-
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.
Virtua Fighter 2 Coming To PS2
- Thread starter The Faceless Master
- Start date
mightynine
Member
I'll just keep playing my PC version of VF2. It has both versions.
Wow. There are people who really think the PS2 will have trouble with a port of VF2? You've got to be fucking kidding...
Probably the same people who will be waiting for Xbox 3 and PlayStation 4 for arcade perfect Sega Model 3 conversions, but are going to complain that "they're not exact because Model 3 was 512x384 and the new consoles have 1080p (or better) output, it's just not the same!"
Edit: as an aside, that Real3D press release proves nothing, it just says it's capable of 60Hz output, like every other video card made since...sheesh...just about the beginning of video cards
Probably the same people who will be waiting for Xbox 3 and PlayStation 4 for arcade perfect Sega Model 3 conversions, but are going to complain that "they're not exact because Model 3 was 512x384 and the new consoles have 1080p (or better) output, it's just not the same!"
Edit: as an aside, that Real3D press release proves nothing, it just says it's capable of 60Hz output, like every other video card made since...sheesh...just about the beginning of video cards
BEcause all we know that Spikeout looks better than the arcade...(for instance) and no way it looks like crap on XBOX ¬_¬'
It's the poltergei...ehrrr the Model 3 curse. Sure Model 3 can be surpassed nowadays but for whatever reason there isn't a single Model 3 port that doesn't end being worse than the arcade (for a small or big margin).
Well you know, just like Virtua Racing on PS2 was horribly crippled port of 3DO version. They took out the Hardcore flat shading and replaced it with plain flat shading, bastards.Argyle said:
And the popup, god the popup, I could see that in one turn, the bridge popped out 1ns later in arcade version.
yeah I cant believe Sega allowed the PS2 Virtua Racing to be glorified 32x VR, even though its 60fps which is smoother than the Model 1 arcade VR. isnt it funny and sad that many wonderful, classic games get brought home to far more powerful machine, yet the original is still the better game.
Regardless of which version PS2 Virtua Racing was based off, the environment wasn't modeled as nicely as in the arcade original. Still looked really nice, though. I have access to an arcade machine locally, so I'm sticking to that one for its deluxe cabinet and perfect controls.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Well, I want a perfect conversion of VF3tb (maybe even better on a current console with improved lighting/shading, models, and image quality in addition to a slightly higher resolution)... I guess a perfect version of VF2 will be fine until that happens.
Argyle said:
Just because you haven't seen the arcade version in years, doesn't mean that's true for everyone. I see that game all the time when I go to the Scarborough Town Centre. Texture wise it owns the XBox version as it currently stands. Having said that, the XBox should defintely be able to produce better visuals...if they can fix the texturing and lightning, it'll look just fine.
BTW, Amusment Vision is making the game, not AM2. The original game was started when AM11/Amusment Vision was part of AM2, but they became their own group by the time it was finished.
Fafalada said:
I assume you mean the 32X version. It might well have been based on that version, but it's a lot closer to the arcade version then the 32X version ever was (and in some areas beats it silly).
Well I was being sarcastic, but also pointing out that one can never underestimate what some people will find wrong with each conversion. The "hardcore shading" comments in particular had me fuming...Shinobi said:
Truth be said, the only graphical "inaccuracies" in PS2 conversion I noticed were all improvements over arcade - higher FPS, higher resolution, volume shadows, nicer sky maps, reflective car surface etc...
I understand that purists can find that as a reason to complain(since it's a departure from original) - but what we got instead was people making up downgrades and what not. And VF2 story will probably be the same...
One thing I did notice - when playing PS2 version, I had the feeling cars were more drifty then what I remember of arcade (though my memory could be deceiving me on that one).
Oh, I see what you mean...yeah I was talking about this earlier in the thread. People are so fucking anal about arcade conversions these days...back in the day MK2 and SF2 conversions on SNES that weren't even close to the arcade originals were lauded for being near perfect. Now a Sega arcade game has a slightly different shade of beige for the mountain, and it's ripped to shreds. It's one thing to notice differences, but it's another to let such minute ones get in the way of your enjoyment of the game.
Never cared that there were differences in the graphics as long as the overall look didn't change. DC VO:OT, for example, maintained it nicely; SpikeOut hasn't so far.
Fafalada:
Fafalada:
There are extreme viewpoints for every issue, and they exist on both sides of the argument... like the overlooking of actual differences that exist in a port, resulting from whatever cause, just because the target hardware "should" be capable.
doncale said:
Oh man, how many times does it have to be said? IT'S NOT BASED ON THE 32X VERSION, clearly you have either
a) never played the 32X version
b) never played the PS2 version
c) all of the above
In the future, please refrain from commenting on this topic until none of the above are true. Thanks!
