-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jak 2: How do great looking Gamecube games compare to this title?
- Thread starter Speevy
- Start date
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Well, the IQ looked pretty wonderful on my TV set, but that's beside the point.
Why do yo need a link that the game is using trilinear filtering? Can't you see it? I mean, it's very obvious, really.
Marconelly said:
The IQ isn't bad, but the Jak engine produces the worst progressive scan image of all PS2 games that support it. I mean, when you pop in Star Ocean 3, Primal, or anything else...they actually tend to look sharper than your average GC or XBOX title in 480p mode. Jak 2 and R&C2 are a bit chunky, though, in comparison. Still looks better in prog-scan mode, but it isn't really as sharp as it could be...
clipunderground
Member
back to my rebel strike comment here. I thought it pushed more polygons then any current console game? Also, I'm pretty sure this was not just PR. Can anyone confirm or deny this with proof?
MAZYORA
Member
dark10x said:
Haha, that proves you don't know what you're talking about and haven't compared the two. The water in Sonic Heroes does NOT bend or distort anything below it. Also, the water in SH is not animated that well and looks more comparable to the lava in Billy Hatcher then the water. Billy Hatcher has some of the best water effects around. If u must compare it to water effects from a Sonic game, then compare it to
Sonic Adventure DX Directors Cut, because it uses a much more advanced water engine and is more comparable to Billy Hatcher. Billy Hatcher has awesome graphics! I don't care what u say, you think anything that isnt developed by Team Kojima, Snowblind, or basically any game built by the top PS2 developers looks like crap. And by the way, F-Zero GX destroys every PS2 game ever made graphically. There's no way in hell ps2 could run F-Zero GX, it would completly choke on it.
So what's the verdict? What are the best looking games on each console?
For Xbox and PS2, I'd say:
Dead or Alive 3
Ninja Gaiden
Panzer Dragoon Orta
Silent Hill 3
Metal Gear Solid 2
Tekken Tag Tournament
For GC, I'd say F-Zero GX was very impressive, although I haven't played many GC games (MGS: TTS certainly isn't impressive looking).
For Xbox and PS2, I'd say:
Dead or Alive 3
Ninja Gaiden
Panzer Dragoon Orta
Silent Hill 3
Metal Gear Solid 2
Tekken Tag Tournament
For GC, I'd say F-Zero GX was very impressive, although I haven't played many GC games (MGS: TTS certainly isn't impressive looking).
clipunderground:
Developers speak within the context of their own games, so the accomplishments they highlight are often peak figures for their title. Since the conditions being referenced in each game can be so different from one another, comparing developer quotes about their respective games cannot be done that directly. A more accurate indication of accomplishment would be had using context for a whole range of titles and their typical performances, and this would result in realistically lower numbers.
Error Macro
Member
I remember Julian Eggebrecht from Factor 5 making a claim resembling what clipunderground said. Something about being confident that Rebel Strike was pushing more polys per frame than anyone, on any platform, had done before. I wish someone could dig up that quote.
cybercrash
Member
Error Macro said:
You're right, I read that too somewhere.
MAZYORA said:
You're so full of shit AND living in the past.
I absolutely do not feel that way at all. PS2 games really haven't even been impressing me as much as of late, and really, I was more impressed with the fact that the developers were doing so much on a limited platform. Games such as Ninja Gaiden, Metroid Prime, RE4, RS2/3 and various other games are extremely impressive to me. Also, as you might have guessed, I am now using an HDTV, so most PS2 games suffer from rather poor image quality due to the lack of progressive scan support. I swear, it seems as if your impression of my tastes is based on something you read well over a year ago. Times change, I'm afraid. I still stick up for the PS2, but I most certainly don't think it is the most impressive hardware nor the platform with the most impressive technology.
You're right, Sonic Heroes really doesn't distort the visuals beneath the surface, but the actual surface is still very similar in appearance. Sonic DX could be compared, that's true, but that game is a technical mess in every other aspect. Billy Hatcher's water isn't particular complex and has major flaws present (the edge distortion, for example, should not occur when one considers the method in which the water should be rendered). Mario Sunshine uses a much more dynamic and complex model that combines various techniques together. The water in BH is NOT impressive. Similar water effects can be found in just an incredible number of XBOX titles. It's just a surface effect. Shit, I mean games like Rallisport 2 have even better looking water...and you RARELY EVEN SEE IT. I just can't figure out why you so impressed by such a simple effect.
I have obviously compared the two. I own both games and have run them one after another many times over. The simple fact that Hatcher lacks any sort of LOD engine and chooses to remove all objects from the screen (outside of basic level geometry) until you reach a certain distance from them is pretty sad. It is perhaps the worst looking game in this thread...but you seem to have developed some strange attraction to this game that I simply can't understand. Did you ever consider that you just happen to the be the only one who ever makes these claims? Didn't you find that strange?
I can't believe how you actually could feel that way about F-Zero GX, though. If you actually look at any course, you would realize that they are very simple in construction. The game relies on sharp texturing, good image quality, and well designed areas (from an artistic standpoint). Look at the forest track, and you can clearly see just how much detail is drawn in as you move.
Basically, it just seems to me that you are confusing your love of the "art" or the general appearance of these games with technical superiority. Instead of "yelling" like you always do, why not attempt to rationally point out where you disagree. You always come off as if you are screaming at me, for some reason. That's very annoying and, more often than not, results in an inaccurate argument due to emotions running high.
Oh, and really, how DARE you suggest that I only appreciate the technology from those companies. Not only were you WRONG, but you are FAR more guilty of that than I am. In your case, you seem to believe that anything from Sega stands WAY above everything else. You do this CONSTANTLY and you have NEVER shown yourself acting in a different fashion. It just blows my mind.
cybercrash
Member
How about an FF:CC vs. Champions of Norrath comparison? From what I've seen, CoN seems slightly more impressive in terms of lighting, geometry and textures but FF:CC seems to take the prize in the special effects department.
I doubt there is a GameCube game even using similar conditions to Jak. Naughty Dog's great LOD saves the game from having to apply as many effects on far away objects as that of other games, so there are probably some efficient scenes where it can run high counts of geometry and not need much in the way of resource-draining effects.
And then, there's also the perception Jak creates through smart model swapping that it's running more geometry than it really is.
And then, there's also the perception Jak creates through smart model swapping that it's running more geometry than it really is.
dark10x said:That's not true, Li. Prime does display complex geometric structures, but not quite to the level that Jak 2 does. I prefer the way Prime looks, that's for sure, but Jak 2 seems to draw more polys overall. Not only do you have a much larger field of view at times, there are also upwards of 20-30 individual characters running around the landscape as well. Prime is modelled in a very smart fashion, though.
Come on, though, so Marco doesn't own a GC...you don't own a PS2, do you?
My frat brother does, & I play it plenty. My brother at home has an X-Box. Access to all 3 systems & their software quite frequently dark. I just didn't like the sharpness perhaps, or how everything seemed to form a sharp point.
TheGreenGiant
Banned
WTF IS HAPPENING WITH THIS DISCUSSION.
JaK II is NOT that visually appealling. I would term it borderline ugly/okay
as for the game technical prowress; visuals there are way too many games on the cube that dumps all over Jak II. Polys aside, the fact that Jak II has crap textures and uses that flat shader for most objects/character makes it unworthy of contention. Its not pretty and its not really texture hell. Of course the engine can spew more polys out - that went with LOD detail versus textural detail. The latter = better looking game
Look at that screen shot dark 10x posted in the first page - it might as well be gorouad shaded.
JaK II is NOT that visually appealling. I would term it borderline ugly/okay
as for the game technical prowress; visuals there are way too many games on the cube that dumps all over Jak II. Polys aside, the fact that Jak II has crap textures and uses that flat shader for most objects/character makes it unworthy of contention. Its not pretty and its not really texture hell. Of course the engine can spew more polys out - that went with LOD detail versus textural detail. The latter = better looking game
Look at that screen shot dark 10x posted in the first page - it might as well be gorouad shaded.
Forsete
Member
Jak II is a very impressive looking game. Anyone who has actually played it can not disagree.. I was shocked at how good it looked when I played it a few weeks back, I had actually forgotten.
Jak II is not a very picture pretty game (yes, the high res images makes it look ugly, so would MP), you must see it in motion with all the nice effects. IMO it beats most of the GC games on that list.
Here is an interesting wireframe picture from Ratchet and Clank 1.
Jak II is not a very picture pretty game (yes, the high res images makes it look ugly, so would MP), you must see it in motion with all the nice effects. IMO it beats most of the GC games on that list.
Here is an interesting wireframe picture from Ratchet and Clank 1.
MAZYORA said:
This is a shitty shot, but this level is so pretty!
It is pretty, I won't deny that...but that doesn't mean it is technically outstanding (though the snow is nice in motion). It's totally cool if you really love the way the game looks, but it really isn't top notch from a technical standpoint. It's just drawing a whole lot less than the competition.
A lot of great looking games aren't at the top of their class, technically speaking...
TheGreenGiant
Banned
he's right you know. The screen you posted is VERY ordinary. And dare I say almost N64ish.MAZYORA said:
see: WRBS : 1080 A
MAZYORA said:
...and I agreed with you. I think it looks quite good. However, there is a difference between simply "looking good" and being on top from a technical perspective. A game can look amazing, but not actually be among the most technically advanced titles for a particular platform.
I know you adore the game, but you shouldn't let your love of the visual style cloud your view here. That's all!
MAZYORA
Member
dark10x said:
I don't think its the most technically impressive platformer ever, but it does have certain graphical effects that no other platformer has taht are extremely impressive. you have to admit the snow deformation is really impressive, especially since it builds back up after its been trampled.
The fact is that the media has been a bit unfair regarding Billy Hatcher. They have compared it with a DC title which is simply crap. Everything seems to indicate that the game runs over an extension of SA2 engine but the game looks miles ahead better than SA2 ever did.
Its biggest flaws are the fact that the game uses low-poly models yet it has some slowdown when there are tons of enemies.
But the texturing is good and each world has some kind of special effect that makes it cool to play through it.
It's not the best looking game out there...no doubt about it but I love the gameplay and there are enough touchs here and there that make the final graphic impressions to be good rather than bad.
Its biggest flaws are the fact that the game uses low-poly models yet it has some slowdown when there are tons of enemies.
But the texturing is good and each world has some kind of special effect that makes it cool to play through it.
It's not the best looking game out there...no doubt about it but I love the gameplay and there are enough touchs here and there that make the final graphic impressions to be good rather than bad.
Miburou said:
I agree with all your comments except I find Jak2 impressive nonetheless. No other game I played gave me the feeling of a real city with tons of people (I was disapointed with SMS zones/levels by the way). Of course, all those people are zombies. That would be the next step.
From an overall package, not only polygones, I still find Wind Waker superior.
Similar threads
- Poll