanboy, then you\'re the worst case of "i dunno what the heck i\'m talking about" i\'ve seen in a forum yet...
Direct X is a step back.Developers should be encouraged to extend further than Direct X.Yes that means XBOX as well.
The reason PS2 is mentioned is because developers are forced to use other tools than Direct X.It may be brutal.But uts still an example of what developeres can achieve if they try to extend further.
Oh yeah sure...DX a step backwards...and i still haven\'t see the majority of PS2 developer manage anything remotely close to the top titles on the XBOX...this is not because the PS2 is complicated...i\'m quite sure most major developers knows how to code the PS2 by now....it just that THE LIMIT HAS BEEN REACHED.
Get it Mr fanboy?? What you REALLY DON\'T UNDERSTAND is there is a cost performance impact when you try to do something that is not supported by the hardware. It\'s not the developers dont\' know how to do it, but by doing so, it\'ll sacrifice too much of the parts. Example, implementing 5.1 soundtrack will sacrifice one of the VU unit, that is why only a handful of games(which is not too demanding graphically) which is using it. Otherwise, the VU unit is best left to do other stuff the PS2 is so lacking in.
I am not comparing XBOX with PS2.And I am not trying to tell everyone PS2 is DE BEST THING EVER.
But you wrote pages and pages of thesis on how DX sucks and holds back the XBOX and how the poor XBOX gets all the benefit from PS2 developer!!! You are one confused kid. :laughing:
Read what I ve read in this post.....no...not just this one.The others as well.I happen to repeat myself since you dont get it.Atleast Black Samurai seems to get it and I enjoy doing a conversation with him more since he goes more to the point the more we discuss despite the fact that we disagree.You are still debating how better XBOX is compared to PS2.This was never the point of discussion. and you are talking with assumptions
Well, i did try to talk some sense into you but since you just keep repeating yourself without any new materials, heck, why should i talk in a cohesive comprehensible manner with someone who obviously lacked the similar ability to do so....:rolleyes:
No.You are making assumptions.This statement alone prooves that you didnt undrerstand anything from what I am saying becuase you cant stand anyone that seem to refer to something negative about the XBOX yet something positive about the PS2.Ofcourse I didnt do that.You are the one making assumptions
WOW!!! LOOK WHOS THE ONE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION "XBOX
GETS THE BENEFITS FROM PS2", Who\'s the one who declared "Direct X is un-innovative"(when you obviously confused with graphic style and the utilization of tools)...yadda yadda blah blah blah... :laughing:
How many times will I have to explain over and over and over and over.....??? [/B]
Because in you previous life, you\'re a tape recorder???
LOL.
Cheers.
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
I don\'t think some of you even understand what blacksam is saying or what your saying.
He not saying do away with technolgy. He is saying develop some standard that makes programming games easier.
You guys are jumping off into something totally different.
By making it easier for developers it will cut down on cost and production time.
Directx has not hender xbox. The games still look amazing .
Game engines and tools will contiue to be developed. It\'s the game engine that drvies the game anyways.
Exactly. DirectX has never hold the XBOX back, instead pushing it to the limit. Yet...there are some strange people here who get confused with game engines/tools with the graphical art design of a game....weird...:nerd:
-
Originally posted by Paul
Exactly. DirectX has never hold the XBOX back, instead pushing it to the limit. Yet...there are some strange people here who get confused with game engines/tools with the graphical art design of a game....weird...:nerd:
Agreed
-
Originally posted by Paul
Damn...look whos\' talking...make up your mind!! Whether you want to compare burgers or computer or hardware!!
See that title above this thread?Does it say XBOX vs PS2???
Man keep concluding that I am trying to say that PS2 rules ALL!!I already explained WHY I refered to XBOX and PS2.This ISNT the case of comparing hardware.You are assuming.Just read myother posts as well and try to get my point.
I think that already officially ends all debate of Direct X > PS2. :rolleyes:
Oh God.Here we go again.I said MORE OFTEN and becuase they are finished tools on which developers have been specialiasing, used on newer hardware.PS2 is old hardware but new in the industry and its recently that the gaming industry seems to adjust to the non-direct X, different hardware approach.I wonder if you read everything I write in this thread btw.PS2 ionly refered becuase its the best example on which standard tools arent being used.I could have generally mentioned consoles other than XBOX instead of PS2.
This probably seals the debate already...the cheaper and more advanced hardware and now...AT A CHEAPER PRICE and guarantees to looks better (99% of the time)...who cares whether it\'s Direct X or OpenGL or whether it\'s running on steam engine?? Your "PS2 helps the XBOX" non-theory is as imaginary as the tooth fairy you see in your dream.
This clearly shows that you STILL believe the whole point of this thread was COMPARING PS2 WITH XBOX!!!
Again...you\'ve pretty much confirmed my suspicion that you really have NO F*** IDEA on what\'s the heck u r talking about. Jak looks different from R&C because IT IS A DIFFERENT GAME, DONE BY DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS, THUS THE GRAPHICS STYPE ARE DIFFERENT!!! Get it?? Graphic Style is up to the Art designer and has nothing to do with the tools! Am i talking to a monkey??
Actually what you just said confirms that your brain is trying to force you to convince me that the XBOX RULES which isnt the point.
