Support NeoGAF

[blacktout]

OP is the console war equivalent of one of those Imperial Japanese soldiers they discovered on small Pacific islands in the 70s who thought WWII never ended.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

lol of course this is the only game I compared back in the day.

I didn't like the game for (probably) the same reason as the inconsistent graphics. It was their first time using an existing engine to make a multiplatform Sonic. Felt like shit to play.

But further than that, at the time PS2 felt like a distant third place graphically. A real one hooked to a real TV. Not sure how the games look in emulators today.

GameCube is a curious console. I mean, the Wii was a low-end console, but Nintendo never suggested it might have a secret sauce. The GameCube, on the other hand, represents a unique case in the history of home consoles, arriving 18 months after its weaker competitor.

I honestly don't know how you came to the perception that the PS2 was, according to your words, in a distant third place graphically.

You never played Gran Turismo 3 or MGS2 in 2001 or 2002 ? I've never seen anything like it on GC, even MGS TTS from 2004 looked worse than MGS2, open world games, none... so I don't know how you came to the perception that the PS2 was, according to your words, in a distant third place graphically.

 

[BlackTron]

GameCube is a curious console. I mean, the Wii was a low-end console, but Nintendo never suggested it might have a secret sauce. The GameCube, on the other hand, represents a unique case in the history of home consoles, arriving 18 months after its weaker competitor.

I honestly don't know how you came to the perception that the PS2 was, according to your words, in a distant third place graphically.

You never played Gran Turismo 3 or MGS2 in 2001 or 2002 ? I've never seen anything like it on GC, even MGS TTS from 2004 looked worse than MGS2, open world games, none... so I don't know how you came to the perception that the PS2 was, according to your words, in a distant third place graphically.

Despite standouts like MGS, it probably has to do with PS2's terrible AV output, along with how many games have excessive jaggies. Games improved the further into the gen we got, but GC had Rogue Leader and Luigi's Mansion on day one...

 

[Parazels]

GameCube is a curious console. I mean, the Wii was a low-end console, but Nintendo never suggested it might have a secret sauce. The GameCube, on the other hand, represents a unique case in the history of home consoles, arriving 18 months after its weaker competitor.

I honestly don't know how you came to the perception that the PS2 was, according to your words, in a distant third place graphically.

You never played Gran Turismo 3 or MGS2 in 2001 or 2002 ? I've never seen anything like it on GC, even MGS TTS from 2004 looked worse than MGS2, open world games, none... so I don't know how you came to the perception that the PS2 was, according to your words, in a distant third place graphically.

But what about RE4 and Metroid? Don't they both prove the GC's advantage over the PS2?

And would RE Remake have been identical on the PS2?

 

[yurinka]

t's not worth playing third-party games on the GC. All the ones I've played run and look worse than the PS2 version for example.

Capcom vs Snk 2 the controller is not suitable for fighting games.
Tomb Raider Legend lacks lighting, post-processing, and shadow effects and appears to run at 20 fps.
No Need for Speed game runs or looks better. Geometry, particles, reflections, and textures are missing. Without enemy cars on the track, the frame rate is good, but if there are two or more cars, it's not great. NFS Most Wanted was the worst; all graphical features were downgraded.
Although Red Faction 2 was later released with some improvements, it also looks worse overall.
No open-world game runs or looks better. It lacks geometry, particles, reflections, and the textures are very poor.

Only Sonic Heroes a RenderWare game miraculously runs at 60 fps and looks much better than the PS2 version. This is strange, since more advanced games run better on the PS2. I can only conclude that Sega wanted to make the PS2 version worse .

Did you play many third-party games on the GameCube ?

I had a GameCube back then. Theorically it had a better hardware than PS2 (as shown in a few exceptions like Resident Evil 4), but since PS2 was by far where the 3rd party devs sold more games, they obviously focused their efforts there. And later made some quick port to GC not spending a lot of effort on it because they knew sales weren't going to be great there.

And this is for those who thought it was worth it to release a GC version of their games. Most considered sales were going to be so bad on GC that wasn't worth it. As already happened before in N64 and as happened later in Wii, WiiU, Switch or now will happen with Switch 2.

 

[cireza]

I honestly don't know how you came to the perception that the PS2 was, according to your words, in a distant third place graphically.

Because it is. It's even behind Dreamcast depending on what matters to you in terms of picture quality.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

But what about RE4 and Metroid ? Don't they both prove the GC's advantage over the PS2 ?

What answer would you give to this question if I had asked it to you ? I'm curious to read your opinion.

What I can tell you is that:

Flipper speed: 162 MHz
pixel pipes: 4
Maximum theoretical fill rate: 162 x 4 -> 648 MPixel

GS speed: 147 MHz
pixel pipes: 16
Maximum theoretical fill rate: 147 x 16 -> 2352 MPixel

Therefore, assuming the GS is always operating at only 30% efficiency, it can still perform more work than the Flipper.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

Because it is. It's even behind Dreamcast depending on what matters to you in terms of picture quality.

Dreamcast ? lol please no
It's not about picture quality, Dreamcast lacks buffering effects in most of its games, and the lighting is flat. If your mind interprets this lack of features as an advantage, there's nothing to debate.

 

[cireza]

It's not about picture quality,

Picture quality is part of what you see on your TV.

If your brain interprets the lack of a good picture quality, aliasing, blurry monochromatic textures as an advantage, there's nothing to debate.

 

[TNT Sheep]

Another game that's better on Gamecube.

 

[TNT Sheep]

Therefore, assuming the GS is always operating at only 30% efficiency, it can still perform more work than the Flipper.

It can because it has to, but it does not necessarily mean the end product will be better on PS2. The PS2 doesn't support multitexturing. From what I understand the Gamecube can apply 2 textures per pass and the Xbox can apply 4 textures per pass.

Your PS2 figure assumes flat shaded/untextured polygons. Think Bubsy 3D. Of course you can design your game around that and it would perform better than on the Gamecube, but that also works in reverse.

 

[BlackTron]

Picture quality is part of what you see on your TV.

If your brain interprets the lack of a good picture quality, aliasing, blurry monochromatic textures as an advantage, there's nothing to debate.

Being an expert named GEO CRUSHER means you can just read this, close your eyes and visualize the picture quality without ever needing any real systems bro

Flipper speed: 162 MHz
pixel pipes: 4
Maximum theoretical fill rate: 162 x 4 -> 648 MPixel

GS speed: 147 MHz
pixel pipes: 16
Maximum theoretical fill rate: 147 x 16 -> 2352 MPixel

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

It can because it has to, but it does not necessarily mean the end product will be better on PS2.

You're not following the thread with the proper attention. It's true that the PS2 can create millions of flat polygons, but what's important here are the polygons under real-world gaming conditions.

The GameCube can handle 6 to 12 million polygons. Nintendo didn't lie, but they also didn't tell the whole truth. In intensive games, 6 million is the limit, meaning 100k per frame. However, when the buffer reaches 100k, the frame rate usually drops, although things like 140k are possible in 30fps games, resulting in 4.2M. The PS2 handles 6.6M, 7.2M, and 8.4M since its launch; other games reach 9.5M. These are games that aren't possible on the GameCube at 60fps because it doesn't have the necessary fill rate for that. For example, Ratchet and Clank 1, whose data from Sony suggests more than 6.2 million polygons per second, is a choice you can make whether you find the game ugly, but this game cannot be replicated on the GameCube because it lacks memory, CPU, fill rate, and room on the disc.

The PS2 doesn't support multitexturing. From what I understand the Gamecube can apply 2 textures per pass

Interesting, if you could give an example of this in games. In short, any game that runs on the GameCube could fit on the PS2 in terms of geometry, CPU, RAM, and disc, so if the GameCube has something unique, I'd like to hear about it.

 

[Chuck Berry]

Another game that's better on Gamecube.

Killer7 is another

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

multi-plats were a mixed bag on GCN
exclusives (1st and 3rd) usually had some secret sauce

ps2 and GCN both supported progressive scan, but despite ps2's massive library, both had roughly the same number of games that supported it: ~200.
GCN component cables were silly though... contained a DAC and had to be purchased directly from nintendo.
ps2 were regular ol' component cables; bought chunky Monster-branded ones on sale from circuit city.

 

[TNT Sheep]

You're not following the thread with the proper attention.

I am, by posting at least two examples of third party games where the Gamecube had the better version. I am not the one reducing the entire comparison to one metric in this case fillrate.

It's true that the PS2 can create millions of flat polygons, but what's important here are the polygons under real-world gaming conditions.

Exactly and it's in real world conditions where the gap in power between Gamecube and PS2 closes, but it depends on your game. You want a geometry heavy game with simple textures the PS2 will pull ahead.

In intensive games, 6 million is the limit, meaning 100k per frame. However, when the buffer reaches 100k, the frame rate usually drops, although things like 140k are possible in 30fps games, resulting in 4.2M.

Some sources would be nice. From what I can find RE4 seems to be fairly high poly on Gamecube (around 8M) and it's hard to argue that it's not an intensive game.

Interesting, if you could give an example of this in games. In short, any game that runs on the GameCube could fit on the PS2 in terms of geometry, CPU, RAM, and disc, so if the GameCube has something unique, I'd like to hear about it.

That would yet again be Rogue Squadron II or III, which use on average 5 texture layers (height map, texture map, mixmap, bump map, detail map) and have high polygon counts.

I doubt PS2 would be able to run it at the same fidelity. Resident Evil 4 also seems to suggest that no not every Gamecube game can just fit on the PS2.

 

[TNT Sheep]

GCN component cables were silly though... contained a DAC and had to be purchased directly from nintendo.

Retrobit has made a component cable replacement for the Gamecube and a HDMI adapter. Though, the component cable apparently can have some audio issues...

Does anyone have a recommendation for a PS2 component cable nowadays? I was looking into the Retrovision cables.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

You want a geometry heavy game with simple textures the PS2 will pull ahead.

That's not true. Although there's a correlation between geometry and textures in almost all consoles, the PS2 isn't necessarily forced to choose between textures and geometry. For example, the True Crimes franchise games have higher quality textures than the GameCube version while maintaining greater geometry. This is because the PS2 has twice the VRAM cache allocated to textures, 2MB vs 1MB. It's true the GameCube compresses its textures.

The textures are first stored on the mini-DVD, then in the 24mb of memory, and finally in the 1mb cache. It's not about platform first; we can reverse the order, for example, using F-Zero GX or Star Fox. In those games, there will be a certain number of textures and data that fit on the disc, then this 24mb data will be transferred to the 32mb and finally to the 2mb cache. The point is that these games have less data than True Crimes.

 

[TNT Sheep]

That's not true. Although there's a correlation between geometry and textures in almost all consoles, the PS2 isn't necessarily forced to choose between textures and geometry. For example, the True Crimes franchise games have higher quality textures than the GameCube version while maintaining greater geometry. This is because the PS2 has twice the VRAM cache allocated to textures, 2MB vs 1MB. It's true the GameCube compresses its textures.

I think I used the wrong word. I meant simple texturing as in only one or two layers. PS2 is forced to choose between having multiple texture layers and having high polygon counts.

Regardless, Gamecube indeed supports texture compression at a maximum rate of 6:1, so that smaller VRAM cache is less of an issue. The potential for better quality textures is higher on the Gamecube. There are compression techniques on the PS2 as well but they are not free and less effective.

Your argument is that any Gamecube game can fit on the PS2 as is and that's wrong. Judging by the many third party ports that seem to favour the PS2 like a True Crime, the reverse is also the case.

 

[SScorpio]

Retrobit has made a component cable replacement for the Gamecube and a HDMI adapter. Though, the component cable apparently can have some audio issues...

Does anyone have a recommendation for a PS2 component cable nowadays? I was looking into the Retrovision cables.

Retrovision are the only modern cables that aren't on bespoke web sites. They are more expensive, but you are assured a quality product versus the crap shoot that's anything else you find on Amazon.

I think I used the wrong word. I meant simple texturing as in only one or two layers. PS2 is forced to choose between having multiple texture layers and having high polygon counts.

Regardless, Gamecube indeed supports texture compression at a maximum rate of 6:1, so that smaller VRAM cache is less of an issue. The potential for better quality textures is higher on the Gamecube. There are compression techniques on the PS2 as well but they are not free and less effective.

Your argument is that any Gamecube can fit on the PS2 as is and that's wrong. Judging by the many third party ports that seem to favour the PS2 like a True Crime, the reverse is also the case.

The architectures are completely different, so you'd need to port so now just make it run over here. The PS2 will have lower polygon counts as the Xbox and GC were 1.5 years newer and this was the era of performance doubling every nine months with PC GPUs.

But the PS2 could pull off any of the effects the other consoles did. And many effects the others can't. That's due to basically free unlimited bandwidth letting you do crazy particle effects. MGS2 is really a showcase of what the hardware can do, with many cinematic effects being recreated. Some of what are now just hitting modern games and killing our high end GPUs.