And you guys are right, Spikeout doesn't look the same, after all, I think that they're skinning their characters now. I mean, it looks to me that Sega has only recently gotten a clue about how to write a character renderer it seems - none of the Model 3 games with human characters seemed to use skinning (I know VF3 doesn't - and I'm pretty sure Tekken 3 does, which surprised me since both games came out at about the same time and T3 is on much lower spec hardware), and even on recent games the skinning has been sub-par (look at the joints in VF4, arcade or PS2, yuck!)...
That won't help, the fanbots will just complain that the emulator still isn't doing the Model 3 hardware justice, and that it's your crappy modern video card making the games look like ass.
Or worse, they'll complain that it's not running in its native medium resolution! NOT ARCADE PERFECT!
My friend who used to work at Smilebit refers to unskinned characters as "sausage people" because all the parts disassembled look like weiners.
Oddly, I think that VF3 on Dreamcast had some sort of skinning going on, because Pai had some majorly fucked up looking arms when she did her win poses. Or not. WTF is this?:
Hahaha, that's true I wonder if some of the inaccuracy in the port was because Genki had a better character renderer
I remember seeing the intro for the DC version and thinking "man, wtf did they do to Kage's hands, they look like oven mitts! They totally hosed this port..."
Then I went to my friend's house and we fired up his VF3 board. Holy crap, that's just what Kage's hands look like! Amazing, we all thought that looked awesome in 1998 (and I mean, the intro zooms in on it so there's no mistaking it)
You know, I wonder if it's a limitation of the Model 3 geometry coprocessor? Maybe the DSP on the board was hardwired (a fixed function chip is much easier to make fast than a general purpose one) and couldn't do the skinning at all? At least on the Gamecube, which has a GPU that does skinning poorly, the CPU is fast enough to take care of it...
Kind of amazing that a machine like the PS2 would only come out a couple of years later with not just one, but a pair of very programmable vector units, and at a consumer pricepoint no less.
I wonder if some of the inaccuracy in the port was because Genki had a better character renderer I remember seeing the intro for the DC version and thinking "man, wtf did they do to Kage's hands, they look like oven mitts! They totally hosed this port..."
Then I went to my friend's house and we fired up his VF3 board. Holy crap, that's just what Kage's hands look like! Amazing, we all thought that looked awesome in 1998 (and I mean, the intro zooms in on it so there's no mistaking it
)You know, I wonder if it's a limitation of the Model 3 geometry coprocessor? Maybe the DSP on the board was hardwired (a fixed function chip is much easier to make fast than a general purpose one) and couldn't do the skinning at all? At least on the Gamecube, which has a GPU that does skinning poorly, the CPU is fast enough to take care of it...
Kind of amazing that a machine like the PS2 would only come out a couple of years later with not just one, but a pair of very programmable vector units, and at a consumer pricepoint no less.
Argyle:
Besides, it was actually closer to four years.
It's not any more difficult to design for programmability. It's a trade-off. Going the other way toward fixed function, there is the ELAN co-processor from the same time as PS2 and part of a system with lower silicon expense which is not as flexible yet sustains a lot more complex T&L in exchange.
Besides, it was actually closer to four years.
Model 3 would have two geometry processors. one for each of the two Real3D Pro 1000 chips / chipsets. Real3D processors or chipsets usually contain a geometry processor, graphics processor and texture processor. the geometry processors in Model 3's Real3D Pro 1000 GPUs were probably fixed function. no idea what their skinning abilities are, though.
Under what conditions are you making this comparison? Are you considering framebuffer RAM silicon area on the Elan side? Or are you just grabbing information from B3D and repeating it everywhere as fact without context? (i.e. PA figures that claim PS2 games sustain 2-5M polys/sec).
SH-4+2xPVR2+ELAN combined may very well take up less silicon area than EE+GS, I wouldn't know enough to say for sure. However, it could be misleading because most of the GS is eDRAM which scales very well with process improvements. Which node are we talking about here? GS went from 279mm2 to 183mm2 with one revision.
As for more complex T&L, there are interesting things you can do with a DX9+ class 'vertex shader' other than just more lights.
TKM:
"SH-4" + "CLX"*2 + "ELAN" against "EE" + "GS" at the sizes they were respectively produced at when delivered in early 2000, per the original comparison.
Though they are two different architectures, the actual comparison was between the two geometry solutions justified in relation to their respective wholes (to indicate that the host machines were of a comparable class), and the actual significance was about monetary costs as dictated by the "pricepoint" context. RAM pricing would then come into play when considering the whole, and the two machines would then still end up being comparable context for the comparison of their respective geometry solutions.