They arent using the same tools.And the graphics engine of each game TOTALLY differs.They started working from different directions.On Direct X all games use similar graphical engines.I ve seen the sequel of Duex Ex on XBOX and the graphics didnt differ from what I ve seen in Halo much.They werent much better either.Different developers eh?
I wonder if I am talking to a child.
Yes you are, Mr Fanboy. If you\'re not a fanboy, then you\'re the worst case of "i dunno what the heck i\'m talking about" i\'ve seen in a forum yet...
You are the worst case of "whoever doesnt agree with me must be stupid and wrong and I comprehend whatever I want to comprehend than catch the point" I ve ever seen in my whole life.
Oh yeah sure...DX a step backwards...and i still haven\'t see the majority of PS2 developer manage anything remotely close to the top titles on the XBOX...this is not because the PS2 is complicated...i\'m quite sure most major developers knows how to code the PS2 by now....it just that THE LIMIT HAS BEEN REACHED.
Get it Mr fanboy?? What you REALLY DON\'T UNDERSTAND is there is a cost performance impact when you try to do something that is not supported by the hardware. It\'s not the developers dont\' know how to do it, but by doing so, it\'ll sacrifice too much of the parts. Example, implementing 5.1 soundtrack will sacrifice one of the VU unit, that is why only a handful of games(which is not too demanding graphically) which is using it. Otherwise, the VU unit is best left to do other stuff the PS2 is so lacking in.
LOL you were the one comparing hardware and telling me how much powerful XBOX is compared to PS2 (which was never the case).Ofcourse I didnt say the XBOX kicks PS2\'s ass.Perhaps thats the only way to show that I am not a PS2 fanboy????*SHEESH*
:rolleyes:
This statement proves ones again that you still dont understand shit of what I am talking about.
I already admited probably for the bilionth time that XBOX can do better graphics than PS2.Still trying to prove me how much inferior the PS2 is technologically?
:rolleyes:
You are the only person here making direct hardware comprisons.Ofcourse I didnt expect much.As the fanboy that you are you thought I was trying to bash XBOX and convince that PS2 is more powerful and can do better graphics.
I seem to be repeating myself...I ll repeat once again a small example I mentioned before "Thank the tools taht were developed for PS2 for Burnout3.And yes it might look better on XBOX.Thats still not the point bucause it is supposed to be on more powerful hardware and we arent comparing hardware
But you wrote pages and pages of thesis on how DX sucks and holds back the XBOX and how the poor XBOX gets all the benefit from PS2 developer!!! You are one confused kid. :laughing:
No you are the confused dude here.I didnt completely trash Direct X.You thought that by judging Direct X I was trying to bash XBOX.Ofocurse what else would a fanboy think?If I was trying to bash XBOX I would have said that the PS2 is superior from XBOX technologically, and that the PS2 can produce better graphics.But I already stated that games on PS2 may not look as good as XBOX games BUT THATS NOT THE FREAKING POINT.In the case of burnout 3 it can be ported on XBOX just as it is and still be impressive even for XBOX despite the fact that it might be nearing PS2\'s full potential more and less XBOX\'s.
XBOX gets high benefits sometimes from PS2 ports since games arent directly programmed on XBOX(Direct X).But on other tools.Thats what I mentioned.How have I mentioned XBOX being "poor" (you said it not me) when I said so many times that the XBOX surpasses PS2 in many graphical aspects, and that the PS2 ports look better on XBOX???
Hell I was one of th epeople defending Fable when mm\'s was trashing it in one of the threads.Yes I know thats an XBOX game
Well, i did try to talk some sense into you but since you just keep repeating yourself without any new materials, heck, why should i talk in a cohesive comprehensible manner with someone who obviously lacked the similar ability to do so....:rolleyes:
no you are trying to convince me you are right.I keep reapeting myself BECUASE YOU SEEM TO REPEAT YOURSELF!!
WOW!!! LOOK WHOS THE ONE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION "XBOX
GETS THE BENEFITS FROM PS2", Who\'s the one who declared "Direct X is un-innovative"(when you obviously confused with graphic style and the utilization of tools)...yadda yadda blah blah blah... :laughing:
Ok.How does this mean I ment XBOX gets only benefits from PS2 am trying to understand HOW!
For God\'s sake you keep assuming I am comparing XBOX with PS2.
You expect me to agree and say "DIRECT X is the best ever"?Well sorry I dont believe that.It just happens to be used in XBOX.
Graphic style=I ment different engines= different tools used=different graphics
utilization of tools: Direct X==standard tools=Similar engines developed and used=not utilizing full potential of hardware
Because in you previous life, you\'re a tape recorder???
LOL.
Cheers. [/B]
You should become a comedian if you want free salad :p
Just hope you wont get a free plate as well on the head
-
Black Samurai,
I was moreso talking about outsourcing to other companies that do physics engines; but I see where you are coming from.
You do have to realize, though, that even in the environment of DirectX developers STILL make their own engines. DirectX/XNA doesn\'t mean that people can no longer make their own engines. It means that those without the resources are not as hampered by that fact.
