Support NeoGAF

[DonF]

Ohhhhhhh, much better.
I like the spirit but let's compare big fishes now :

Emulator screenshots for everyone (don't cry, PS2 is strong at post process effect, Dreamcast at Image quality... so, Dreamcast has the disadvantage )

1999 Dreamcast (in engine cut scene intro)

2001 Playstation 2 (in engine cut scene intro)

(on top of that, it seems it was too much for the Alien PS2 Death Star hardware... Later Square reduced our precious polycount with FFXII models )

2005 Playstation 2 (in engine cut scene)

Blast processed...

@Radical_3d
Sorry to disapoint you...
I know it sounds insane or out of reach for earlier consoles but Douglas from Silent Hill 3 has less polygons than 1999 Shenhua from Shenmue (8800 VS 9100)

The polygon war was a lie, Jim.

we really need a "touch grass" reaction.

whats with dreamcast lovers and their obsession with that particular piece of plastic?! smh

 

[Fat Frog]

Is Shenmue 2 that 20fps game?

so let's compare with 20fps game

Shadow of the colossus minotaur (Argus) in game real time
Polycount : 21256 triangles (27600 vertices and 3172 strips)

Heyyyyyyy, not bad... 6 years after Shenmue 1 . But with soooo much RAW POWER left, where are my cutting edge textures ?

Where is my eMOtioN EnGiNe ?

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

Heyyyyyyy, not bad... 6 years after Shenmue 1 . But with soooo much RAW POWER left, where are my cutting edge textures ?

Where is my eMOtioN EnGiNe ?

These textures are the same as Dreamcast 128x128, 256x256, there are few colors because it is the game's art.
Do you really want to debate textures?

Shenmue II [SEGA AM2] 2001

Informationen und Wissenswertes zur SEGA Dreamcast Software: Shenmue II

www.sega-dreamcast.com

 

[pepodmc_]

It's an incomplete tech demo of the first level, ok. There are tech demos of Sonic running on SNES too.

i never said snes could not run sonic, and that tech demo was sonic 1. And even then, the screen had zoom because it run at lower resolution.
i would want to see if snes can run sonic 3...

But i said star fox and you said stock genesis couldnt run it, so that tech demo show it could without a zoom problem like the sonic 1 tech demo on snes.


Road rash for example could not run in a stock snes.

 

[fatmarco]

The fact that this thread is mostly comparing the PS2 to the Dreamcast rather than the Gamecube or Xbox is pretty telling.

(Not that the PS2 didn't have incredible looking games even amongst its newer peers though).

 

[64bitmodels]

Graphics weren’t an issue with PS2.

Now i'm not saying Gran Turismo 4 looks exact to reality.... but we did achieve close to photorealism in games a lot sooner than many think. this game and RE4 came out not that far off from each other and they look insane.

 

[polybius80]

Pawl...

Sega boys never cared about Shenhua's polycount (i just love trolling the PS2 not the other Playstation though)BUT...

For almost 2 decades, people said that the mighty PS2 was in another League by posting Douglas's model from Silent Hill 3 as an ultimate proof.

"AAMAGAD the polycount is insane. It's out of reach."

FACTS


It appeared decades later that Douglas's polycount was high but inferior to Shenmue's intro...

No need to downplay a 1999 game, my friends .

My point is NO, Silent Hill 3's models has nothing to do with PS2's polygon capabilities.

FACTS

For 2 decades, PS2 was all about polygon masturbation on gaf.

Yeah, people can now touch their bananas and talk about cool post process effects ,

BUT, NO, Silent Hill 3's model has nothing to do with eMOtiOn EnGinE.

Even an amateur guy on GAF runned Silent Hill 3's Douglas on the Dreamcast in a few days.

I have no idea who you talked to for decades or what was said during that time but the simple fact is that you have little to not idea of what you are talking, yet you have the audacity of declaring "FACTS", it is incredible that during all that time you never bothered to read articles about how that stuff works

the douglas model as presented is more complex than whatever model shenmue shows that is a fact for your list, just because you found a model that has a few hundreds triangles more than a SH3 model doesnt mean much, the moment you start adding lights to a model the harder it is to render, adding shadows and specially self shadowing is not simple and I have to remind you that in SH3 the model appear animated in scenes with other similar 3d models of characters with same ilumination and shadows if you are going to talk about the amount of triangle that is something to be considered, even for trolling you have to have an idea of what is being discussed otherwise you "think you are trolling" while in reality you are presenting clueless posts

I saw the image you reffer, cant you see the light is not the same?, adding a model to a scene in DOA2 without light and effects and without the skinning data is pointless as is not the same as rendering the model as was in SH3, the debugger menu in doa2 already shows you how adding light affects framerate that should give you a hint of what is happening and why, DC can render a huge amount of triangles but it cannot process them as good as it can draw triangles it affect the desing of models in lot of games that is why the are made in parts as that is easier process mario64 is a perfect example of this

emotion engine has inside the VU's and it process the geometry and effects so yes it has to do to how the model is rendered, grapihcs are way more than the number of triangles in a specific model you think DC can render halo with all that lights and normal mapping just because you have model with more tirangles than master chief?