Again, the PA quote wasn't out of context. It provided reference for characteristic PS2 polygon counts and wasn't compared to any other figure. The only comparison that was made was made direct: VF4 character polygon counts were reduced by half for the PS2 from the arcade version.
Yes, my whole point was that the trade-off was for more flexibility. Besides, ELAN's "lights" are not just more lights either; they're modifiers in a more general sense.
ot: I would've loved to have seen a 'Super Dreamcast' (not the same as a nextgen DC2)
released, based on NAOMI 2. same CPU (SH4 @ 200 MHz), same audio processors (but more RAM), the 2nd PVR2/CLX, the ELAN, plus all the additional memory. kind of like the NEC SuperGrafx compared to the TurboGrafx. release an arcade identical Virtua Fighter 4, VF4 Evo, Beach Spikers, King Of Route 66, Sega Driving Simulator, Soul Surfer, Virtua Striker III and VF4 Final Tuned (just a few exclusive games) and naturally be compatible with DC games. yet also, enhance all DC ports of NAOMI 1 games back upto NAOMI 1 level...the texture res and whatnot. cool idea, no? just for the hardcore, like the SuperGrafx in 1989-1992.
released, based on NAOMI 2. same CPU (SH4 @ 200 MHz), same audio processors (but more RAM), the 2nd PVR2/CLX, the ELAN, plus all the additional memory. kind of like the NEC SuperGrafx compared to the TurboGrafx. release an arcade identical Virtua Fighter 4, VF4 Evo, Beach Spikers, King Of Route 66, Sega Driving Simulator, Soul Surfer, Virtua Striker III and VF4 Final Tuned (just a few exclusive games) and naturally be compatible with DC games. yet also, enhance all DC ports of NAOMI 1 games back upto NAOMI 1 level...the texture res and whatnot. cool idea, no? just for the hardcore, like the SuperGrafx in 1989-1992.
ELAN wasn't delivered until 2001 - PS2 was released in March 2000, of course.
So I guess it would be fair to compare the second iteration of EE since I'm pretty sure they were out by late 2001?
It's too bad those extra lights or whatever were never used for anything interesting. I remember seeing VF4 in the arcade for the first time and thinking "wow, this is a classic case of someone needing to tell the artists 'just because you CAN doesn't mean it's a good idea'"
Looking at later Naomi 2 games, I can't say that the lighting or effects look any better than anything else released at the time, so it seems like a case of wasted potential to me.They shoulda used that extra T&L power to implement a better skinning implementation, or maybe their artists had no idea what they were doing when they were building the characters... Or maybe the ELAN is hardwired enough that they couldn't do more proper skinning on it?
I wonder though, if the ELAN was so wonderful, why we never saw it used in more applications? It seems you could sell a board with one of those chips stapled onto it and it would at least have DX8 style vertex shaders (then again, is the ELAN so hardwired as to not even be programmable as a vertex shader?)
Looking at the Nvidia timeline, however, I guess it wouldn't have been competitive with the Nvidia chipsets of the era (GeForce 3, which had pixel shader support)...
Gee, me too, but even more, I'd like to see Sega continue to exist as an ongoing concern
Just do what I'm planning to do someday - buy a Naomi 2, silly! Then you can quit your whining about crappy ports Fafalada:
Argyle:
No, the the VUs were brought up, and a contrast was made with the ELAN. T&L can be either run or offloaded from both the R5900 core or the SH-4.
Argyle:
No, accounts indicate that it was delivered to SEGA in the first half of 2000. Application takes precedence over technological availability to a far greater degree with an arcade board launch than with a console. There's a delay to give time for the first AAA game to be polished and finished with an arcade board introduction, which is usually at least six months longer than traditional console launch software gets.
You are not making any sense. Geometry is calculated on the PS2 on the EE (MIPS core + VU0 + VU1) and the geometry is calculated on the Naomi 2 on the SH4+ELAN. So they're comparable - the GS and CLX chips only perform rasterization.
Similarly, the PS2 chipset was complete in 1999, so we can either compare the 1999 vs 2000 dates on the initial technology delivery, or you can count the first application of that technology (2000 vs 2001), either way, it's a year difference...
Argyle:
No one said they weren't. The comparison, however, was between the VUs and the ELAN co-processors, not between the CPUs.
Sony couldn't deliver it in 1999. They said they would, they tried, but manufacturing difficulty arose with the GS getting pushed back to a 0.25-micron process, I believe.
Lazy8s said:
So you're saying that the ELAN coprocessor takes up less silicon area than just the VUs on the EE die, or is cheaper somehow? *shrug*
Lazy8s said:
That's an interesting assertion.
Interesting, but also false.
I wasn't personally working on a PS2 project in 1999 but I was working for a company that was...and we did get devkits in 1999. Full speed ones, too, people had the half-speed kits months before we got ours...So my assertion still stands. ELAN came out a year after PS2, no matter how you want to try to spin it...
Argyle:
Not my point. I was saying that as the T&L solution on a hardware comparable to PS2, the ELAN's performance advantage makes it clear that the VU's had traded off for programmability instead, and vice-versa on the trade-off for ELAN. The point was that a console with the flexibility of the VUs coming out three+ years after Model 3 wasn't too hard to imagine.
Every chip has sample and risk production, which can be used for devkits and evaluation, well in advance of its readiness for volume production. ELAN was no different. What's really interesting is that SEGA and AM2 evaluated both a PS2 proposal and a Naomi 2 proposal back in 1999 when planning the new arcade platform to make for VF4. Performance was a deciding factor.
That's all fine to compare VUs and Elan, but I was replying to the post you made here:Lazy8 said:
***"SH-4" + "CLX"*2 + "ELAN" against "EE" + "GS" at the sizes they were respectively produced at when delivered in early 2000, per the original comparison.***
To which you refered the followup about "comparing geometry solutions to their respective wholes". Maybe I read it wrong, but I think TKMai was similarly confused too.
Btw, in terms of transistor count, 2xVU uses less then Elan, if we just compare those two
It's nowhere near as programmable as a Vertex Shader - basically it's similar to GCN T&L except the lights it uses are better featured, and computed faster...Argyle said:
And like Lazy8 mentioned - you use lighting pipeline to calculate other stuff with too, like BM setups etc... which is again similar to Flippers T&L.
Lazy8s said:
Sure. I'm saying that it seems to me that the devkit and evaluation chips for ELAN came out in 2000. You said so yourself earlier in this thread: here, I think
Lazy8s said:
Lazy8s said:
Was it though? Let's see:
Proposal A comes from your current partner and leverages technology which most of your team is familiar.
Proposal B comes from your current competitor and would require a complete from the ground-up rewrite of pretty much all your technology, due to its very different architecture.
Gee, I wonder why they chose the ELAN?
They may have preferred the performance but I seriously, seriously doubt it was the "deciding factor" Fafalada said:
Ahh - that's kind of what I suspected. Did Videologic publish docs on the ELAN, and was it used in anything else other than N2? I remember they really didn't put out too many PC graphics cards around that era...they would have gotten destroyed by Nvidia at that time anyway, unless they were shooting for a mid-range or value solution (but with 1+ rasterizer chips and a coprocessor, they probably wouldn't be able to win on cost either, not compared to a value card like the GF2MX)...
I've never seen an N2 game use bumpmapping (and judging by the gaudiness of VF4 I'd think they'd use it if they could) so I'm wondering how practical it was on N2, even with dual rasterizer chips...I don't think I've ever seen it used on a DC game, either, to be honest.
I'm still planning to buy one someday, though. Straying back to the original topic, in some ways I'm as anal as doncale, but I spend less time whining about ports and arcade perfectness and crap like that, since I'd just get the arcade version if it bothered me.
I'm happy if the home version is gameplay-perfect - it wasn't THAT long ago that you were lucky to get "gameplay-CLOSE" at home...For example, Saturn VF2 is mainly good because they pretty much reproduced EVERY glitch in the arcade VF2, as far as gameplay went. Later console fighters definitely surpassed it on visuals (like Bloody Roar 2) but for me, it was the fact that I could really play VF2 at home and the gameplay was completely intact Fafalada:
Argyle:
Just a misunderstanding. What it meant was that the comparison was of one geometry solution to the other (ELAN vs VUs), where the two system wholes were of similar class in Argyle's original context of release date and pricepoint (for which I referred to silicon expense to indicate that I wasn't contrasting a renderfarm to a home console or anything like that).
Argyle:
No, that was when it was delivered, as in available for volume production. SEGA had both the Naomi 2 and PS2 in at least evaluation form in 1999.
No idea about other uses of Elan. Anyway, if they could have released something for PC in 2000 with it it should have been pretty competitive - it definately has more raw transform power then your vanila GF2. 2001 would be a bit late for highend though yeah...Argyle said:
Me neither, but then again, we mostly just saw Sega games, and considering how long they took to get around using skinning, which was around a lot longer then dotproduct based BM...
Anyway, on DC I suppose the more limiting factor was transform cost - SH4 already doesn't have much time to spare, and DCs BM setup per vertex is even more expensive then DOT3...
That shouldn't have been a problem for N2 though...
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
^^
Touche!
Touche!