DirectX sh*t > PS2 ???

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3 or 4 years DX technology....given your logic...since the DX is has so many "untapped pontential"...yet this lowly outdated DX technology  still managed to beat the shit out of a PS2??

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. :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.

]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.

[§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.

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.

[Jumpman]

wtf is going on in here?

[§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.

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??

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.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

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 ).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. :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.

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. [/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.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

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.