True, in which I can only agree on. I guess I just come from a different angle: I never really was all that interested in DirectX, but more so with freedom of development, as I like to have full control over what I do and not going through some libraries that one has no idea on what really is happening behind it. I guess it\'s a bit like comparing the efforts of a fully coded engine and another team using some middleware (renderware) - sure, not quite a fair comparasment - because as you pointed out, even in DirectX, engines still have to be coded - but just to illustrate the point: one is maximized to take full advantage of the machine it\'s running on, while the other is optimized to get it as easy as possible to run, while being port-friendly at the same time. They\'re just two different approaches that have totally different strengths.
One valid question is, can a developer programming their engines on assembly on the metal ever reach the efficiency of an equivilant engine done using directx libraries (or XNA)? I\'m sure do, and exceed them by a large margin - but, in average, I seriously doubt it, which of course is a very strong point for directx/XNA. In my opinion, it hurts to see that only a small percentage of game-developers truly take the time and effort to code to the hardware as we\'re seing it with Naughty Dog and Konami. The market is changing and more developers are confronted with rising costs and time budgets of their games. We also live in a world where the complexity of games (or any programs) increase and therefore one needs tools to do more with less effort. This is a sad fact und it\'s undeniably supporting Microsoft\'s argument.
In perspective of next generation consoles, it is clear though that PS3, unlike PS2, will feature some API they will have to use to code which will make development easier. If CELL ends up to be what it seems like, we may have a processor cabable of scaling for years to come. The power lies in its cluster-like nature and it being scalable could mean that future chips may just be exchanged with a more powerful CELL processor. Who knows? Could very well be possible.
On the other hand, I just like the idea of having a platform that is open, which you can really code to, pushing it hard and very efficient. And for those developers, I am sure there will always be middleware to support smaller development teams as is being done today with renderware.
BTW; Also note that even this generation on the "bitch to code for" PS2, a team such as Snowblind which consists of merely a few coders has done still one of the most impressive games: Baulder\'s Gate: Dark Alliance. Even Guerilla, developer behind the much anticipated game Killzone isn\'t that large - so it isn\'t that bad and as we know, Sony is hard at work with IBM to ensure that development is easier next time round. Do we really need XNA?
BTW: your avatar is annoying!!! :D It cripples my 1.8GHz to 100%. :rpissed:
-
Unicron & Paul:
They arent using the same tools.And the graphics engine of each game TOTALLY differs.They started working from different directions.On Direct X all games use similar graphical engines.I ve seen the sequel of Duex Ex on XBOX and the graphics didnt differ from what I ve seen in Halo much.They werent much better either.Different developers eh?
While Directx does have some influence on the art-direction in some to most cases, the difference in art-direction of a game developed on PS2 to that done on a Xbox (or the similarity of Xbox games to PC games) has also a lot to do with the different architecture or said similarity.
The PS2 is very powerful for polygon and particles thanks to it\'s streamlined architecture, floating point performance and raw, but simple graphics rasterizer that can draw pixels at an insane speed that only the newest GPUs on the PC can max. The word for this style is most definately brute-force: on PS2, polygons are thrown at many problems, so most games will heavily emphasize in this area. Examples: Zone of the Enders 2, Metal Gear Solid 2 (especially tanker scene outside with rain particles), Jak II.
The PC, like Xbox, on the other hand as a very moderate CPU in most cases with not much crunching power, but has a lot of memory. Memory that is in most cases used for textures which is why PC games usually look very realistic, especially in screenshots. Sadly though, not many games emphasize on physics and other fillrate intensive effects, which is why most games are usually quite empty and boring looking in motion. A game like ZOE2 is full of animation, everywhere - just like MGS2. The textures though are very weak. The similarity in Xbox games can be followed back to the roots of its architecture: PC.
-
Agreed
-
well xbox developers won\'t have to start all over again learning new hardware when programming for xbox 2. Unlike when ps3 is launched.
-
^ not true. As long as sony releases decent kits.
Which they didn\'t with ps2 at first. Developers pretty much had to learn for themselfs. They should be ok. Hopefully sony will still allow the freedom to expand outside those tools too.
-
We shall see how things will shape up when both consoles are launched.Sony would act foolishly if they arent forseeing to help developers.
PS2 was totally new for developers.So it was unavoidable that developers would have found it hard to get satisfactory results at the beginning.Tools were also incomplete.Various tools appeared and evolved on the process.Middleware was one of them.
MS is taking it seriously.They already work on XNA, and tech demos already show outstanding results.There is stil 1+ year till XBOX2 is released.So we can speculate how things would shape up for MS\'s next console.MS can easily predict how the hadrware on XBOX2 should be like since it uses PC standard hardware and PCs always evolves on the same aspects steadily.So they can already work on the tools according to speculation.
Developers on PS3 should already have some backround on how different architecture works like with PS2.But Sony should offer already some information and kits, and start working on some libraries.Hardware I assume is still unfinished.I dont think they can work on the hardware and tools at the same time if PS3 specs are uncertain.Unless if they have already worked on it and had ready specs.The GScube might have been an early prototype to experiment on.Its no coincidence that Sony took this hardware approach with PS2.Then the GCcube that used Graphics Synthesizers and EEs that worked with parallel processing.And finally the huge R&D expenditure for the Cell Chip.Sony is planning to use that chip in many household devices.Something similar that was planning with PS2.
2 things can happen (if sony uses it for PS3).
