Quantcast

Page 35 of 104 FirstFirst ... 253132333435363738394585 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 525 of 1557

Thread: PS2 vs Dreamcast Graphics

  1. #511
    End of line.. ESWAT Veteran gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,682
    Rep Power
    91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    Xbox was in a league of its own in that gen.
    It was a step ahead of both PS2 and GC for the most part in terms of visuals, only the very best looking games of those two consoles will rival with the Xbox good/great looking titles most of the time and still not in all areas IMO.
    The way that Forza cars show visual damage is quite beyond what we saw in that gen.

    In terms of car handling physics I still think that Enthusia has the edge over both GT4 and Forza though, but that's just my opinion.
    Enthusia is one (of many) PS2 games I've been meaning to pickup. The PS2 just has a huge amount of excellent racing games to choose from and it becomes more about the want to play that many racing games. I still have PGR4 and the latter Forza games to play on the 360; I'm way behind.


    Quote Originally Posted by tomaitheous View Post

    But I will say this, I have no idea WHAT TVC is talking about. I got my 57inch HD TV in 2003. I played all my consoles of that generation via component. Gamecube games always looked superior to PS2. I had a ton more PS2 games, but that's only because the GC had a relatively weak library in comparison. PS2 jaggies were NASTY. A lot of PS2 games exhibited washed out palettes (I suspect this was a side effect of texture compression scheme developed later on). FF-X looked a little bit nasty, not just low vertical resolution but low internal horizontal resolution too (most noticeable during the cinema videos). God of War were the only games to really impress me on the PS2. They even supported 480p (which a lot of PS2 games did not). But never did it ever cross my mind that GC couldn't do GoW. GC has better textures, better effects, better resolution, more polygons, etc. Simply playing a lot of games from that generation, it was easy to see.
    I picked up my 1st HDTV when I bought a 32" (4:3 CRT) Sony Wega in late 2004 and second one in 2005 when they were clearing them out for $500.

    Yeah, I had my Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube hooked up to that set using component. The PS2 was pretty rough to look at, but it looked pretty good when games (Guitar Hero 2/ Gran Turismo 4) did support Progressive Scan. When the PS2 wasn't supporting Progressive Scan, a lot of the games looked kind of blurry, while the same could not be said for the GC and Xbox in 480i.
    Last edited by gamevet; 02-05-2014 at 04:56 PM.
    A Black Falcon: no, computer games and video games are NOT the same thing. Video games are on consoles, computer games are on PC. The two kinds of games are different, and have significantly different design styles, distribution methods, and game genre selections. Computer gaming and console (video) gaming are NOT the same thing."



  2. #512
    Raging in the Streets A Black Falcon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Age
    35
    Posts
    3,238
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rusty View Post
    I like that attitude. Keep it up.



    Umm...how can I answer this without sounding like an ass-hat? The thing about CPU specs, is that they can be massively misleading. The Gecko had a higher clock speed than the EE, right? The official docs on the EE state that it runs at 299MHz (299.5 on later models) but in reality this was only the internal clock rate. The actual CPU cores were two execution pipes operating at 150Mhz. Compare that to the Gecko on the Gamecube and it looks really, really weak, right?

    Not so.

    You have to look at other factors such as the instruction latency, SIMD capabilities, the "instructions per cycles" rating and more. And this is where the EE really stood out; it could operate on four floating point values in one go (SIMD) where as the GC could only do operations on two (called paired-singles). The Geck and the EE could execute two instructions in parallel; where the EE just has two separate pipes, the Gecko would share the pipe, but have instructions in various states(load, decode, execute).

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    So ignoring clock-speeds, let's look at some different specs. What about theoretical performance in terms of calculations?


    Playstation 2 - VU0 2.44GFLOPS + EEFPU 0.64GFLOPS = 3.8GFLOPS
    Gamecube - Gecko = 1.9GFLOPS

    That's a huge difference in theoretical performance. It's fair to say that both consoles wouldn't have gotten close to those numbers in the real world, but it gives you a very good idea what the raw processing power was like. The PS2 from the numbers, and from my own experience wins hands down.
    I'm sure the GC got closer, because it was easier to program for. I mean, the GC has to be one of the only ever consoles where later games actually BEAT the original max polygon count estimates! That shows Nintendo's conservative original estimate, but also that the system had power. Sony's inflated (not seen in actual games) polygon count specs can't really be compared to Nintendo's... what WAS the most polys the PS2 managed to do in a game?

