Originally posted by Jumpman
Hey, if the PS2 is so easy to develop for, then why the **** do Xbox and NGC games kick living **** out of PS2 in the graphics department? Answer-because they\'re simply more powerful. PS2 is a flawed piece of technology, whether you can bring yourself to admit it or not. It will never surpass the graphics of Xbox and NGC. Never. Just play your games and stop worrying about graphics already.
Well look who finally showed up -- Mr. Asterisk Man.
j/k Jumpman.
The NGC and Xbox should be more powerful. They are being released about 1 1/2 years after the PS2 was released. Jumpman, you need to read that link that Ryu posted to see why the sentence, "It will never surpass the graphics of Xbox and NGC" is completely an oppinion thing. The only reason I am defending the PS2 because it has a lot more power than you guys give credit for.
Hardcore Tekken fans will buy anything with Tekken on it and pretend they love it. Duh.
I don\'t see how you guys can still deny it. If I, a hardcore Tekken player, still play TTT to this day, is it because I can\'t accept that the game really sucks? Your logic is flawed. I think a hardcore Tekken player would know if hardcore Tekken players like TTT more than someone who is not so hardcore (I don\'t know if you\'ve even played TTT, so I can\'t say more than "not so hardcore").
(BTW, the score is now 14 to 0. Man, all these Tekken fanboys are really good at pretending.)
Originally posted by Watchdog
Yeah, dev team of 12 to do a slow paced RPG--tell me when the graphical abilities are pushed--you idiot.
And the name calling begins. :rolleyes:
This isn\'t a FPS or a flight sim or anything that requires heavy processing. That\'s why they have 12 artists, because the coding doesn\'t have to account for a massive amout of floating operations. Next time you try to appear to be smart don\'t argue about something you know nothing about. BG is a slow (albeit great game) that is less on processing power and more on visuals.
Edit: It looks like Mr T. beat me to this question, but I still want you to respond to it. I am interested in seeing how much you really know.
Ok mister smart guy, please explain to me why BG takes less processing power than a flight simulator. They both have graphics that are drawn in realtime. They both have a sophisticated physics engine. And while you\'re at it, please explain to me what you mean when you said
"the coding doesn\'t have to account for a massive amout of floating operations." Thanks in advance.
A 12 man team made one of the most impressive looking games on hardest to program console ever. Maybe it isn\'t as hard as you thought for developers to change the way they think about making games.
Yes devs can use the tools and get access to even LESS power--that seems like a good idea.
Using the tools will make more of the PS2\'s power accessable to developers. That is what they are designed to do. Did you even read the links I posted about it?
No coders aren\'t stupid, but the engineers that designed the PS2 are.
Could you design a better console? If the PS2 designers are stupid, than what are you?
Experience will help, certainly, but not to the point where developing for the PS2 will be anywhere near as easy as developing for the xbox. If you knew anything about the process you would be able to see this. It just takes more of everything to get the same effects. More of everything takes longer. Also yes the PS2 can "mimic" surround sound, it si not true surround, but it is a reasonable facsimily--the difference is that it\'s going to take cycles off the cpu to accomplish that while the xbox and gc (surround capable systems) can do it directly off of their sound cards.
Thats great news for the Xbox, but it doesn\'t mean anything if the Xbox doesn\'t sell well. The Xbox will most likely flop in Japan. Lets just hope it does better in America and Europe...
I\'m sure you don\'t want to hear my oppinion, but I think the Xbox will be a failure. Even some of the most hardcore Xbox fanboys have said that they would wait until next spring before they bought one because thats when the online games start coming. If there is a lack of consumers at the beginning, the developers will start to run away to the more successful consoles, i.e., NGC and PS2.
And whoever said that crap about streaming off the CD--yes you\'ve just fell for the newest piece of crap marketing by Sony.
I don\'t know what you are referring to. If its about the quote I posted about how the PS2\'s architecture works and how it can stream in textures very fast, than you obviously didn\'t even click on the link I posted. Just so you know, that quote was not from Sony. It is from gamasutra.com -- a huge, well respected, game programming/technology site.
DOn\'t feel badly, I fell for the "emotion engine". It\'s marketing to try and cover their limitations. If a ridiculous 4mb of ram were enough why do workstations need 1000s of megs? WHy not use this incredibly cheap and efficient way of streaming? WOuld save lots of money right? Sure, but you wouldn\'t get **** out of it. Because it doesn\'t work. It\'s marketing jargon that gets people to believe that their system is the best around.
Thanks for your oppinion, but I prefer to take the oppinions from people who actually know what they are talking about. (i.e. Gamasutra)
EDIT: I just found this info on the Gaming Age forums. It\'s a excerpt from the interview that IGN Insider just had with Jason Rubin (the maker of Jak and Daxter). It pretty much backs up what I\'ve been saying this whole time. Sure, he loves Sony to death, but don\'t let that blind you to the truth. He obviously knows what he\'s talking about -- just look at his game.
IGN: What would you say are some of the biggest technical problems on the PS2 that you\'re overcoming in Jak and Daxter?
Jason Rubin: I think it\'s the same problem everybody else has with all systems. I mean we\'re overcoming memory issues, whether or not you\'re 40MB, which is effectively what the PS2 has, and after you add up all the little pieces you\'re at 64MB. We\'re not talking about a five-time memory advantage that the Xbox has. We\'re talking about, you know, a few more megs. We\'re always going to have memory issues, so we\'re overcoming those. We\'re overcoming the data management issue of how do you get 50 million polygons to 100 million polygons worth of
background geometry, modeled, and actually textured and lit and actually in the game. That\'s a much bigger task than dealing with a small amount of texture RAM. That problem is gone in like, you know, a week or two weeks of work. So, I\'d easily have the hardware be five times harder if we can make the actual game itself half as easy; you know, half as hard to make. It just doesn\'t work that way unfortunately, the game itself is far harder than the hardware. So we\'ve overcome the standard slew of issues, but I don\'t think those are any different issues than you\'re going to have on any other hardware.