-Sony succeeds with the Cell Chip and establishes it as a hardware that replaces at a great extend existing technology like intel processors that will change the direction computers curently seem to take.So it guarantees support for PS3 especially if they have ready the appropriate assistance for developers.Direct X and current existing PC hardware isnt the only standard no longer if they succeed.
-Sony manages only to establish the cell chip at a small extend, or fails so PC existing hardware follow the same direction, MS manages to set a certain future of Direct X as standard since it is based on current PC existing architecture, XBOX2 gains huge support, and PS3 plays catch up.
If XBOX2 though manages to succeed greatly and surpasses competitors as much as PS2 succeeded in this generation I believe this will change console gaming as we know it in the long run which I mentioned earlier.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
See that title above this thread?Does it say XBOX vs PS2???
Man keep concluding that I am trying to say that PS2 rules ALL!!I already explained WHY I refered to XBOX and PS2.This ISNT the case of comparing hardware.You are assuming.Just read myother posts as well and try to get my point.
Oh God.Here we go again.I said MORE OFTEN and becuase they are finished tools on which developers have been specialiasing, used on newer hardware.PS2 is old hardware but new in the industry and its recently that the gaming industry seems to adjust to the non-direct X, different hardware approach.I wonder if you read everything I write in this thread btw.PS2 ionly refered becuase its the best example on which standard tools arent being used.I could have generally mentioned consoles other than XBOX instead of PS2.
This clearly shows that you STILL believe the whole point of this thread was COMPARING PS2 WITH XBOX!!!
Actually what you just said confirms that your brain is trying to force you to convince me that the XBOX RULES which isnt the point.
They arent using the same tools.And the graphics engine of each game TOTALLY differs.They started working from different directions.On Direct X all games use similar graphical engines.I ve seen the sequel of Duex Ex on XBOX and the graphics didnt differ from what I ve seen in Halo much.They werent much better either.Different developers eh?
I wonder if I am talking to a child.
You are the worst case of "whoever doesnt agree with me must be stupid and wrong and I comprehend whatever I want to comprehend than catch the point" I ve ever seen in my whole life.
LOL you were the one comparing hardware and telling me how much powerful XBOX is compared to PS2 (which was never the case).Ofcourse I didnt say the XBOX kicks PS2\'s ass.Perhaps thats the only way to show that I am not a PS2 fanboy????*SHEESH*
:rolleyes:
This statement proves ones again that you still dont understand shit of what I am talking about.
I already admited probably for the bilionth time that XBOX can do better graphics than PS2.Still trying to prove me how much inferior the PS2 is technologically?
:rolleyes:
You are the only person here making direct hardware comprisons.Ofcourse I didnt expect much.As the fanboy that you are you thought I was trying to bash XBOX and convince that PS2 is more powerful and can do better graphics.
I seem to be repeating myself...I ll repeat once again a small example I mentioned before "Thank the tools taht were developed for PS2 for Burnout3.And yes it might look better on XBOX.Thats still not the point bucause it is supposed to be on more powerful hardware and we arent comparing hardware
No you are the confused dude here.I didnt completely trash Direct X.You thought that by judging Direct X I was trying to bash XBOX.Ofocurse what else would a fanboy think?If I was trying to bash XBOX I would have said that the PS2 is superior from XBOX technologically, and that the PS2 can produce better graphics.But I already stated that games on PS2 may not look as good as XBOX games BUT THATS NOT THE FREAKING POINT.In the case of burnout 3 it can be ported on XBOX just as it is and still be impressive even for XBOX despite the fact that it might be nearing PS2\'s full potential more and less XBOX\'s.
XBOX gets high benefits sometimes from PS2 ports since games arent directly programmed on XBOX(Direct X).But on other tools.Thats what I mentioned.How have I mentioned XBOX being "poor" (you said it not me) when I said so many times that the XBOX surpasses PS2 in many graphical aspects, and that the PS2 ports look better on XBOX???
Hell I was one of th epeople defending Fable when mm\'s was trashing it in one of the threads.Yes I know thats an XBOX game
no you are trying to convince me you are right.I keep reapeting myself BECUASE YOU SEEM TO REPEAT YOURSELF!!
Ok.How does this mean I ment XBOX gets only benefits from PS2 am trying to understand HOW!
For God\'s sake you keep assuming I am comparing XBOX with PS2.
You expect me to agree and say "DIRECT X is the best ever"?Well sorry I dont believe that.It just happens to be used in XBOX.
Graphic style=I ment different engines= different tools used=different graphics
utilization of tools: Direct X==standard tools=Similar engines developed and used=not utilizing full potential of hardware
You should become a comedian if you want free salad :p
Just hope you wont get a free plate as well on the head
Obviously, you still have no idea what you\'r talking about...still stuck in your little hole of yours...you don\'t see the BIG PICTURE.
(1) Consumers DON\'T CARE about what freaking tools going inside...all they care is the BEST GRAPHICS..okay, assuming you\'re we\'re not comparing PS2 with XBOX "hardware"(as you little brain keeps trying to separate the 2)...so??
The XBOX still kicks the PS2 arse...whether it\'s DX or OpenGL or some other no name libraries..
From the END RESULT, there is NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER that support your puny theory about some propriatery PS2 engines being better.
END RESULT: understand this properly...look up a dictionary if u have to...:laughing:
(2) Your comparison of Halo lame. Deux Ex 2 isn\'t exactly a top title and Halo basically doesn\'t have the greatest graphics...still your argument is again VERY INVALID even with the weak example you\'ve given...i don\'t find much similarities in the looks of these titles..other than the fact they\'re based on sci-fi world...but i\'ll agree with you if you said Halo looks lame.(i never like it, and i hate FPS anyway).
Graphic style=I ment different engines= different tools used=different graphics
utilization of tools: Direct X==standard tools=Similar engines developed and used=not utilizing full potential of hardware
(3) Again, you\'ve pretty much confirmed everyone\'s suspicion that you are EXTREMELY CONFUSED with the term "game engines"/"tools"/"graphic style". Your ignorance is as glaring as the sun on a hot summer day.
For all the so called "different engine", the PS2 still can\'t do half of what the XBOX can do...and in case you didn\'t know, just to referecene ur previous example of R&C and J&D, naughty dog and insomaniac actually shares code between them. In fact, naughty dog has explicitly stated in an interview that "they don\'t have a \'it\'s not made here\' attitude.", meaning they\'ll gladly take any usable codes if it\'s good and working. This also means that Jak2 and R&C shares some common engine...despite looking different ...BECAUSE OF GRAPHICAL DESIGN BY THE ARTIST, YOU IDIOT.
Another example would be Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia, both has very different graphic style, yet they share some common graphics library.
But anyway, i don\'t expect you to understand since your brain have been hardcoded with "DirectX sucks!!!"
:laughing::laughing:
-
All your above post proves your fanboyism(not to mention that you create "facts" and accuse me for things I didnt say)
Its self evident that you get better graphics from newer hardware :rolleyes: (already atmitted XBOX surpases PS2)
Oh and you are not everyone.
Still believe I am comparing XBOX and PS2 I see
blah blah blah then
*Unicron adds an ignorant fanboy to his ignore list*
-
Paul:
The XBOX still kicks the PS2 arse...whether it\'s DX or OpenGL or some other no name libraries...
In some areas, as does PS2 Xbox in other areas. What\'s your point? Both hardware have different advantages, one being a transistor budget that is in completely different worlds (remember, Xbox came 20+ months after PS2). Yet, there are games that are simply not doable on the \'newer\' hardware. Anything but "kicking the PS2\'s ass"...
-
With all Paul’s incoherent ramblings, I lost interest after customers care more about graphics. Seems the sale figures say otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
All your above post proves your fanboyism(not to mention that you create "facts" and accuse me for things I didnt say)
Its self evident that you get better graphics from newer hardware :rolleyes: (already atmitted XBOX surpases PS2)
Oh and you are not everyone.
Still believe I am comparing XBOX and PS2 I see
blah blah blah then
*Unicron adds an ignorant fanboy to his ignore list*
LOL. Again, you\'ve proved to be quite the thick skull monkey...this is not about better hardware...it simply shows that there is NO CONCERETE EVIDENCE ANYWHERE THAT THE PS2(with all it\'s propriatery engine blah yadda blah) is ANY BETTER than the typical DX game(running on an "outdated PC"). You keep mumbling the PS2 "engine" is better...but till now, there is ZERO proof. DX proves to be just as capable...an evidently more so than that.
-
:rolleyes:
actually
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Yeah yeah yeah XBOX rules.It kicks PS2s ass.PS2 suck.They should have used DX instead on it.Yay for XBOX and MICROSOFT!!
Everything else cant be good.Only these can be good for the consumer.ESPECIALLY GRAPHICS!!
Holy macaroni!!Did you see that bumb mapping there?Oh my GOOOD!!!My PS2 cant do that kind of shit!!
THERE!Satisfied?
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
With all Paul’s incoherent ramblings, I lost interest after customers care more about graphics. Seems the sale figures say otherwise.
It\'s about the better graphics+games...I bought a PS2 for it\'s RPG and the PS2 didn\'t live up to expectation....in fact, none of the consoles this generation has ANY good RPG\'s in DECENT quantity( saved for KOTOR...definitely the best RPG i\'ve play in the last 4 years or so...and to think that i never like any western RPG\'s previously....and no, I played the PC version, not the XB version...that\'s where the best version of KOTOR is).
Seriously, the PSX is still king of console RPGs. It\'s the undisputed champion, even afer 1 decade later.
So all that was left was lousy version of cross platform game that looks better on the XBOX. Gaming is not about sales figures...there are crap games that sales millions, but i don\'t give a damn. If all you care is about sales figures, maybe you should join Burger King or Macdonald...you\'ll get new highs everyday.:laughing:
What i care is my gaming needs and bang for the buck. I think my PC and XBOX combo just about covers what i need..arcade console gaming with the best console graphics on the XBOX and the PC covers other areas like RTS and some other cross platform games like KOTOR which has superior graphics with suitable controls on the PC.
And i\'ve no qualms about switching side when it comes to the next gen...if the PS3 can gives better graphics( which it likely will since it\'ll be released later) and hopefully, some REALLY GOOD japanese RPG\'s like the PSX, I\'m all for ditching MS(just like i ditched PS2 for XB when it didn\'t meet my requirements).