 

[cireza]

blast processing

Even though it was a marketing term, it is often associated to the capability of the console to DMA the VDP.

Sega's legendary Blast Processing was real - but what did it actually do?

Blast processing. Controversial in its time, Sega used the phrase heavily to market its Genesis/Mega Drive console in t…

www.eurogamer.net

This wasn't a discussion on SNES vs. Genesis hardware.

Genesis couldn’t do Star Fox on stock hardware either.

Next time you don't want to make it a Genesis vs SNES thread, maybe avoid stating things like these ?

 

[Fat Frog]

These textures are the same as Dreamcast 128x128, 256x256, there are few colors because it is the game's art.
Do you really want to debate textures?

Shenmue II [SEGA AM2] 2001

Informationen und Wissenswertes zur SEGA Dreamcast Software: Shenmue II

www.sega-dreamcast.com

Sorry, i cannot distinguish SOTC's textures, the 512X224 cheap resolution is damn too low and the IQ too crappy .

P polybius80
Take a deep breath, pawl

 

[diffusionx]

Even though it was a marketing term, it is often associated to the capability of the console to DMA the VDP.

Sega's legendary Blast Processing was real - but what did it actually do?

Blast processing. Controversial in its time, Sega used the phrase heavily to market its Genesis/Mega Drive console in t…

www.eurogamer.net

Next time you don't want to make it a Genesis vs SNES thread, maybe avoid stating things like these ?

I was responding to a guy posting about special chips in SNES. Come on man. The war is over, time to move on. Same with Dreamcast heads.

 

[cireza]

The war is over, time to move on.

You are literally the one who made the comparison, now you stand corrected by facts. No sign of war here. Take your own advice maybe ?

 

[Lysandros]

The fact that this thread is mostly comparing the PS2 to the Dreamcast rather than the Gamecube or Xbox is pretty telling.

Telling in which sense precisely? Dreamcast comparisons are becoming inescapable mostly due to some hard-core Sega fans being always there with torches for a 'vengeance' on any thread discussing PS2 hardware. I don’t think the majority of people with a particular fondness of PS2 architecture have an obsession to continuously compare the machine to Dreamcast to entertain a sense of 'superiority'. And no, GameCube wasn't an "unreachable target", the only important 'gulf' was in the difference of architectures which produced results with different strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Audiophile]

I think you have to look at it in the context of the time and CRT TVs. Other systems would give you a cleaner, more stable high-res looking image at the output while PS2 was largely more aliased, blocky, blurry and less stable but nearly everyone was on a small-moderately sized CRT display that smoothed it out enough that it didn't matter much, what was more apparent is where PS2 absolutely killed: alpha, fx, post-processing and fillrate up the wazoo.

There's also the all-important holistic aspect, they cost reduced that thing aggressively. It was the perfect box for that 6yr period and did what it had to do. PS1 established the brand and PS2 cemented it.

The downside was devs had an extremely heavy load to carry; I wonder though if that difficulty fostered great talent and technical creativity that would pay off for another ~15-20yrs.

 

[Calverz]

I was impressed with it until I got a gamecube and then eventually Xbox. Ps2 looked so blurry in comparison. Had the best game lineup though obviosuly.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

just to state the obvious:
xbox>gcn>ps2>dc

it is known

 

[Alexios]

Not sure why folks are turning this into a DC vs thread as if reiterating PS2 is more powerful than the weakest, oldest of the generation, that nobody said otherwise, negates valid criticism, but there's more to DC's few JRPGs than some SD model in a close up still set against a more realistic art style. The intro of SOA alone is impressive showing off different scenes and areas and the game casually throws many ace effects whenever it's appropriate as in the timestamp below, while ST4 and its predecessor show attention to detail/art direction/production values are enough for other cool effects (particles, flashes, smoke, motion blur, lens flares, MGS2's optical camo, etc.) to be implemented on a system not famous for it (as if DC had time to be famous for anything but Soulcalibur). Even if they don't top the masters of the genre (who would have topped these on DC too, had they invested half the time and money they did on PS2) they don't look out of place next to the PS2's JRPGs where for every FFXII there's a Tales of or a Persona. But hey, it's funny how folks confuse matured tools, development & art practices beyond the 90s DC basically ran on and the production values of a whole game industry going all in on one platform for a decade with x or y being impossible elsewhere. 80% of the games would have been just fine on a weaker system with or without compromise just as PlayStation 2 had some Xbox & GameCube ports but not others. It wasn't DC's specs but its (lack of) sales.

​

Again, be careful when finding Dreamcast game footage, emulators didn't display all effects until relatively recently/with the right settings, Dreamcast hardware mods to run games off other devices and not the GD-Rom drive can cause issues and some ports to other platforms had downgrades too.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

PS2 is some of the most soulful graphics ever, so I'd say not really.

Last year I replayed Haunting Ground for the PS2, while some aspects of the game's graphics are dated in a purely technical sense, the game's art direction, style and overall vibe still hit as hard as it did almost 20 years ago, I was actually LEGIT way impressed.

People arguing over the nitty gritty details of this or that specific texture are missing the forest for the trees of a games art direction and overall vibes.

 

[JackMcGunns]

I remember the article:

“The Emotion Engine. Can a computer make your cry?”

Hysterical times. lol at people saying it was overhyped. “10 times more powerful than the Dreamcast”.

Try that BS today and you’ll be called out.

 

[Xaeroxcore666]

but you want to transform the thread into PS2 x GC and you also selected a very unusual ship game to make it difficult to compare with ps2 and a RE4 that works along the same lines as VF4, that is, it doesn't use the power of the ps2 to be made. I can argue that in 2001 the PS2's GT3 reigned supreme, surpassing a similar game on the Xbox, the GC on the other hand never showed a game like that

Dude, no. I was telling the facts along the same line to what was told on the video from OP, and also the actual facts how things happened on that era. PS2 started to show it´s true capabilities by 2001 with GT3, GTA 3, MGS 2, FF X, SH 2, etc....And they showed an improvement compared to what was already on console market, which was DC and PS2 1st gen, but of course not by a generational leap, as some here assume. But the thing is, at the same timeframe GCN and Xbox arrived and like or not, both systems put the visual and tech standards even further. Those are facts cannot be denied, but also i´m stating that this exactly proofs how capable PS2 was, because it could went head to head with those more modern and powerful machines and still delivered games with a visual level unthinkable by 2000 and even 01 standars, like God of War, Burnout Revenge, Shadow of the collosus, etc, etc.... And about RE 4...can´t believe you are carrying also that statements to this thread, man. Even on the DC thread they proved you wrong, but you insist. How in hell RE 4 and VF 4, games that came from taking full advantage of more modern, efficient and powerful systems like GCN and Naomi 2, and which were at the beginning unthinkable to at least run on PS2, all of the sudden now they´re ports which DOESNT take the power of PS2? Please name any PS2 game on its entire 13 year lifetime which looks graphically and tech superior GNC RE 4 and Naomi 2 VF 4. In fact, there´s even a PS2 game which looks overall superior to PS2 VF 4 Evolution and the RE 4 PS2 port at least? Help me please with that question.

And about what you say on GT 3, yes GT 3 was king during 2001 and beyond, graphically was and still is impressive (play it with component cable on a CRT TV...it looks beautiful to this day!!!!) But it didnt surpass Project Gotham or better yet Rally Sports Challenge. Yes, GT 3 looks impressive, but this is also due to the terrific art direction: Yamauchi is a genius who really knows how to work around the limitations of every PS system and take the most of it. Hell, i´m playing GT 7 on my PS5 on this very moment, and i find really unbeliavable how good it looks despite being a game built primarly for PS4. But going back to PS2, the two Xbox games from ots early days ím mentionting have way more geometry per car (it would be nice if someone give us exact polycounts around here) than GT 3 and also they showed realistic car damage representation over none on GT 3 and even GT 4. Also PG stages look more complex than GT 3 ones. The only thing GT 3 was superior is screen space reflections on cars.

I dont say it, its DF, check it out (also see how GT 3 compares against Le Mans and Ferrari)

GameCube wasn't more 'powerful' than PS2. It was more efficient, much easier to maximize and partly more 'modern' in its architecture. A very nice and clever system really. But in terms of raw potential and metrics it was mostly less powerful compared to PS2, also less flexible.

Metrics? Ummm name any PS2 in its entire 13 yrs lifetime which surpass or at least look on par with: RE 4, Rogue Squadron 2 and 3, Metroid Prime 1 and 2...of any genre. PS2 was the most popular console on history so it made sense to launch games which squeeze all of its power and beyond, like it actually happened...So why it has no games which can make what those GCN did? I mean, it even has RE 4 taking every bit of it´s power...and couldnt keep up with Gamecube. In other hand, yes, i know GCN didnt had Burnout Revenge, Black, any GTA and also some multiplattform franchises like NFS and True Crime had ports on GCN which actually looked worse tha its PS2 counterparts, but this is probably more due to be the less sold console just after the Dreamcast, have a propietary media withe less storage than regular DVDs and of course being a Nintenfo desktop console, than lack of capabilities to run those games, which probably would had costed more vs the revenue on a target audience which wouldnt come up to buy massively as on PS2. But i could be wrong, please prove me wrong with actual games, not tech data. PS2 has plenty of games that can may be prove me wrong...I don´t know, may be Ghost Hunter, may be the first Killzone?

 

[Alexios]

I dont say it, its DF, check it out (also see how GT 3 compares against Le Mans and Ferrari)

It sucks they didn't take the time to show Le Mans' dynamic tod & weather (which completely change the look of some cars with the reflection shader or whatever method is being used) and its pretty sweet effects for lens flares, glowing brakes, wet surfaces, etc., but it was a nice nod (timestamped).

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

How in hell RE 4 and VF 4, games that came from taking full advantage of more modern, efficient and powerful systems like GCN and Naomi 2, and which were at the beginning unthinkable to at least run on PS2, all of the sudden now they´re ports which DOESNT take PS2 use the power of PS2?

I don't have a performance analyzer but I'd like to activate it in front of you and you wouldn't see it go above 66%.
Xeroxcore666 the PS2 is a console capable of 150,000 at 60fps with physics, animations etc. VF4 arcade Naomi 2 (any game on this system) doesn't exceed 120,000 at 60fps in real world games, can you understand that?
Just because a game runs on the PS2 doesn't necessarily mean it uses the power of the PS2.

And about what you say on GT 3, yes GT 3 was king during 2001 and beyond, graphically was and still is impressive (play it with component cable on a CRT TV...it looks beautiful to this day!!!!) But it didnt surpass Project Gotham or better rally Sports Challenge.

It's not art direction it's graphics- dev's merit, of course.
Almost all reviewers at the time agreed that GT3 looks better PGR (2001) I played it years later and agreed but I don't disagree that maybe RSC (2002) has better graphics but a regular player would be satisfied with GT3, a racer compared to the powerful Xbox (in launch).
let me be clear Xbox was another league, specs, graphically very superior, it's not even a reason for debate but PS2 didn't become the best-selling console of all time for random reasons or luck.

 

[TNT Sheep]

One and a half year later. The machines had different strengths.

From what I have read Nintendo wanted to release the gamecube late 2000, but they postponed it due to a lack of software. Hardware wise the gamecube was already finished, so that would make its efficient design even more competitive to the PS2.

 

[octos]

I'd say underhyped, but it requires some serious talent to push it to its limits, and at that point, I think it was the most powerful console of the generation. Just look at Gran Turismo 4, there isn't anything close to it even on Xbox, keep in mind it's running at 60fps on PS2.
However, if the programmers were less skilled or didn't spend enough time to really try to take avantage of the tricky hardware, then it was much easier to good better results on GC/Xbox.
In other words, PS2 had a higher max performance than the other consoles, but a lower average performance.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

I'd say underhyped, but it requires some serious talent to push it to its limits, and at that point, I think it was the most powerful console of the generation. Just look at Gran Turismo 4, there isn't anything close to it even on Xbox, keep in mind it's running at 60fps on PS2.
However, if the programmers were less skilled or didn't spend enough time to really try to take avantage of the tricky hardware, then it was much easier to good better results on GC/Xbox.
In other words, PS2 had a higher max performance than the other consoles, but a lower average performance.

Don't exaggerate, the Xbox really has superior specs, it has 64mb of unified memory and HDD.

 

[polybius80]

Metrics? Ummm name any PS2 in its entire 13 yrs lifetime which surpass or at least look on par with: RE 4, Rogue Squadron 2 and 3, Metroid Prime 1 and 2...of any genre. PS2 was the most popular console on history so it made sense to launch games which squeeze all of its power and beyond, like it actually happened...So why it has no games which can make what those GCN did?

who say it doesnt?, show me a game in gc which surpass or at least look on par with hitman blood money's shader model or matrix path of neo effects?, the same with black, burnout3 or area 51 or ikusagami, those games are not in GC adn there are devs that explain the technical reason why they dont run like burnout3 case, and later games improved with better effects and generally looked better in ps2 vs GC with GC lacking in effects



there are games that released on PS2, GC and Wii and GC was the worst version with less effects



and from your list we can only take RE4 and rogue squadron games as RS are great games with an amazing LOD and use of emboss bump mapping, metroid prime series doesnt use any particular effect, they are more comparable to ratchet and clank series since are similar and are more triangle pushers without normal maps or complex effects, and I will add star fox adventures to your list since at least that game uses interesting effects, its more comparable to malice for the type of effects used

 

[pepodmc_]

The ps2 was worse than xbox and gamecube graphic wise, no doubt about that, but the strongest point of ps2 was that it had the best exclusives by far, NEARLY no competition.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

ater games improved with better effects and generally looked better in ps2 vs GC with GC lacking in effects

he wants technical data.

a game on the ps2 that pushes 5.2M pixels per second
less than 100.000 polygons per frame at 30fps
main character of 10,000 polygons
3M polygons per second
linear
fast loading times
no AA
no proper shadows on the main characters and enemies,
few animations and textures that fluctuate in quality at the same stage.

Jak 2, for example, is not suitable.

10.000 poly on main char, no loading time, it has 60fps, shadows on all characters, seamless, 150,000 polygons per frame, 13,8M pixels per second 9M polygons per second.

 

[polybius80]

he wants technical data.

a game on the ps2 that pushes 5.2M pixels per second
less than 100.000 polygons per frame at 30fps
main character of 10,000 polygons
3M polygons per second
linear
fast loading times
no AA
no proper shadows on the main characters and enemies,
few animations and textures that fluctuate in quality at the same stage.

Jak 2, for example, is not suitable.

10.000 poly on main char, no loading time, it has 60fps, shadows on all characters, seamless, 150,000 polygons per frame, 13,8M pixels per second 9M polygons per second.

like F1 from melbourne house that pushes 15M triangles?

 

[polybius80]

the thing with polygons or triangles per second and their maximum values is that they are theoretical, it depends the game and its genre but usually you will rarely see an amount of triangles in a frame that if the scene continues unchanged during a second will give you that, there is also the thing with resolution as for example a pal game will have less frames per second but usually a higher resolution and more pixels per triangle so its tricky to compare specially if you are going to account for the LOD system as that can be radically different per game and lot of comparisons dont take that into account, let alone if the vertices are changing and the number of lights involved, all that can make a model far more difficult to render despite having less polygons than another model far more easy to render, so usually that comparisons are tricky and flawed most of the time, what is the point of having to many triangles if that compromise the game and its parts?, triangle always go in function of what the game wants to achieve, they are not for fanboys and their discussions

for example this demonstration from traveler tale games is so incredible that is ridiculous as they have a system capable of 17 million triangles all composing quads(divided by 2) and those quads take direction each of them, sure in a game you wont see that amount of triangles dedicated to particles as you will probably want to draw characters, scene and enemies but you can do that if you want that is the kind of things that make the PS2 an incredible system( at the time) you can show me a scene with 17 million triangles per second of static unlighted 3d models and still the same 17 millions triangles per second but in particles is way way more impressive and technically demanding yet fanboys usually dont understand why and are more impressed with a single, bad modeled and bad animated 3d model that is mostly static alone in a scene just because it has a few hundred polygons more than another far more complex rendered model that is part of a scene way more complex

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

like F1 from melbourne house that pushes 15M triangles?

18M

15M only on cars 11,000 polygons per raw car model x22 x60= 14.520M

the guy from Beyond who extracts polygonal models in Dreamcast games figured out how to accurately extract GC games without duplicating polygons and the most advanced game he found were this.



Someone should ask him how he does it because with the exception of RS2 due to the light source strategy, it seems that no other game reaches over 100,000 at 60fps (Nintendo wasn't lying when they said 6-12 million, 6 for any game and 6-12 for the ship game, 12 only static hangar). The most advanced was this one with 90k . However GCN reaches 145.000 x30 .

source: people who extract polygonal counting



100,000 x60fps on PS2. GCN needs a lot of cuts, frame rate or poly count

 

[Hudo]

Final Fantasy 12 alone says "no".

 

[TNT Sheep]

Someone should ask him how he does it because with the exception of RS2 due to the light source strategy, it seems that no other game reaches over 100,000 at 60fps

I find these polygon numbers very interesting, but didn't RS3 have even more polygons? I remember a claim by Factor 5 it pushed a maximum of 20 million. Was that ever proven by anyone?

 

[Luc2010]

That Ken guy was full of shit. The console couldn't handle what the Emotion chip was trying to deliver. Basically, trying to sell the PS2 as a PS3.

 

[Randall365]

GTA 3 makes me smile - GTA 1 and 2 were retro style, so you cannot really compare them on the PS1 to GTA 3 and go ‘wow - the PS2!’

The Xbox ran it just as well too when it was ported.

The move to HD from 440p crt was the biggest leap IMO.

 

[ClosBSAS]

Gamecube had re4...which ps2 could not match since it was made specifically for that machine and engine. Ps2 was great but gc was better.

 

[Fat Frog]

Ps2 was great but gc was better.

I think i'll call xbots friends to join the party .
2 battlefields is not enough for me .
: Pop corn gif:

 

[Madserb2023]

It delivered up to a point. God of War 2 looked good, Gran Turismo 4 etc As with the rain in Metal Gear Solid 2, you would see certain effects on the PS2 that you just wouldn't see on the GameCube and the Xbox, however go back and play these games now and the reality does hit pretty quickly. GameCube games especially with a good component lead look so much sharper and quite frankly hold up considerably better. PS2 games are blurry, jaggy and have so much dithering compared to even Dreamcast games let alone GameCube and Xbox games. The PS2 got away with it because image quality standards were so much lower back then. If PS5 games had better effects and certain other graphical features of the Xbox Series X but the games were considerably blurrier, it wouldn't be accepted as well now

 

[Lysandros]

It delivered up to a point. God of War 2 looked good, Gran Turismo 4 etc As with the rain in Metal Gear Solid 2, you would see certain effects on the PS2 that you just wouldn't see on the GameCube and the Xbox, however go back and play these games now and the reality does hit pretty quickly. GameCube games especially with a good component lead look so much sharper and quite frankly hold up considerably better. PS2 games are blurry, jaggy and have so much dithering compared to even Dreamcast games let alone GameCube and Xbox games. The PS2 got away with it because image quality standards were so much lower back then. If PS5 games had better effects and certain other graphical features of the Xbox Series X but the games were considerably blurrier, it wouldn't be accepted as well now

I don't remember PS2 games being blurry when played on a CRT tv of the time connected with a RGB scart cable (much better than the default composite one). Sometimes shimmery/aliased yes, but not particularly blurry. Some games like Champions of Norrath had pristine image quality, sharp and very well antialiased with SSAA.

 

[MadchesterManc]

I don't remember PS2 games being blurry when played on a CRT tv of the time connected with a RGB scart cable (much better than the default composite one). Sometimes shimmery/aliased yes, but not particularly blurry. Some games like Champions of Norrath had pristine image quality, sharp and very well antialiased with SSAA.

I was thinking the same as I've always used RGB Scart, I guess most folk on GAF never went beyond the packed in composite lead I still have Scart for it today as the GBSC I use for retro consoles has RGB Scart input (works a treat with Saturn too), and given it outputs RGB to the TV, ends up looking better then component overall to me - even at the cost of progressive scan on a few games

 

[pepodmc_]

Champions of Norrath

but Champions of Norrath was a very VERY aislated exception in terms of antialiasing on ps2

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

I find these polygon numbers very interesting, but didn't RS3 have even more polygons? I remember a claim by Factor 5 it pushed a maximum of 20 million. Was that ever proven by anyone?

Except RS2, the most impressive game he found in 2019 was Piglet with 90,000 at 60fps and Disney Soccer when players enter the tunnel 97,000 at 60fps. Rebel Strike's numbers were PR done by a third party like IGNcube. RS2 In a game it isn't possible to sustain more than 145k at 60fps if it does frame rate drops. I don't know if he investigated more games but if anyone here has an account there it would be interesting ask for him to explain these things.

GameCube was cleverly engineered, cheap for the company's R&D and with pretty graphics to our eyes. while the PS2 unfortunately not every dev can make a game look beautiful but there are cases like Tekken 5, which is not an advanced game but is pleasing to the eye.

 

[chilichote]

I don't remember PS2 games being blurry when played on a CRT tv of the time connected with a RGB scart cable (much better than the default composite one). Sometimes shimmery/aliased yes, but not particularly blurry. Some games like Champions of Norrath had pristine image quality, sharp and very well antialiased with SSAA.

With an RGB cable the difference was immense - I read about it in a magazine at the time, bought one from a video game dealer for a lot of money, but I haven't regretted it for a second.

 

[Madserb2023]

I don't remember PS2 games being blurry when played on a CRT tv of the time connected with a RGB scart cable (much better than the default composite one). Sometimes shimmery/aliased yes, but not particularly blurry. Some games like Champions of Norrath had pristine image quality, sharp and very well antialiased with SSAA.

I do. I had a 28 inch TV at the time and I remember playing Sonic Adventure 2 and then going straight over to the PS2 and wondering why Dark Cloud looked so blurry. The textures in Sonic Adventure were so sharp. I remember getting confused at the time when people complained about N64 games being blurry and on my 16 inch portable I didn't really notice. I was thinking how anyone could think Spyro was more visually appealing at the time compared to Banjo Kazooie but in the early 2000 my Dad came home with a 32 inch Sony Crt and put the the N64 on it and I couldn't believe how bad it was. Spyro looked simper but it was sharper and ran at 60 so it was much more appealing going . I noticed the PS2 being blurrier at the time but it didn't bother but going back and playing it side by side the difference is big.

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

I think PS2 was usually better than the CG in multiplats, there are exceptions of course, the biggest problem GC has to be that pitiful mini-disc, the games needed to be compacted to oblivion and that negate most of the GC texture advantages, PS2 usually had better lighting. Games like MGS2 and 3, GTA SA and VC, GOW2, GT3 and 4 are all beyond reach to GC, that mini-disc ensures that.

 

[Xaeroxcore666]

who say it doesnt?, show me a game in gc which surpass or at least look on par with hitman blood money's shader model or matrix path of neo effects?, the same with black, burnout3 or area 51 or ikusagami, those games are not in GC adn there are devs that explain the technical reason why they dont run like burnout3 case, and later games improved with better effects and generally looked better in ps2 vs GC with GC lacking in effects



there are games that released on PS2, GC and Wii and GC was the worst version with less effects



and from your list we can only take RE4 and rogue squadron games as RS are great games with an amazing LOD and use of emboss bump mapping, metroid prime series doesnt use any particular effect, they are more comparable to ratchet and clank series since are similar and are more triangle pushers without normal maps or complex effects, and I will add star fox adventures to your list since at least that game uses interesting effects, its more comparable to malice for the type of effects used

I bet you if there would had been enough money on the table (like it was on PS2) they would had managed to port Matrix, Black and Burnout 3/Revenge to GCN, and make better ports of NFS and True Crime franchises. How come PS2 was not capable to run RE 4 according to many people even on industry back in the day, to run it great, despite cutbacks, and plus have some nice content add ons...Do you think if PS2 wasnt as popular as it was, they would had done that? Why same couldn´t happened to those Games which never shipped or had quickports to GCN if it would have been more profitable to make games for it? Why just according to you guys PS2 was the only system capable of going beyond its limits...the others for some misterious reason couldnt? (because same happened on DC thread). And you or the rest of the passionate PS2 folks didnt answer my question, just spit more tech data, which is nice to know (i love to know more about that in fact)...But can anyone show me a PS2 game which actually looks better than RE 4, at least to PS2 RE 4? Anyone can put the video or images here?

I put you a memory pill while you guys put your material here



Now, also lot of nice tech data and yes, the great geometry and particle capabilities of PS2, but no matter how many geometry is on scene, is what you do with that polygons what it counts...So i ask again, is there are any PS2 game on 13 yrs of commercial life and lot of games going beyond it´s limits, that can do what this 2001 launch game did:



Please feel free to put your multimedia examples and i really hope to be proven wrong with more not just nice data...i want games please which materialize that data! and PS2 has plenty of....So shouln´t be a hard task

By the way! Thanks for dropping Star Fox Aadventures, i forgot that gem. Let´s compare with Malice!

vs. Also, just for fun, let´s put the Xbox version

Please feel free to share your conclusions and how that tech data applies to prove that Malice is on par or even beyond Star Fox, or otherwise! And how Xbox stomps!

I do. I had a 28 inch TV at the time and I remember playing Sonic Adventure 2 and then going straight over to the PS2 and wondering why Dark Cloud looked so blurry. The textures in Sonic Adventure were so sharp. I remember getting confused at the time when people complained about N64 games being blurry and on my 16 inch portable I didn't really notice. I was thinking how anyone could think Spyro was more visually appealing at the time compared to Banjo Kazooie but in the early 2000 my Dad came home with a 32 inch Sony Crt and put the the N64 on it and I couldn't believe how bad it was. Spyro looked simper but it was sharper and ran at 60 so it was much more appealing going . I noticed the PS2 being blurrier at the time but it didn't bother but going back and playing it side by side the difference is big.

You were one lucky kid! Still to this day i´d love to have one of those TVs!

 

[Xaeroxcore666]

heather 3d model from SH3 is 8k triangles while Ryo from shenmue is 3k, but SH3 use better textures, shadows and effects, so what is the point?, to find a single character with more triangles than the best you could find in a cutscene from a DC game? in that case jak from the first jak uses 9.8k not enough? use the jak model from jak3 then, that uses 14k triangles, that is more than shenhua cutscene model, are you happy now? can we proceed with the topic without mixing dreamcast now?

By the way, a single person was able to export Heather model to Dreaamcast (of course it looks awful, but it´s very interesting)

 

[RaduN]

Gamecube had re4...which ps2 could not match since it was made specifically for that machine and engine. Ps2 was great but gc was better.

GC couldn't have handled MGS2 and 3 either . Not by a long shot (look no further than TTS for comparison).

It's all about the devs utilizing the strengths of each console properly. That's it.

 

[polybius80]

I bet you if there would had been enough money on the table (like it was on PS2) they would had managed to port Matrix, Black and Burnout 3/Revenge to GCN, and make better ports of NFS and True Crime franchises.

oh you can port the games of course just not the whole effects, the dev from burnout3 explained that GC couldnt run the physics simulation like PS2 and Xbox

Matrix path of neo uses a lot of different effects you can port ti to GC but what happens with normal maps all the textures and vertex operations will they be the same?

How come PS2 was not capable to run RE 4 according to many people even on industry back in the day, to run it great, despite cutbacks, and plus have some nice content add ons...Do you think if PS2 wasnt as popular as it was, they would had done that?

the author says he would chop his head if the game goes to ps2 as it was exclusive, the game was ported as easier as possible by a different team is not a bad job but there is no reason to take it as a game that uses the PS2 as it maximum as there are games with more complex effects RE4 has a good artistic direction but there are lot of stuff in the game with fake light and not that great/complex effects

Why same couldn´t happened to those Games which never shipped or had quickports to GCN if it would have been more profitable to make games for it?

good question that is why analisys and technical discussion exist and why its incorrect to say that RE4 uses all the PS2 has or ir capable specially when there are games that present more advanced graphics, sure it not simple or easier as when 2 versions are released who knows for sure the capabilities of each team as well as resources(time money knowledge) on each version and when comparing to different games well... they are different so its even more complicated

Why just according to you guys PS2 was the only system capable of going beyond its limits...the others for some misterious reason couldnt?

who said they are mysterious reasons? they are 20+ years systems there is 2 decades of games and interviews with their developers, the PS2 presented a very powerfull system very felxible as is with redrawing it was difficult to use but devs found ways I/O interactive for example releases a document to use normal mapping in PS2 and they used in their game hitman in a "shader model" as they said how many times you readed that the ps2 couldnt do that? the only think mysterious in PS2 was the ways to use it effectively and program efficiently what you wanted

(because same happened on DC thread). And you or the rest of the passionate PS2 folks didnt answer my question, just spit more tech data, which is nice to know (i love to know more about that in fact)...But can anyone show me a PS2 game which actually looks better than RE 4, at least to PS2 RE 4? Anyone can put the video or images here?

what constitutes "better"?, you are asking a question about prefference disguised as a technical question what is supposed to be better?

I will do the same as you are doing to present the problem with your question

show me a GC that do this


you can't because I am not specifying anything there is not context what it is to discuss other than your opinion? what if I say oh the PS2 version of RE4 can run full screen without the black bars so its "better" so what? you will then say oh its because the trees and and leon have more triangles? that the cutscenes are not videos? you have to present a context first if you want a technical answer

Now, also lot of nice tech data and yes, the great geometry and particle capabilities of PS2, but no matter how many geometry is on scene, is what you do with that polygons what it counts...So i ask again, is there are any PS2 game on 13 yrs of commercial life and lot of games going beyond it´s limits, that can do what this 2001 launch game did:

but what is that game doing? its a game with an excelent and very strict LOD system with frankly terrible third person misions but what else is there? the graphics? what part of them? I have to guess? let see.... is the emboss bump maps mixed with env maps? they look nice but hitman blood moneys has normal maps wich are better, the light? the games is mostly one light as you can see when ships enter tunnels? hitman still comes on top with the light that changes when you move around and per pixel, the huge amount of triangles of the ships? oh well hitman doesnt have a spaceship he has to walk sorry hitman, but the ships dont do anything with their geometrythey are just traslated that means you have a vertex buffer and just thell gpu to draw in the part of the scene you want you dont do anything to the vertex in the buffer like you have to with animated characters(that are not made of parts) you may preffer one or the other there is no reasont to make vertex move in a ship so we cannot blame RS but as complex and amazing as they are is far more compex a scene with huge amount of people like the ones in hitman blood money specially as they have more physics its not a fair comparison really as they are different games but that is part of the problem with making a comparison without context as you ask

Please feel free to put your multimedia examples and i really hope to be proven wrong with more not just nice data...i want games please which materialize that data! and PS2 has plenty of....So shouln´t be a hard task

like this?


but isnt it better something that explanins what is there and why is impressive, something like this?

By the way! Thanks for dropping Star Fox Aadventures, i forgot that gem. Let´s compare with Malice!

vs. Also, just for fun, let´s put the Xbox version

Please feel free to share your conclusions and how that tech data applies to prove that Malice is on par or even beyond Star Fox, or otherwise! And how Xbox stomps!

both games have similar effect like the grass on malice is similar to the fur shading in fox as well as the ilumination of th scene in both games is similar even if malice abuses bloom that gives a similar aestetic and well they are third person games that is the comparison what else you want to compare? textures? any specific effect? water is very impresisive in star fox for example

Xbox stomps of course is the most powerfull system of the gen

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

Xbox stomps of course is the most powerfull system of the gen

I don't know if stomps both have a different approach, ps2 looks better despite advanced xbox graphics, more colorful, more lighting maybe polygons





The xbox version uses shaders to create a contrasted look, it has self-shadowing and shadows on enemies, crisp textures and bump mapping. The ps2 version uses post processing filter and bloom light (lacking or toned down in the xbox version) . Malice is among the ps2 games that simulates bump mapping . The xbox version appears to have dof as the background is blurred.

Malice Q&A

We get exclusive Q&A time with the team at Argonaut, in which they answer our questions about the upcoming PS2 version of Malice.

www.gamespot.com

GS: How well does the Shadow-Caster engine perform on the PS2 hardware?

A: Obviously there isn't the hardware to support the exact method we use on the Xbox. Our PS2 engine can draw around 260,000 polygons a frame at a constant 60fps! With this technology, we have a system that works differently but will produce the same visuals. It's still being optimized and changed as the algorithm is continually enhanced, but there should be no loss of speed or visual delight.

GS: Did you have to make any compromises to ensure that Malice would run well on the PS2?

A: The only compromises are with the technology. We have no features such as hardware bump mapping, so we've had to create an equivalent in software without any performance degradation. The PS2 has been out long enough now, whereby our teams are able to produce some astounding quality in their work.

GS: For those unfamiliar with it, would you like to provide a quick rundown of what Malice is about? And the strengths of the Shadow-Caster engine?

A: Sure. It's going to be difficult to describe everything in this short space for so much game, but I'll try. You play Malice in third person, and she starts off in a strange world indeed. She begins her time travel (...)

The Shadow-Caster engine is a unique development engine and toolset that allows the world's shadows to be drawn in real time and so to provide an extrarealistic look at the world in which Malice lives. Dynamic lights and effects mean that any shadows cast are real. As the light moves, so does the shadow. As the light falls and rises, the shadows lengthen and shorten accordingly. Characters can pass in and out of the shadows in a natural fashion. The system renders the final layer of cream on an already rich and tasteful world.