    It's because of that difference, that a GC version of B3 didn't happen. Which is a shame. I would have liked the challenge
    I would imagine that GC Burnout 3 didn't happen because EA didn't want to make it and for no other reason. Burnout 3 looks good, sure, but GC games can look that good or better.

    But keep in mind that you had to really tease the PS2 to get performance. You could easily loose 25% of your raw CPU number crunching performance if you just did things in the "usual way". In many cases, that meant sort of thinking at 90 degrees to the way you would normally approach things.
    Massive understatement here! Don't all sources agree that very few games actually get anywhere remotely near getting the most out of the PS2 because of how hard it was to program for?

    And even the better-looking games still usually have the usual awful PS2 image-quality problems that plague the system... there's one more reason why the GC is so much better, its picture quality is far higher. PS2 has the worst image quality of the generation, hands down. This is relevant.

    The GC had the upper hand in GPU vertex transformations though. However, the GPU didn't have the fill rate to make use of that number and much of that number was spent re-transforming vertices that had already been transformed earlier. This is something that happens in modern hardware quite a bit, as vertices are transformed "as needed". You get some savings because of post-transform cache, but that's highly dependent on the situation.
    19 or 20 million polys a second in Rebel Strike. At 60fps. (It's not Factor 5's fault that no one else could max out the system as well as they could!)

    (Note: on PS3 I think everybody just gave up and transformed the verts using the SPU's so that almost all the register space on the GPU was primed towards pixel-ops. You do something similar on other platforms, especially for skinned characters; instead of running them through the normal pipe-line, you run them through a vertex stream-out operation to skin the verts only once).


    Playstation 2 VU0 - 3.01GFLOPS
    Gamecube - ~8.0GLOPS

    The GC looks impressive (and it is) but keep in mind that a lot of that is used up by transforming the same vertex multiple times. The PS2 didn't to this (well...it did but maybe only every 12th vertex depending on your VIF packets and memory layout), however; you had to clip triangles yourself on VU1, but there a few tricks you could do to make it really fast. Also, you could use VU1 as a sort of geometry shader. See the foliage on Transformers and MGS3 as an example of this. You could generate complex geometry on the fly, and if you did this in clip-space; the cost was much, much lower than transforming the vertex.


    I'll just add; a more powerful system or better looking graphics doesn't mean better games. The more time that you spend on managing technical risk, the less time you spend writing an actual game. And with PS2, it was nothing BUT managing technical risk. Gamecube and Dreamcast were different though. The programmer part of me loved the PS2. But the Game Developer part of me loved the Gamecube and Dreamcast.
    Yeah, I think you're clearly missing something here. Factor 5 said that Rebel Strike had more polys on screen than any other game of the generation, 19 or 20 million of them is the number I see, and given how amazing the game looks there's no reason to doubt that. They managed to take Rogue Squadron II, which on its own is one of the generations' best-looking games, and doubled polygon counts with no cuts of note -- the RS2 two-player co-op mode in RS3 cuts no polygons from the first game. Pretty amazing stuff. As for foliage, the Endor levels near the end of RS3 (the new stuff, not the RS2 co-op mode) look AMAZING.



    But anyway, Burnout 2 according to IGN actually looks better on PS2 than GC? That's pretty shocking and should never happen, makes me wonder about Criterion's GC programming skill... I mean, I can't think of any other multiplatform racing games that actually look better on PS2 than GC. It should never happen of course given the disparity in system power. I know I said that lots of third-party GC ports are mediocre, and they absolutely are, but still usually developers managed to improve SOMETHING on the GC versus the PS2.
    Last edited by A Black Falcon; 02-05-2014 at 04:53 PM.

  3. #513
    Raging in the Streets A Black Falcon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Age
    35
    Posts
    3,238
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    Cool, no problem. I didn't bash the DC, saying that it couldn't pull off some graphical effects isn't bash it IMO.
    I also don't think that I have to always advocate, in all aspects, a platform just 'cause I like it. In some cases the other ones are technically superior and I don't see why that should be a problem.



    I disagree with what you suggested.
    DC lovers get crazy if you judge the console strengths based on the ports it received from the N64, PC and arcade. Now, why should I find it fair to judge the PS2 strengths based only in DC ports?
    Furthermore, DC games were developed with single CPU processing and tile-based rendering in mind which is totally different from the approach that you should have with the PS2 to achieve good results with its hardware.