That is why...it\'s obvious that some you here...(you know who) who keeps yapping about "better engine" on the PS2....and how sucky DX is....there is just no other definition than "fanboyism" for u.:hat: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
-
Originally posted by seven
Paul:
Yet, there are games that are simply not doable on the \'newer\' hardware. Anything but "kicking the PS2\'s ass"...
I like to see examples please...no empty talk thank you. :)
-
Sales figures = proove that consumers dont care much about the "oh godly XBOX graphics that kick PS2s ass"
You still put words in my mouth I didnt even say.How pathetic
-
Paul.. Stop sprouting your opinions as facts. It’s getting quite boring. Your oh so godly Xbox isn\'t in the lead for sales for a reason.. Lack of quality console only games maybe?
I guess most ps2 users already have a pc. So they stick to that instead, so many rehashes. Sigh
Your opinions mean dick in the world of consoles.
Consumers will buy what they prefer, not what you think they should prefer.
btw KOTOR sucks on xbox.... Try the pc version.
-
Paul:
LOL. Again, you\'ve proved to be quite the thick skull monkey...this is not about better hardware...it simply shows that there is NO CONCERETE EVIDENCE ANYWHERE THAT THE PS2(with all it\'s propriatery engine blah yadda blah) is ANY BETTER than the typical DX game(running on an "outdated PC"). You keep mumbling the PS2 "engine" is better...but till now, there is ZERO proof. DX proves to be just as capable...an evidently more so than that.
Ever heard of COMMON-SENSE? You have two sets of hardware - one lets you code to the metal, while the other only lets you program through an API, or libraries. Which of the two has more potential to be fully tapped? One where you are forced to use a set of libraries or the other one that gives you full control? The very fact that you are arguing this shows your lack of knowledge in the field of programming. Libraries or an API can only get you as far as the libraries are good for - however having full control over the hardware *can* give you absolute power because you can control every single thing.
Want proof? Look at how the PS2 evolved: from first not being able to produce any form of Anti-Aliasing, HDTV resolutions or Dolby Digital in realtime, developers were able to find alternative ways in achieving their goals. Anti Aliasing has been done, HDTV resolutions have been done and Dolby Digital has been pulled off in realtime aswell. Which console enjoyed the biggest advancement since launch? Certainly not Xbox - guess why.
Also, there are various interviews (one being from Free Radical Designs - Timesplitters 2) in which developers actually point out the lack of being able to code to the metal on Xbox.
like to see examples please...no empty talk thank you.
Fillrate intensive games. Ie.: Metal Gear Solid 2 (possibly tanker scene with rain), definately ZOE2 - perhaps games like Jak II or Ratchet & Clank 2.
-
Exactly to the point
I hope Paul catches the meaning of the whole story now
-
Originally posted by seven
Paul:
Ever heard of COMMON-SENSE? You have two sets of hardware - one lets you code to the metal, while the other only lets you program through an API, or libraries. Which of the two has more potential to be fully tapped? One where you are forced to use a set of libraries or the other one that gives you full control? The very fact that you are arguing this shows your lack of knowledge in the field of programming. Libraries or an API can only get you as far as the libraries are good for - however having full control over the hardware *can* give you absolute power because you can control every single thing.
Want proof? Look at how the PS2 evolved: from first not being able to produce any form of Anti-Aliasing, HDTV resolutions or Dolby Digital in realtime, developers were able to find alternative ways in achieving their goals. Anti Aliasing has been done, HDTV resolutions have been done and Dolby Digital has been pulled off in realtime aswell. Which console enjoyed the biggest advancement since launch? Certainly not Xbox - guess why.
Also, there are various interviews (one being from Free Radical Designs - Timesplitters 2) in which developers actually point out the lack of being able to code to the metal on Xbox.
Fillrate intensive games. Ie.: Metal Gear Solid 2 (possibly tanker scene with rain), definately ZOE2 - perhaps games like Jak II or Ratchet & Clank 2.
Seven: Your so called "proof" is hardly justifiable. And fyi, i\'m involved in lots of programming works and have even tinkered with Direct X to produce some home made games.
Anyway, let\'s go through your argument again:
(1) Anti-aliasing: err...what kind of anti-aliasing we\'re talking about? FSAA or some sort of so called "edge anti-aliasing"? Without doubt, there is some improvement from the horrible 1st gen games (DOA2:HC, Rage Racer..or was it Ridge Racer?). But after that, there is hardly any improvement. Most of the PS2 games nowdays looks fine for the main foreground characters/objects but the significant jaggies(shimmeries to be exact) is still abound with the background environment. XBOX games still looks sharper with less jaggies anyday...even when without FSAA.
(2) HDTV resoultion - the XBOX has higher HDTV resolution (720p or 1080p) compared to the PS2 (usually 480p). But this is no big deal since i don\'t have HDTV anyway...how many people have HDTV anyway?
(3) Dobly Digital in real-time - as far as I know there is only SSX Tricky(or was it SSX 2?) that has DTS surround sound. And just how many games are there that support this? Perhaps you can count it with one hand. The point is, yes DD enconding in real-time IS achievable on PS2, but the question is always = AT WHAT COST!!!!! I believe i\'d mentioned quite clearly previously, but u guys just keep yapping "this can be done on PS2! that can be done on PS2!". A Vu unit is sacrificed to do this. That is probably why the frame rates isn\'t as good as the XBOX version. And this is also probably the 99% of the rest of the games don\'t do it...BECAUSE IT CAN\'T BE DONE WITHOUT SACRIFICING OTHER MORE IMPORTANT ASPECT (like good frame rates!). Almost all XBOX games support DD5.1 by default...what\'s the big deal of 1 PS2 game( which really isn\'t that intense graphically) sporting some DTS sound effects when it is so common on the XBOX?
(4) TimeSplitter 2 - yah, so 1 developer complained about the XBOX because they couldn\'t get \'to the metal\' (but TS2 which still actually looks better on the XB)...but you seems like forgeting the 90% of developers who complained the PS2 is too damn weird to code for?? LOL.
(5) "Biggest advancement on the PS2" - This i actually can agree with you. From full of jaggies to noticeably less jaggies. Yes, it\'s one helluva great achievement!!! but in the end, no matter what kinda "achievement" the PS2 made (which hasn\'t shown much since the days of MGS2 and GT3..what year? 2001 or 2002? ), it still looks better on the XBOX and can be done easily(even despite the complain!).
Let\'s focus on the point of argument here(instead of some thrash talk about sales figure which some of you try to divert attention to).
So does DX really sucks?? It seems from the END RESULT from all perspective, DX have allow developers to access most of the hardware functions which is was DESIGNED FOR, on the first day.
And the result still looks better than anything on competing platform which is so difficult to do, and or still unachievable(bump mapping, pixel shading ex:).
It sure beats an archictecture which claims to be flexible, fairy tales about "untapped potential", can do anything (but skipping the details about the performance impact) and at the end of the day, it leaves nothing but a trail of inferior graphics and stories for fanboys to yap on ("untapped potential this, untapped potential that!"), with nothing superior to show for.
Some of you then try to divert the argument again to "XBOX is superior due to newer hardware...yadda yadda". Fine. Being newer hardware does have it\'s advantage, it\'s a given fact. But at the same time, there is not a shred of evidence showing DX is holding back the XBOX, but instead giving developers accessing most of it\'s feature on day one which is the way how development should work.
The only conclusion that can be come off this topic is:
(1) The PS2 has reached it\'s limit and there is nothing left there to tap except more jaggies for your enjoyment. Or perhaps you can hook a water tap and pull water out of it?? LOL.
(2) In the unlikely event the "untapped pontential" is true, after 5 years and NOBODY knows how to "tap it", it better stay there where it belongs coz the next generation of consoles is already here and it goes to show the failure of a much hyped architecture.
What\'s the use of having a million bucks in the bank if you\'re not allow to use it??
(3) "DX is shit" is something for PS2 fanboys to yell about coz they still believed all the hype of the PS2 after all these years....WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!!
Cheers.
-
Yea. wake up a smell it. Xbox has LOST, for whatever reason u want to make up. DC came out 1 year before ps2 and still failed. M$ didn\'t do the mistakes sega did, yet they still haven\'t came out top. In the end its not about graphics, or sound.. Its about the games. Seems ps2 has more to choose from, so people prefer the system.
-
this was not even about who won this generation. So why is this a ps2 and xbox fanboy debate?
This was about making development easier. Is DX the way to go?
Nobody is saying make DX the standard just make programming the games easier from system to system.
Dx makes programming easier.
The same way sony broke into the console market with easy design of psx to the complex architecture of saturn.
Ms is doing the samething. Only a matter of time.
-
Paul:
Excuse my ignorance, but the way you argue, I very much doubt that you have any idea of programming or \'development\' in a way it would relevant to this discussion or game-development.
Lets recap a few things:
(1) Anti-aliasing: err...what kind of anti-aliasing we\'re talking about? FSAA or some sort of so called "edge anti-aliasing"? Without doubt, there is some improvement from the horrible 1st gen games (DOA2:HC, Rage Racer..or was it Ridge Racer?). But after that, there is hardly any improvement. Most of the PS2 games nowdays looks fine for the main foreground characters/objects but the significant jaggies(shimmeries to be exact) is still abound with the background environment. XBOX games still looks sharper with less jaggies anyday...even when without FSAA.
(2) HDTV resoultion - the XBOX has higher HDTV resolution (720p or 1080p) compared to the PS2 (usually 480p). But this is no big deal since i don\'t have HDTV anyway...how many people have HDTV anyway?
(3) Dobly Digital in real-time - as far as I know there is only SSX Tricky(or was it SSX 2?) that has DTS surround sound. And just how many games are there that support this? Perhaps you can count it with one hand. The point is, yes DD enconding in real-time IS achievable on PS2, but the question is always = AT WHAT COST!!!!! I believe i\'d mentioned quite clearly previously, but u guys just keep yapping "this can be done on PS2! that can be done on PS2!". A Vu unit is sacrificed to do this. That is probably why the frame rates isn\'t as good as the XBOX version. And this is also probably the 99% of the rest of the games don\'t do it...BECAUSE IT CAN\'T BE DONE WITHOUT SACRIFICING OTHER MORE IMPORTANT ASPECT (like good frame rates!). Almost all XBOX games support DD5.1 by default...what\'s the big deal of 1 PS2 game( which really isn\'t that intense graphically) sporting some DTS sound effects when it is so common on the XBOX?
(4) TimeSplitter 2 - yah, so 1 developer complained about the XBOX because they couldn\'t get \'to the metal\' (but TS2 which still actually looks better on the XB)...but you seems like forgeting the 90% of developers who complained the PS2 is too damn weird to code for?? LOL.
(5) "Biggest advancement on the PS2" - This i actually can agree with you. From full of jaggies to noticeably less jaggies. Yes, it\'s one helluva great achievement!!! but in the end, no matter what kinda "achievement" the PS2 made (which hasn\'t shown much since the days of MGS2 and GT3..what year? 2001 or 2002? ), it still looks better on the XBOX and can be done easily(even despite the complain!).
You completely failed to comprehend the points I was addressing. Further up you stated the following:
LOL. Again, you\'ve proved to be quite the thick skull monkey...this is not about better hardware...it simply shows that there is NO CONCERETE EVIDENCE ANYWHERE THAT THE PS2(with all it\'s propriatery engine blah yadda blah) is ANY BETTER than the typical DX game. DX proves to be just as capable...an evidently more so than that.
The whole point about Anti-Aliasing, Dolby Digital and HD resolutions was a mear example of what \'freedom of development\' can achieve. As a result a console that has little to no API is real challenge to program for. This is where people reference to a socalled "steap learning curve". Anyway, the point is basically that while the learning curve is steap, it does give developers many approaches to consider. Some or better than others, some are worse. Experience is a factor and that is the reason why we are seeing a constant and drastic improvement in PS2 games, while little on Xbox or GameCube\'s side (though there\'s still room for improvement on both). The comment by Free Radical Design, is as you state just one developer, but there are others too. And if there\'s only one - does it make the problem inexistant? No. It is a fact that many developers do complain about fixed API. I can assure you, if there were more console developers programming for Xbox as their lead-platform, we\'d see much better and more impressive results. While you\'re at it, check out the difference between a console developes like Team Ninja and Bungee, am ex PC developer. Sure, both teams have done impressive work, but technically, I wouldn\'t be suprised if Team Ninja is tapping much further into the hardware with Ninja Gaiden while also moving at double the framerate. I am not proposing that DirectX is a bad thing, but one would have to be blind not to see the advantages one has when being able to code to the metal. Such a privilege comes with a lot of responsability, one that only few Ps2 developers really master (Konami, Naughty Dog and Criterion being a few) - while the rest simply isn\'t that good.
To illustrate the point a bit further: what is better: a propriatery engine or one done using a middleware? Why does the propriatery have more potential. To a less extreme comparasment, one could point to the use of DirectX against PS2. If PS2 would be using some kind of DirextX, I would have no doubt in my mind that many games would share a similar look (or art-direction) since the libraries would give less room for little tweekings. Also, we would have seen better games at launch, but overal a less constant improvement much like we\'re seeing it on Xbox. On the otherside, I doubt PS2 would be able to compare at all if it wasn\'t for it\'s \'freedom of development\'. We simply wouldn\'t be seeing \'revolutionary\' advancements achieved with like Jak & Daxter at the time (something thought impossible on PS2 at the time).
You are obviously looking at things from a consumer perspective, while I and others that do not agree with you look at it from a developing point of view. Me, as a programer and developer, I can tell you that I\'d take the \'freedom of development\' over any API any time. It\'s the reason why I prefer assembly or C to any other higher level of programming languages: because with every step in which a language gets easier to use, you are abstracting it so far that it does become inefficient. Of course, one is not to say that while complexity in games rises, that it will become easier to navigate on a very low level as many are required to do so in today\'s case in PS2 projects. The problem now days on PS2 is simply because many developers choose not to invest much effort to get good results. It\'s all about porting and making easy cash. PS2 is also the weaker system (in most areas, or better, in distinct areas), so naturally, only a few will ever be comparable. Those that are comparable though, are the ones in which developers have made use of its freedom of development aspect. That is a fact, one you can\'t ignore. If you still choose to ignore this, I seriously suggest you start reading up on development and delve into the beauty of assembler or plain C. While you\'re at it, check out different programming languages like Lisp. If you truly understand the beauty of programming and how todays higher level programming languages and APIs abstract themselves from the metal to make development easier, you\'ll also understand where the inefficiency comes from and what sacrifices those tools bear in mind.
As for the rest of your reply: this was never about comparing PS2 to Xbox until you turned it into such a debate. Please get back on topic. BTW: as for anti aliasing: the shimmering is due to lack of mipmapping (I thought you do programming, directx?) - but while you\'re at it, check games such as Jak II, Tekken Tag or Baulders Gate: Dark Alliance. While the first has very little aliasing, the later two have absolutely none at all, which in itself proves that if the effort is there, it can be done. Freedom of development requires responsability - responsability that many are simply not taking as their main projective is to make easy money and milk the money of the buyers of the leading platform.
--- and: no one said DirectX is sh*t, except for the author of this thread in the title - which is obviously his opinion (which the reasons to why we are addressing now).
-
Its true...that I got carried away a bit in the title :p
But not in the discussion though. :mad: