PS2 : for worse times...

The majority of us here is fairly positive about PS2\'s future. So the thread name went from; PS2: for worse times - to - PS2: for worse times ? - to - PS2: for worse times, answer=NO (with some issues here and there though.)

Also... Watchdog, Baldurs Gate is not the only PS2 game...:rolleyes:

Why does Capcom do prerendered backgrounds for the RE remake on NGC (fantastic though, kudos to NGC hardware) and realtime 3D in DMC on PS2 ?
Check out all the kinetic action in that game ; so much 3D calculations !
No, like I said, the amount of raw power of PS2 is not the problem, but it\'s imo more a case of unclean visuals. NGC and XBOX have untill now an edge over PS2 when it comes to anti alias and such. But once devs improve PS2 hardware efficiency I think we\'ll see \'clean\' graphics on PS2 as well.
Knotter8

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.

PS2 isnt getting blown out graphics wise at all, and last time I checked the GC and xbox were coming out a year later so they should have somewhat better graphics

Just my opinion.
We will see in 2-3 years what happens, maybe the x-box will sell 30 million, maybe the GC will sell 25 million and the PS2 just 20 million. Just time will tell..........

Watchdog, I think you have been misinformed about Baldur\'s Gate: DA.  The game is in true 3d.  Quote from PS2.ign: "This game is running on a rock-solid 3D engine with completely rotatable dungeons, brilliant animation for nearly every interactive element (of which there are many), and first-rate lighting effects of all different kinds."

The game has to deal with everything that a FPS game has to deal with.  It has to deal with hiding off-screen or blocked-from-view polygons.  It has to deal with lighting effects.  (good ol\' dot product ).  It has to render the world and the characters all in real time, because they are always changing.  The backgrounds aren\'t prerendered or anything.  This pic is probably from when you beat a level or something and the camera comes down for a closer view of the hero.  I\'m posting it because it proves a point.  
This just shows how similar the game is to the FPS games.  It has to process just as much as a FPS game does.

About the characters being small and also about the perspective thing (objects are smaller in the background):


Next Generation magazine said that some of the monsters will be made up of 20,000 polygons a piece.:eek:

You will NEVER get full power out of any hardware if you use development tools.  These tools are designed to help people get around the rough edges of the PS2.

I\'m not saying they will get full power.  I\'m saying they will get more power than most developers have now.  The most talented developers who don\'t need the kits will make better games, but the less talented developers will still make impressive looking games with these tools -- more impressive than what they are making now at least.

Can\'t argue there.  The xbox needs to sell.  It may flop in Japan, but who knows.  I think it was a wise move to delay the launch.  There are still rumblings that Square is talking to MS.  IF that happens and MG gets a release anything can happen in the land of the rising sun.

Yeah, anything can happen really.  What would be funny is if the Xbox sells better than the NGC did.

Yes that is from Naughty Dog--a PS2 exclusive developer (Im pretty sure).  What did you expect?  Even if they aren\'t exclusive, I can find any number of quotes from many other companies and individuals that hate the xbox archetecture.  What is this going to proove?

Yeah, Naughty Dog is a first party developer (I think they became first party about a year ago).  I said to look past them being first party and just look at what they have made.  Don\'t you think they are a credible source?

And no I do not only bash the PS2.  I could easily say you only praise it.  I offer my opinion on what I have played and seen.

I offer my opinion on what I have played and seen too.  That\'s whats so great about opinions, they are all different.

Hey Ironfist your not kidding.  Baldurs Gate looks awesome.  I can\'t wait to play it.

A 3D engine is different from a 3D game.  Yes they are made up of polys (but I\'m sure they are using many sprites too)  but the camera is out of the user\'s control.  Any of the new consoles can make an awesome realtime video so long as the camera is predetermined.  As soon as you let the camera be controlled it requires much more processing power.

The lighting is particle based--the PS2 is king of particle based animation so they should look good.

I think BG looks great and I will get it, but you just can\'t compare the performance of this game to that of a FPS.

Also, Sony, MS and Nintendo all knew what they all were doing when they ere designing their consoles.  Sony knew and even stated well before PS2 launched that the xbox and GC (wasn\'t called that at the time) that the PS2 would be the most powerful consoles on the market.  They maintained their system would outperform anything on the market for 5-10 years (lol).  This obviously hasn\'t happened and isn\'t the case.

Naughty Dog is 1st party, hm, didn\'t know that.  If they were second party I would carefully consider anything they said, but being 1st party really hurts their credibility.  It\'s like asking the makers of Munch (can\'t remember) what they think of the PS2 vs the xbox.  I guarentee they wouldn\'t say nothing nice about the PS2 and nothing  bad about xbox.  Would it be true?  Of course not.  Would it get printed in an article at IGN?  Absolutely.

I would say that DOA3 and Halo look significantly better than any PS2 game.  I say this and so does IGN (whatever that means).  It\'s hard to argue.  I guess we have to hope that the gameplay isn\'t as good as the graphics or they could start quite a stir, being launch titles and all.

I will admit DOA3 looks to be maybe the best looking next gen fighter graphically so far.  Halo looks good as well, so far the xbox has been very impressive so far.:thepimp:

Originally posted by Watchdog


I would say that DOA3 and Halo look significantly better than any PS2 game.  I say this and so does IGN (whatever that means).  It\'s hard to argue.  I guess we have to hope that the gameplay isn\'t as good as the graphics or they could start quite a stir, being launch titles and all.

Actually i like the look VF4 better.  It\'s grittier and morerealistic.  Especially that snow level...  :surprised

i downloaded a movie of halo, and it did look very very stunning.  it was bout 6 minutes long, and the game\'s graphics were nto lacking to say the least. you could barely tell that it was running at 30fps.

i always knew that x box\'s graphics will surpass ps2\'s but that does not bother me. i like the games that are coming out for ps2. some of them are amazing.

Originally posted by PahnCrD
Actually i like the look VF4 better.  It\'s grittier and morerealistic.  Especially that snow level...  :surprised

DOA3 also has a snow level with the same, if not better, snow effects.  DOA3 is amazing.  I can\'t deny that.  That is one reason (the other being Munch) that I want an Xbox.

Watchdog, I\'ll reply to most of the stuff you said later.

Originally posted by Watchdog
A 3D engine is different from a 3D game.  Yes they are made up of polys (but I\'m sure they are using many sprites too)  but the camera is out of the user\'s control.  Any of the new consoles can make an awesome realtime video so long as the camera is predetermined.  As soon as you let the camera be controlled it requires much more processing power.

I\'ll first answer the easy part.  No, BG: DA does not use sprites.  The closest thing to a sprite that I have seen is the lifebars, which is probably just a bitmap.  All characters, objects, environments, etc., are polygonal.

Now for the hard part.  Right now I am awaiting an answer from one of the mods at Black Isle Studio.  I still don\'t see why having a controllable camera would take more processing power, but I am asking one of the mods if the cameras are controllable. (The mods answer everybody\'s questions about Baldur\'s Gate.  I think they work on the BG team, but I\'m not sure about that.)  I wish Mr. T. would come back and back me up on this because I think he knows more about it than I do, but I still think a FPS and BG: DA take the same processing power even if the camera is not controllable.

Also, Sony, MS and Nintendo all knew what they all were doing when they ere designing their consoles.  Sony knew and even stated well before PS2 launched that the xbox and GC (wasn\'t called that at the time) that the PS2 would be the most powerful consoles on the market.  They maintained their system would outperform anything on the market for 5-10 years (lol).  This obviously hasn\'t happened and isn\'t the case.

Without a link or some kind of proof that Sony said that, it means nothing.  I don\'t even think the Xbox existed back then.  The only thing that Sony knew about was the Dolphin.

Naughty Dog is 1st party, hm, didn\'t know that.  If they were second party I would carefully consider anything they said, but being 1st party really hurts their credibility.  It\'s like asking the makers of Munch (can\'t remember) what they think of the PS2 vs the xbox.  I guarentee they wouldn\'t say nothing nice about the PS2 and nothing  bad about xbox.  Would it be true?  Of course not.  Would it get printed in an article at IGN?  Absolutely.

Ok, even though Jak and Daxter is arguably the best looking game on the PS2, I\'ll drop that statement.  The JAD team probably knows the most about the PS2, but they could have been lying.  (I really hate to drop a quote like that )

I would say that DOA3 and Halo look significantly better than any PS2 game.  I say this and so does IGN (whatever that means).  It\'s hard to argue.  I guess we have to hope that the gameplay isn\'t as good as the graphics or they could start quite a stir, being launch titles and all.

Like I said before, I\'m not about to diss the quality of Xbox launch games.  I probably won\'t buy an Xbox this year because of all the great games coming to the PS2, but I definately want to play those games.  I am predicting that the Xbox will turn out a lot like the PS2.  It has an (arguably) great launch, then the quality software slows down for a while before it picks up again.  I mean, what is after DOA3, Halo, and Munch?  I\'m not seeing much except for that really cool game coming late next year (the title slips my mind right now).

More processing power because you can control the camera? Gimme a break.

Regardless of whether the camera is moving or not, if everything on the screen is made up of polygons, they still have to be generated on the fly. They aren\'t just tossed there and forgotten.

/ dm /

Originally posted by datamage
More processing power because you can control the camera? Gimme a break.

Regardless of whether the camera is moving or not, if everything on the screen is made up of polygons, they still have to be generated on the fly. They aren\'t just tossed there and forgotten.

/ dm /

Exactly.  I guess the best way to solve this is for Watchdog to post a list what a FPS game processes that BG: DA doesn\'t.

[Evi]

Originally posted by Caspian
BG2:DA, MGS2, FFX

You forgot ICO... This thread is really lame.  But that\'s just my opinion.

You guys are ridiculous.  Isometric games do not have the system requirements that FPS do.  That should be your first clue.

Secondly, a FPS is a quicker game, things move more quickly and therefore have to be drawn more quickly.

And again obviously have a controllable camera impacts performance.  It\'s one more thing for the CPU to keep track of--if you believe nothing else.  Also, just the fact that everything is so small on screen makes a difference.

These are only the things that are readily aparent.

It\'s impossible arguing with ignorant people because they\'ll wear you down and bring you to their level.