    My approach to that sort of comparison would be to select games which were developed from the ground up for both systems. It makes it harder for you to directly compare the graphics, yes, but it's a lot fairer in terms of hardware push IMO.
    I also find it strange that it's only "fair" when you compare games from the exact same year, ignoring the fact that DC hardware was released in November 1998 in Japan and by March of 2000 when the PS2 was released it was surely a more "mature" platform. It's also "unfair" to remind people that PS2 development basically required full assembly programming (and I have given sources to sustain it) while you could use high level programming with the DC right from the start; totally different learning curves for the developers.
    No I'm not saying that we must ignore the release dates and compare 1998 games to 2007 games and conclude, based on the better graphics of the 2007 ones that the DC completely sucked and should have been buried alive. I'm just pointing out some inconsistencies in the approach of those who say that I'm being unfair in my comparisons.
    The later PS2/GC/Xbox games serve just to show how that 3D games were using a lot of effects that would be really hard to pull off on the DC without major hits to its performance in most cases. Am I saying that all DC games looked like crap, then? Hell no. I'm just saying that industry moved in the direction of particle-based and multitexturing effects which would, naturally, had given a hard time for the DC hardware.

    In the specific case of Melbourne House, the developers themselves said in an interview that I linked in this thread that Grand Prix Challenge was using an evolved version of DC's Le Mans engine (which had already being an evolved version of Deathkarz and GP500), which had improved physics, better AI and several graphical improvements.
    Grand Prix Challenge runs at 60 fps and DC's Le Mans runs at 30 fps...
    Am I saying that DC's hardware was maxed out in Le Mans? Nope. I'm just pointing that there's a huge gap in terms of rendering performance between the two games, especially considering that GPC has improved physics and AI and that the tracks do look more detailed on the PS2 game, as well as the graphical effects look better.
    Do I think that DC could run GPC with exact the same graphical quality, physics and AI at 60 fps have it been developed from the ground up for the system in 2003? No. Remember that Le Mans was the first game developed by that team of developers on the DC and GPC was the first game developed by almost the exact same team of developers on the PS2.
    What's my crime here? To doubt that the DC would more than double Le Mans rendering speed within 3 years and find inexpensive ways to implement graphical effects which were supposed to be heavy on its CPU and limited fill-rate.

    Space Race was developed by different guys which aren't the programmers which made Melbourne House's name and that's why I don't care about that game for technical comparisons.

    By 2001 you already had games like Gran Turismo 3 and Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty which were visually showing more polygons and graphical effects than you had seen in any DC game. Does that mean DC's hardware had been maxed out in 2001? Nope. It just shows that after one year and a half of its release the PS2 was already showing a noticeable graphical gap between the DC best looking games and PS2 best looking games in some technical/visual aspects.
    I agree with pretty much all of this, yeah. Good analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by tomaitheous View Post
    The devil is always in the details, and unless you know these systems inside out (and can optimize the shit out of them) - then listing specs means nothing. A system could have the most incredible specs, and one minor/hidden thing brings that all to a crawl (xbox owes more to this, from what I've read). 3D isn't my strong point, and nor do I know these systems' hardware intimately, so I can't really comment on anything spec wise - without it meaning really nothing at all.

    But I will say this, I have no idea WHAT TVC is talking about. I got my 57inch HD TV in 2003. I played all my consoles of that generation via component. Gamecube games always looked superior to PS2. I had a ton more PS2 games, but that's only because the GC had a relatively weak library in comparison. PS2 jaggies were NASTY. A lot of PS2 games exhibited washed out palettes (I suspect this was a side effect of texture compression scheme developed later on). FF-X looked a little bit nasty, not just low vertical resolution but low internal horizontal resolution too (most noticeable during the cinema videos). God of War were the only games to really impress me on the PS2. They even supported 480p (which a lot of PS2 games did not). But never did it ever cross my mind that GC couldn't do GoW. GC has better textures, better effects, better resolution, more polygons, etc. Simply playing a lot of games from that generation, it was easy to see.
    Yeah, PS2 image quality is... not good.

    The one thing did suck for the generation, was that PS2 was the primary platform for multiplatform games and thus most ports were given a parity as a result (though I still picked up GC versions of said games just for the fact that they didn't have those NASTY jaggies like the PS2 games had).
    Yeah, the best idea was to use the Xbox as the lead platform. I think many games eventually did do that, but way too many stuck with the PS2 because it was most popular. Definitely a mistake there, and you can often tell when you look at the games which ones did that; they don't look as good as they should on GC/Xbox.

    It seems, for all the prowess of the PS2 CPU - it was eaten up for the lack of support that the other systems had in hardware (at least compared to GC/XBOX). While that probably makes it very flexible, it didn't seem to ever have edged over the other systems - in any department (well, maybe streaming video since it was DVD format. GC stuff had some compression artifacts).
    Yeah, the GC's one real weakness was, much like the N64 but not as bad, the smaller media size; videos in games often did have more compression artifacts on the GC because it's only got 1.5GBs per disc. That shouldn't affect in-game content, but it did affect cutscenes.

    As for the PS2's CPU, looking at the best-looking games on each system shows how it wasn't enough to make up the gap the rest of the hardware put the system into. Being so hard to program for didn't help at all either, but I'm sure SOME games managed to get the most out of the system...

    RE4 is always used as an example, but it's a pretty good example. Assuming the port wasn't half-assed, this was a later gen game. And by a company that knew the PS2 fairly well. It goes to follow, that the fact that the polygon count and other features in the game are dialed back in the PS2 port - was a good indication that all that flexibility doesn't equate to being more powerful than the GC or Xbox. But more to the fact that the PS2 game design could be prioritized in what types of effects or conditions were needed, in order to come close to the other systems.
    Indeed.

  4. #514
    Wildside Expert
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    146
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    I'm sure the GC got closer, because it was easier to program for. I mean, the GC has to be one of the only ever consoles where later games actually BEAT the original max polygon count estimates! That shows Nintendo's conservative original estimate, but also that the system had power. Sony's inflated (not seen in actual games) polygon count specs can't really be compared to Nintendo's... what WAS the most polys the PS2 managed to do in a game?
    I don't really know, to be honest. More polys doesn't mean better graphics. The approach was always "does it look good? is it running at the frame rate we want?" and not counting polys unless is was memory critical.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    I would imagine that GC Burnout 3 didn't happen because EA didn't want to make it and for no other reason. Burnout 3 looks good, sure, but GC games can look that good or better.
    If I remember rightly, the decision had already been made before EA came on board. There's a bit of a story behind it.

    But here's the thing; there's no way the simulation would have run on the GC as it was. There was a lot of stuff going on when a crash happened, and I don't think the GC could have handled that. And half the challenge of B3 was navigating traffic. Reducing that to ensure a smooth frame rate would have been a hell of a job, and would have reduced the fun involved.


    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    Massive understatement here! Don't all sources agree that very few games actually get anywhere remotely near getting the most out of the PS2 because of how hard it was to program for?
    Hmm...difficult at first. But when you knew how the machine worked, and planned ahead, you could get plenty of performance. But it was a lot of effort, and to be honest, a lot of that was just to get to 50% of the performance that you needed out of the machine, especially on the rendering side of things as there were so many issues that you had to deal with.

    It wasn't that it was all that difficult...it was time consuming. In order to really make the best use of VU0, you had to write all the number crunching code as microcode programs. In assembler. And the tools didn't really help.


    19 or 20 million polys a second in Rebel Strike. At 60fps. (It's not Factor 5's fault that no one else could max out the system as well as they could!)

    Yeah, I think you're clearly missing something here. Factor 5 said that Rebel Strike had more polys on screen than any other game of the generation, 19 or 20 million of them is the number I see, and given how amazing the game looks there's no reason to doubt that. They managed to take Rogue Squadron II, which on its own is one of the generations' best-looking games, and doubled polygon counts with no cuts of note -- the RS2 two-player co-op mode in RS3 cuts no polygons from the first game. Pretty amazing stuff. As for foliage, the Endor levels near the end of RS3 (the new stuff, not the RS2 co-op mode) look AMAZING.

    If they're drawing lots of little triangles, then I can see how that might work out. You have to do a lot of pre-sorting to reduce overdraw to avoid hitting the bandwidth limit. Also, limiting lighting and other things would help reach that limit and you might want to do things like limiting the vertex formats that you're using. All Factor 5 would have shown is what you can do with a title that is aimed at only one platform. Which is a great thing to be able to do - but you often sacrificed a good deal of performance on the PS2 because you had to deal with multi-platform issues.

    What's more, with that image you're showing, all I'm seeing is a lot of instanced geometry using pretty nice looking textures. I also think the foliage is just using large triangles with punch-through alpha. I can't remember if all that foliage is interactive or just static. Like say, the foliage on MGS3 or Transformers.

    I wonder how much effort it would have taken to achieve that number of polys. I'm sure that there's somebody I can ask about this.

    But I still stand by my opinion that over all, GC was a weaker machine. Sure it could do nice looking graphics using large detailed textures, but that's as far as it went.


    But anyway, Burnout 2 according to IGN actually looks better on PS2 than GC? That's pretty shocking and should never happen, makes me wonder about Criterion's GC programming skill... I mean, I can't think of any other multiplatform racing games that actually look better on PS2 than GC. It should never happen of course given the disparity in system power. I know I said that lots of third-party GC ports are mediocre, and they absolutely are, but still usually developers managed to improve SOMETHING on the GC versus the PS2.
    [/quote]

    That may just be down to the use of RenderWare in B2. There weren't a lot of customers for RW on the Gamecube (if I remember rightly) so there was never any effort put into it. The porting team was also pretty small. I don't think the effort was all that great.

  5. #515
    Raging in the Streets Team Andromeda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,910
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Forza looks a hell of a lot better than GT3/4 and Sega GT 2002, especially when you play it in 480p.
    The environments do I'll give you that , but Car models is where is suffers to the likes of SEGT GT 2002 and GT 3/4 . Also there's no pop up what so ever in SEGA GT it runs at double the frame and like I said has better effects with some wonderful sun effects amazing depth of field effects and a nifty speed fillter effect . And I played all my XBox games in 480p after having the system mod in 2002

    It seems, for all the prowess of the PS2 CPU - it was eaten up for the lack of support that the other systems had in hardware (at least compared to GC/XBOX). While that probably makes it very flexible, it didn't seem to ever have edged over the other systems - in any department
    I say the PS2 had the edge over most when it came to particle effects and displaying huge amounts of characters or polygons particle effects on screen at the same time - Games that use this PS2 quirk and show off the system would be ZOE 2 (boss battles) Hitman 2 and Demon Chaos

    The way that Forza cars show visual damage is quite beyond what we saw in that gen
    Not really PGR had great damage effects and TOCA Race Driver 2 on the XBox had the best damage system out of any car game in that generation and handle 12 cars on screen and on-line - Amazing for the time

    It's also got to be figured in that DC didn't have the dev support of PS2, the tools at the start weren't the most complete, and that some devs were still using WinCE at that
    The DC was 'said' to have great tools from the start and yes it never had the dev support , but I'm comparing DC games to PS2 games that came just a 1 to 2 years after the system came out.


    RE4 is always used as an example, but it's a pretty good example. Assuming the port wasn't half-assed, this was a later gen game. And by a company that knew the PS2 fairly well. It goes to follow, that the fact that the polygon count and other features in the game are dialed back in the PS2 port
    Its not always a great example to compare a game built from the ground up for a system to port for another system . MGS 2 didn't run that well on the XBox , MGS remake on the Cube looked worse than MGS 2 . Most ports in general always tend to suffer even if they're ported by a good developer on a 'better' system
    Last edited by Team Andromeda; 02-05-2014 at 06:36 PM.
    Panzer Dragoon Zwei is
    one of the best 3D shooting games available
    Presented for your pleasure

  6. #516
    End of line.. ESWAT Veteran gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,682
    Rep Power
    91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Andromeda View Post
    The environments do I'll give you that , but Car models is where is suffers to the likes of SEGT GT 2002 and GT 3/4 . Also there's no pop up what so ever in SEGA GT it runs at double the frame and like I said has better effects with some wonderful sun effects amazing depth of field effects and a nifty speed fillter effect . And I played all my XBox games in 480p after having the system mod in 2002
    You're obviously not playing the same version of Sega GT 2002 and Forza that the rest of the world was playing.

    There's nothing special about the car models in Sega GT 2002, that wasn't also being done with Forza. The car models are the only thing saving Sega GT from looking like the previous title on the DC. The tracks in Sega GT 2002, look like they were ripped right from a Dreamcast build, with simple models, sparse amounts of trees and foliage, and very simple textures for the road. And yes, there is texture pop-up in Sega GT 2002.
    Last edited by gamevet; 02-05-2014 at 07:09 PM.
    A Black Falcon: no, computer games and video games are NOT the same thing. Video games are on consoles, computer games are on PC. The two kinds of games are different, and have significantly different design styles, distribution methods, and game genre selections. Computer gaming and console (video) gaming are NOT the same thing."



  7. #517
    Raging in the Streets A Black Falcon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Age
    35
    Posts
    3,238
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    If we go by the ridiculous Nintendo hate popular on this forum, the N64 is worse than the PS1 and Saturn, the SNES is worse than the Genesis and maybe Turbografx, the Gamecube apparently is worse than the PS2... all we need is someone to say that the Colecovision and/or SG-1000 are better than the NES and the circle of crazy (and fact-lite) Nintendo hate will be complete!

  8. #518

  9. #519
    End of line.. ESWAT Veteran gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,682
    Rep Power
    91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    If we go by the ridiculous Nintendo hate popular on this forum, the N64 is worse than the PS1 and Saturn, the SNES is worse than the Genesis and maybe Turbografx, the Gamecube apparently is worse than the PS2... all we need is someone to say that the Colecovision and/or SG-1000 are better than the NES and the circle of crazy (and fact-lite) Nintendo hate will be complete!
    I stand up for the Gamecube and SNES consoles, because I do believe they do a lot of things right. I'm not a big fan on the N64 though, because I felt that the carts were really holding it back from what the other consoles were doing.
    A Black Falcon: no, computer games and video games are NOT the same thing. Video games are on consoles, computer games are on PC. The two kinds of games are different, and have significantly different design styles, distribution methods, and game genre selections. Computer gaming and console (video) gaming are NOT the same thing."



  10. #520
    Raging in the Streets azonicrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,588
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    Is this site against linking to Neogaf? I got some quotes of Dreamcast games not surpassing N64-level polygon counts.
    Certified F-Zero GX fanboy

  11. #521
    Raging in the Streets A Black Falcon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Age
    35
    Posts
    3,238
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by azonicrider View Post
    Is this site against linking to Neogaf? I got some quotes of Dreamcast games not surpassing N64-level polygon counts.
    Is that the usual misreading of what I've said that people keep complaining about?

    What I said is that per-frame DC polygon counts often look like they're not above N64 levels, and that there are N64 to DC ports that look just about the same in terms of polygon counts and were at the time described as having "good graphics". Also plenty of DC exclusives don't seem to be doing much more than that either. Those things are true.

    What that leaves out, however, is that I also said that the DC increases the resolution, framerate, and texture quality of its games, versus the N64. Those three things are huge qualifications which I'm sure the people complaining will continue to ignore. N64 polygon counts but at 60FPS and 480p and with sharp textures requires a lot more hardware power than that same polygon count with blurrier textures, a lower screen resolution (240i or 480i), and a much lower framerate would! Also of course there are some games which show that the system could do more than that. DC polygon counts never could come close to PS2, Xbox, or GC polygon counts for sure, but it can do a lot more than 5th gen consoles of course. This is, for example, why I said that if the DC had lived, we'd probably have seen more impressive-looking games like Under Defeat is.

    Quote Originally Posted by gamevet View Post
    I stand up for the Gamecube and SNES consoles, because I do believe they do a lot of things right. I'm not a big fan on the N64 though, because I felt that the carts were really holding it back from what the other consoles were doing.
    And I absolutely believe that sticking with carts was the right decision, and they were a much bigger benefit than drawback to the N64.

  12. #522
    End of line.. ESWAT Veteran gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,682
    Rep Power
    91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post


    And I absolutely believe that sticking with carts was the right decision, and they were a much bigger benefit than drawback to the N64.
    Yeah, if you don't like RPGs, enjoy recycled textures and have a hatred towards Redbook audio, it makes perfect sense.
    A Black Falcon: no, computer games and video games are NOT the same thing. Video games are on consoles, computer games are on PC. The two kinds of games are different, and have significantly different design styles, distribution methods, and game genre selections. Computer gaming and console (video) gaming are NOT the same thing."



  13. #523
    Raging in the Streets azonicrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,588
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    sheath, get your ass over here ASAP.
    Certified F-Zero GX fanboy

  14. #524
    Raging in the Streets A Black Falcon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Age
    35
    Posts
    3,238
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamevet View Post
    Yeah, if you don't like RPGs, enjoy recycled textures and have a hatred towards Redbook audio, it makes perfect sense.
    RPGs then were better on the PC, I've never thought the N64 has any more texture-reuse issues than any other system of the time, and N64 cartridge audio is good enough. It's not as good as CD audio, no, but it's good enough to do.

  15. #525
    It's that time again! Road Rasher HalfBit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Canada, Eh
    Posts
    316
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    It depends, if you hate load times then the n64 is for you. But if you don't care then it's not as big a benefit.
    Although it's impressive that games like resident evil 2 were able to fit onto those cartridges.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •