Chozofication_
Banned
Prime has way more geometry in general and i mean way more on top of 60fps and great particle effects. I'll post some wire frame shots of both later.
-
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.
6'th gen hardware wars: Game Cube vs Xbox OG vs PS2 vs Dreamcast
- Thread starter pawel86ck
- Start date
pawel86ck
Banned
The thing is, back then no one really cared about higher resolution. Very few people had 480p compatible TV's not to mention 720p/1080i, so developers werent willing to make games in higher resolutions (otherwise they would probably make more games with 720p support).
But xbox was memory bandwidth limited anyway and I can see slowdowns in these xbox patched games at 720p (for example gta 3 during intensive rain dips to around 15fps and gameplay looks like a slow motion in Max Payne at this point). IMO with bandwidth limits on xbox 480p was the best choice on xbox, and developers could use GPU to the extreme that way. Riddick is extremely impresssive game but it's using dynamic resolution (resolution quality is sometimes much lower than 480p) and in games like doom 3 and splinter cell 3 there are slowndowns even at 480p and 720p would only make performance worse. Geforce 3 and 4 on PC had much higher bandwidth and could run most games at 720p and even higher, but on xbox 480p was the most optimal resolution for the most demanding games.
Last edited:
Larsowitz
Member
Chozofication_
Banned
Indeed 480p is the sweet spot for Xbox. Im not taking anything away from the console, it's nice that ps2 games like hulk are 720p.
Soulcal 2 being the most impressive if it runs smoothly in that mode.
Esppiral
Member
At this point I think it is impossible to discuss with you, you understand what you want from the quotes.
Journey
Banned
Unreleased but still running on Xbox, there's actually a playable demo out there, how else could we pull up a Rare title on the OG Xbox besides Conker? If you can find better screens for Star Fox, please post, I googled images and found something with trees that could look similar.
pawel86ck
Banned
When it comes to Dreamcast, Soul Calibur 1 was released in 1998? Back then I thought Tekken 3 looked impressive... but soul calibur looks wayyyy better. I never had dreamcast but it looks like it was really capable console considering it launched in 1998, back then I still have played games in software mode on PC at around 320x240.
Negotiator
Member
It's actually the opposite, since 3rd person games require you to render the entire character model vs 1st person games not requiring that polygon/shading expenditure.
There's a reason early shooter games adopted a 1st person camera... 3rd person is more taxing.
pawel86ck
Banned
Some PS2 games have optional FPS camera, for example GTA3. In TPP camera I thought game was detailed and even texture work looked fine to me, but in FPS camera from up close everything looked much worse to me, it was much easier to see imperfections.
In current gen however it's the opposite and FPS camera often reveal more details that you cant see from a distance
Esppiral
Member
Soul Calibur looks great, but Dead or Alive 2 destroys it in every graphical department. Just for reference, Soul calibur characters are done with an average of 3000-4000 polys, and Dead or Alive 2 double (at least) the amount to 7000-9000+ polys per character, plus stages are way more complex in DOA2 and it has specular maps etc.
In Dead or Alive 2 one single character is pushing more polygons on screen than soul calibur rendering the wholw scene (2 characters+stages). Team Ninja are truly wizards.
Mitsurugi- Soul Calibur- 3.800 polys.
Ivy- 3600 polys
Helena Dead Or Alive 2- 9.200 polys.
Jan Lee- Dead or Alive 2- 8400 + polys
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
Polygon counts
I've been doing actual research on the subject for the 6th generation through various 3d artist forums. Basically, the stuff I've read here and on other forums, people have no idea what they're talking about.
If you've said anything at all about polygons per second in relation to console horsepower in the 6th generation, you're not seeing the picture clearly.
Why?
Polygon counts can be very deceptive in terms of what a given game is doing onscreen. Bump mapping is a massive reason why, and whether the whole scene is being counted versus what the player actually sees onscreen.
Let me give you an example of just character models:
Gamecube
Leon RE4 10,000 polygons
Samus 9800
PS2
Jak 3 10,000
Kingdom Under Fire Xbox
Main Character - 10,000
Other characters - 3000-4000(massive amounts of them onscreen)
Yet...
Halo 2 Master Chief - under 2000 polygons(one-fifth of the all the above)
And even less than Halo CE's same character model. Does that somehow mean the Xbox was more powerful when it initially released with Halo 1? Of course not, it's a different solution. In fact, it's far more detailed in Halo 2.
That brings me to my point. There are games where you can gain more polygons, simply by making the choice on the style of game.
Rogue Squadron is a classic early 2000s forum propaganda metric of "15 million per second." Which isn't actually verified by more than one person, but we'll just assume its a fact.
Factor 5 went with a bunch of simple, often times very low-resolution polygons that had little to no texture until they reached a certain distance. Think of Star Fox on SNES with no textures at all, but when it gets a certain distance, they began to fade in. In the distance, its just rendering a metric ton of simpler geometry. But, lots of POLYGONS! It's the solution they chose and combined with great art, it works.
-1495366565.png)
Based on my research, the whole polygon per second thing is a farce, because different engines on different games have their own strategy.
Jak 3 is said to do 15 million polygons per second, similar to Rogue Squadron. The way they push raw polygon counts is similar. Lower resolution simple geometry combined with 60fps. 250,000 polygons onscreen x 60fps=15 million per second.
60fps with a wide FOV helps, even more, to really push it too.
But its meaningless metric to in terms of raw performance unless you can find a like for like instances, it's nonsense.
Jak 3 from the ps3 remaster, but you can literally see this scene has an incredible amount of polygons. The ps2 version did as well.
60fps+wide FOV+lots of simple geometry=massive polygon per second count. Xbox literally had almost no games going for that sort of look, and to be honest neither did Gamecube or PS2. Just 1-2 examples.
I've been doing actual research on the subject for the 6th generation through various 3d artist forums. Basically, the stuff I've read here and on other forums, people have no idea what they're talking about.
If you've said anything at all about polygons per second in relation to console horsepower in the 6th generation, you're not seeing the picture clearly.
Why?
Polygon counts can be very deceptive in terms of what a given game is doing onscreen. Bump mapping is a massive reason why, and whether the whole scene is being counted versus what the player actually sees onscreen.
Let me give you an example of just character models:
Gamecube
Leon RE4 10,000 polygons
Samus 9800
PS2
Jak 3 10,000
Kingdom Under Fire Xbox
Main Character - 10,000
Other characters - 3000-4000(massive amounts of them onscreen)
Yet...
Halo 2 Master Chief - under 2000 polygons(one-fifth of the all the above)
And even less than Halo CE's same character model. Does that somehow mean the Xbox was more powerful when it initially released with Halo 1? Of course not, it's a different solution. In fact, it's far more detailed in Halo 2.
That brings me to my point. There are games where you can gain more polygons, simply by making the choice on the style of game.
Rogue Squadron is a classic early 2000s forum propaganda metric of "15 million per second." Which isn't actually verified by more than one person, but we'll just assume its a fact.
Factor 5 went with a bunch of simple, often times very low-resolution polygons that had little to no texture until they reached a certain distance. Think of Star Fox on SNES with no textures at all, but when it gets a certain distance, they began to fade in. In the distance, its just rendering a metric ton of simpler geometry. But, lots of POLYGONS! It's the solution they chose and combined with great art, it works.
Based on my research, the whole polygon per second thing is a farce, because different engines on different games have their own strategy.
Jak 3 is said to do 15 million polygons per second, similar to Rogue Squadron. The way they push raw polygon counts is similar. Lower resolution simple geometry combined with 60fps. 250,000 polygons onscreen x 60fps=15 million per second.
60fps with a wide FOV helps, even more, to really push it too.
But its meaningless metric to in terms of raw performance unless you can find a like for like instances, it's nonsense.
Jak 3 from the ps3 remaster, but you can literally see this scene has an incredible amount of polygons. The ps2 version did as well.
60fps+wide FOV+lots of simple geometry=massive polygon per second count. Xbox literally had almost no games going for that sort of look, and to be honest neither did Gamecube or PS2. Just 1-2 examples.
Last edited:
Negotiator
Member
Polygons back then were the equivalent of Teraflops these days.
Esppiral
Member
Apples vs oranges, We are comparing the same genre (fighting) on the same system, and Doa 2 is pushing way more on screen than Soul Calibur don't know why you mention different genres for different platforms, It was just to point out that DOA 2 is pushing the Dreamcast while Soul Calibur doesn't.
Romulus
Member
I actually started that post before your conversion even started.
But again, it depends on how they're using the polygons, not just the number itself.
In the 6th generation it becomes much more of a wash and more about how it actually looks, especially on Xbox. Halo for example. Not just the same genre, but the same engine and character. Master Chief looks way more detailed in Halo 2 versus Halo 1, despite fewer polygons. So it's not just about bump mapping, raw polygons, or the resolution of the polygons, its all of the above and its completely unfair to draw a conclusion on just one aspect.
Basically, I could make a super simple PS2 game with thousands of triangles slamming into each other, creating smaller triangles with nothing else onscreen. Think of particle effects explosions but triangles. Then render at 60fps and get 30+ million polygons per second=GRAPHICALLY SUPERIOR!
Not really, but that's how one developer explained how useless it is as a metric for power.
Last edited:
polybius80
Member
PS2 also has unlockable modes for GS output
with Xploder HD or GSM you can vastly improve output(some options are restricted for some games) you canb force widescreen, 480p or even 1080i , not as good as xbox 720p but with amazing results
with Xploder HD or GSM you can vastly improve output(some options are restricted for some games) you canb force widescreen, 480p or even 1080i , not as good as xbox 720p but with amazing results
polybius80
Member
Polygon counts
I've been doing actual research on the subject for the 6th generation through various 3d artist forums. Basically, the stuff I've read here and on other forums, people have no idea what they're talking about.
If you've said anything at all about polygons per second in relation to console horsepower in the 6th generation, you're not seeing the picture clearly.
Why?
Polygon counts can be very deceptive in terms of what a given game is doing onscreen. Bump mapping is a massive reason why, and whether the whole scene is being counted versus what the player actually sees onscreen.
Let me give you an example of just character models:
Gamecube
Leon RE4 10,000 polygons
Samus 9800
PS2
Jak 3 10,000
Kingdom Under Fire Xbox
Main Character - 10,000
Other characters - 3000-4000(massive amounts of them onscreen)
Yet...
Halo 2 Master Chief - under 2000 polygons(one-fifth of the all the above)
And even less than Halo CE's same character model. Does that somehow mean the Xbox was more powerful when it initially released with Halo 1? Of course not, it's a different solution. In fact, it's far more detailed in Halo 2.
That brings me to my point. There are games where you can gain more polygons, simply by making the choice on the style of game.
Rogue Squadron is a classic early 2000s forum propaganda metric of "15 million per second." Which isn't actually verified by more than one person, but we'll just assume its a fact.
Factor 5 went with a bunch of simple, often times very low-resolution polygons that had little to no texture until they reached a certain distance. Think of Star Fox on SNES with no textures at all, but when it gets a certain distance, they began to fade in. In the distance, its just rendering a metric ton of simpler geometry. But, lots of POLYGONS! It's the solution they chose and combined with great art, it works.
Based on my research, the whole polygon per second thing is a farce, because different engines on different games have their own strategy.
Jak 3 is said to do 15 million polygons per second, similar to Rogue Squadron. The way they push raw polygon counts is similar. Lower resolution simple geometry combined with 60fps. 250,000 polygons onscreen x 60fps=15 million per second.
60fps with a wide FOV helps, even more, to really push it too.
But its meaningless metric to in terms of raw performance unless you can find a like for like instances, it's nonsense.
Jak 3 from the ps3 remaster, but you can literally see this scene has an incredible amount of polygons. The ps2 version did as well.
60fps+wide FOV+lots of simple geometry=massive polygon per second count. Xbox literally had almost no games going for that sort of look, and to be honest neither did Gamecube or PS2. Just 1-2 examples.
not necessarily a farce, the problem is that people in general dont understand how games work and they assume certain things so when they see numbers or see certain effects they dont understand how hard is to achieve them, not even notice at all or dont understand what they mean, RS is a very interesting game, it uses a very aggressive LOD system using very low poly models when the camera gets aways a little, and avoids GC problems such as vertex processing while using lot of polygons for the ships, GC can use a lot of triangles just dont ask it to make too many vertex operations on them, they can take advantage because the variety of vehicles is very low so they achieve more detail where it matters, they use similar LOD system for Lair but with higher resolution and using dragons instead of starships its easier to spot the LOD you can get some of their models in models-resource.com Factor 5 is a very talented team that get great results no matter where they develop but their techniques cant be used everywere as lot of people think
another similar game is grand prix F1 for PS2 it uses as much triangles and even higher resolution tan RS, but you have to explain to people that those nice reflections of the cars in metal parts require rendering triangles to the surface and that is where lot of trinagles are used
other similar example are games made in snowblind studio's engine(like baldurs dark alliance series and champions or norrath series) they run at high resolution and uses tons of polygons in characters but you wont see as much in other games
they are games with high metrics but their techniques cant be used everywhere
games like Halo use very few triangles in comparison but they end up rendering a lot of triangles, because they are designed to run very complex scenes where lot of characters interact, if they dont watch it they can obliterate framerate quickly
this video shows how 17+ million triangles/second looks like and its even more impressive because half of them have independent calculation for physics and scale but most people wont understand what it means in term of power
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Watch this fullscreen to be more amazed, plus with the fact the Dreamcast port (almost an insult to call it that) was quite rushed (arcade Soul Calibur was basically an evolution of Tekken 3 level visuals with fancier lighting and more details like swaying cloth and hair, dust and wind effects etc)!
That shit was the greatest next gen leap ever seen before (and since tbh, though if it wasn't for Xbox bringing pixel shaders to its generation then the PS360 generation would be an equally big leap). But the world way way too hung up on emotion engine marketing hype and fake news to care...
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
I
In terms of calculating console power or using it in the 6th generation as a metric for horsepower, it's a farce unless it's the same exact game. Thats literally whats been used here, including myself because I didnt have an understanding. Now, that's not to say more triangles can't look better, they can and often do but it's so much more than after these new techniques came about especially.
In terms of calculating console power or using it in the 6th generation as a metric for horsepower, it's a farce unless it's the same exact game. Thats literally whats been used here, including myself because I didnt have an understanding. Now, that's not to say more triangles can't look better, they can and often do but it's so much more than after these new techniques came about especially.
Last edited:
polybius80
Member
amazing yes but not that much considering were it is running and seems unfair, almost clickbait, yes it runs way better and with better models but system 12 its basically an overclocked system 11 with eproms and both are based on the PSX/PSone hardware, its a big leap yes but something expected, Namco extended the use of playstation based hardware, a game for a system like that ported to a new system for a new generation with way better capabilities is no surprise it runs better
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Sorry but since when was it expected to have a port be essentially a remake of this scale just because the system is more powerful? Sharper visuals and better frame rate as in Soul Reaver PS1 vs Dreamcast is expected but that level of effort for a (rushed or otherwise, without also saying there's no other instance like this either) port totally isn't. Today's average remasters have nothing on this. And yes, I said next gen leap, fully acknowledging the system 12, arcade as it may have been, was decidedly last gen alongside the last gen consoles (but still better than PS1, doubt it could have been ported like Tekken 3 was without much harsher sacrifices tbh). It's the perfect example of a great next gen leap and that's what I called it, I didn't say wow, the Dreamcast totally trashed people's beloved PS1, lulz, what a trash console, I clearly spoke of the leap the next gen brought at the time. As it did. And you're basically saying, meh, a great next gen leap is expected with great next gen hardware, why get hyped for that? Because it was a wonderfully demonstrated in launch-window software great next gen leap in console hardware. Feel free to have a different opinion I guess.
Last edited:
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Pretty sweet texture work and the wonderfully smooth curved surfaces the quake 3 engine could push (though with these shots they're not particularly obvious look at the second shot's top of those walls and how they're all full and curvy, not polygonal, arches)What's so impossible about this?
Last edited:
polybius80
Member
yes, but even then how can you be sure devs do an equally good job on each system? travellers tales disigned a way to use PS2 hardware faster but other devs not, so you wont see that in many games, its not a farce that some games/systems can push many triangles its a valid metric, but it not the only metric, and it not necesarily easy to use in a very effective way and there is also shading, that is why comparing systems specially some very different like in that generation(and before) its very difficult and unfair in some comparisons, and its even harder to explain that to people, fanboys wars were legendary in that generation XD
Romulus
Member
Let me put my point differently.
I'm in agreement that certain consoles push more polygons than others. They have to. Normally, that would be a valid metric for power, but there's no way to measure them like for like to see exactly which system is pushing more, especially within the same generation. One ps2 game pushes 20 million another gamecube game 15, but they're different games with different engines and strategies. We can't declare a console winner with such wide variations and vague info in terms of polygons per second.
Last edited:
polybius80
Member
I dint say it was unimpressive work I said it was expected comparing arcade specs vs dreamcast, there are ports with less work yes like MK4, or tomb raider 4 but they are also improved over other consoles and in some cases run on a more capable arcade machine
I dont know about you but I started playing in atari 2600 so pacman and mario look way better in nes and later ports are like this
for me that is a good port to a more capable system and I consider soul calibur a good port, below that are respectable ports and bad ports
Soul reaver was a very impressive game in PSone already used very good models not based around discrete polygons and very good resolution and textures, it was ported to PC and DC, they are not going to redo it for another port just for the sake of it
also MK4 was released on multiple systems, DC received the gold version the most faithful to arcade, with vastly improved model compared to other consoles and comes from a more advanced arcade
also tomb raider 4 was released on multiple systems
soul calibur is an exclusive port to a very powerful system and I dont know how much time was dedicated to the port, but its a fighting game, remaking the models and scenes its escentially remaking the whole game so I dont consider it "rushed" maybe an easy to do port but I dont see where is the "rushed" part, the adventure mode is very well done in my opinion, its a very good port in my opinion adapted a new system amazing but what I expected
Last edited:
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
It was rushed because DF retro provided the information saying it was rushed and completed within 7 months just to make it to the N/A launch of the system as they didn't have a dev kit earlier than that (they also mention system 12 was much more capable than 11 given the much higher clocks and in turn way more powerful than PS1 rendering a port to that most likely impossible). But as I said that wasn't the point, whether rushed or not, Soul Calibur was a great demonstration of a great next gen leap. Dunno what you're arguing against and the more you post the less you seem to argue against anything I said yet the initial post felt as such and I responded in kind clarifying what I said again and again. So, okay then, I have no need to further obfuscate what I wanted to say about the game and its Dreamcast port and I'll leave it at that, agree or disagree as you see fit.
Last edited:
polybius80
Member
yes I agree
polybius80
Member
I only said it was expected leap at least for me comparing the two systems
System 12
-------------------------------
Main CPU : R3000A 32 bit RISC processor, Clock- 48MHz, Operating performance - 30 MIPS, Instruction Cache - 4 KB
BUS : 132 MB/sec.
OS ROM : 512 Kilobytes
Sound CPU : Hitachi H8 3002
Additional Sound Chip : Namco C352 sample playback
Main RAM: 2 Megabytes
Video RAM: 2 Megabyte
Sound RAM : 512 Kilobytes
Graphical Processor : 360,000 polygons/sec, Sprite/BG drawing, Adjustable frame buffer, No line restriction, 4,000 8x8 pixel sprites with individual scaling and rotation, Simultaneous backgrounds (Parallax scrolling)
Sprite Effects : Rotation, Scaling up/down, Warping, Transparency, Fading, Priority, Vertical and horizontal line scroll
Resolution : 256x224 - 740x480
Colours : 16.7 million colors, Unlimited CLUTs (Color Look-Up Tables)
Other Features : custom geometry engine, custom polygon engine, MJPEG decoder
Notes : All roms are surface mounted Intel flash roms, with all the roms on the mainboard apart from the graphics roms which are on a seperate rom board.
The boards are therefore unique to each game and you cannot swap roms from one to another.
System 11
-----------------------------
Main CPU : R3000A 32 bit RISC processor, Clock - 33.8688MHz, Operating performance - 30 MIPS, Instruction Cache - 4KB
BUS : 132 MB/sec.
OS ROM : 512 Kilobytes
Sound CPU : Namco C76 (Mitsubishi M37702)
Sound chip : Namco C352
Main RAM: 2 Megabytes
Video RAM: 2 Megabyte
Sound RAM : 512 Kilobytes
Graphical Processor : 360,000 polygons/sec, Sprite/BG drawing, Adjustable frame buffer, No line restriction, 4,000 8x8 pixel sprites with individual scaling and rotation, Simultaneous backgrounds (Parallax scrolling)
Sprite Effects : Rotation, Scaling up/down, Warping, Transparency, Fading, Priority, Vertical and horizontal line scroll
Resolution : 256x224 - 740x480
Colours : 16.7 million colors, Unlimited CLUTs (Color Look-Up Tables)
Other Features : custom geometry engine, custom polygon engine, MJPEG decoder
Dreamcast
-----------------------------
The Dreamcast's main CPU is a two-way 360 MIPS superscalar Hitachi SH-4 32-bit RISC[138] clocked at 200 MHz with an 8 Kbyte instruction cache and 16 Kbyte data cache and a 128-bit graphics-oriented floating-point unit delivering 1.4 GFLOPS.[36]
Its 100 MHz NEC PowerVR2 rendering engine, integrated with the system's ASIC, is capable of drawing more than 3 million polygons per second[40] and of deferred shading.[36] Sega estimated that the Dreamcast was theoretically capable of rendering 7 million raw polygons per second, or 6 million with textures and lighting, but noted that "game logic and physics reduce peak graphic performance."[36] Graphics hardware effects include trilinear filtering, gouraud shading, z-buffering, spatial anti-aliasing, per-pixel translucency sorting and bump mapping.[36][40] The system can output approximately 16.77 million colors simultaneously and displays interlaced or progressive scan video at 640 × 480 video resolution.[40] Its 67 MHz Yamaha AICA[139] sound processor, with a 32-bit ARM7 RISC CPU core, can generate 64 voices with PCM or ADPCM, providing ten times the performance of the Saturn's sound system.[36] The Dreamcast has 16 MB main RAM, along with an additional 8 MB of RAM for graphic textures and 2 MB of RAM for sound.[36][40] The system reads media using a 12x speed Yamaha GD-ROM Drive.[40] In addition to Windows CE, the Dreamcast supports several Sega and middleware application programming interfaces.[36] In most regions, the Dreamcast included a removable modem for online connectivity, which was modular for future upgrades.[36] The original Japanese model and all PAL models had a transfer rate of 33.6 kbit/s, while consoles sold in the US and in Japan after September 9, 1999 featured a 56 kbit/s dial-up modem.[140]
* the specs for system 12 and 11 doesnt seem to be adjusted for the mips and other sections but even then we are comparing a system capable of millions of polygons to a system capable of thousands of polygons
pawel86ck
Banned
The biggest difference for me on 6'th gen was just using 480p instead of 480i/576i. Standard 480i looks extremely blurry, and I was surprised seeing for the first time how much sharper 480p looks. But 480p looks the best on low resolution screen anyway. I have very old 26 inch 720p screen in my kitchen just to watch something during meals, and 480p from xbox looks extremely sharp on it, wayyy sharper than on my fullHD plasma or 4K LCD (I hope it will be possible to buy 720p OLED screens in the future, xbox games would look INSANE on 720p OLED).
Photos do not do it justice becasue I'm using S8 phone camera but in real life picture is more colorful and not so overshapened (although still sharp)
Ralli Sport 1
Ralli Sport 2
Halo 1 - especially textures are very detailed in 480p, even from up close. Also stars looks beautiful (in 480i I can barely see them because picture is so blurry)
Halo 2 - in 480p water and bump mapping on textures looks insane
Splinter Cell 3 - 480p picture in splinter cell is also much more detailed compared to 480i, but my old 720p LCD screen has very bad black levels, so this particular game looks better on CRT with perfect black levels and contrast.
My xbox console is still working since 2004
Last edited:
polybius80
Member
The biggest difference for me on 6'th hen was just using 480p instead of 480i/576i. Standard 480i looks extremely blurry, and I was surprised seeing for the first time how much sharper 480p looks. But 480p looks the best on low resolution screen anyway. I have very old 26 inch 720p screen in my kitchen just to watch something during meals, and 480p from looks extremely sharp on it, wayyy sharper than on my fullHD plasma or 4K LCD.
Photos do not do it justice becasue I'm using S8 phone camera but in real life picture is more colorful and not so overshapened (although still sharp)
Ralli Sport 1
Ralli Sport 2
Halo 1 - especially textures are very detailed in 480p, even from up close. Also stars looks beautiful (in 480i I can barely see them because picture is so blurry)
Halo 2 - in 480p water and bump mapping on textures looks insane
Splinter Cell 3 - 480p picture in splinter cell is also much more detailed compared to 480i, but my old 720p screen has very bad black levels, so this particular game looks better on CRT with perfect black levels and contrast.
My xbox console
yes 480p is better for that generation, I remember playing primal in my old sony LCD 32" screen looked very sharp with decent blacks, 480p on crt TV look better but on LCD looks really good too
480i is not bad if you use s-video, it makes a really sharp image, halo 2 looked really good on the same sony tv the same for ps2, but component cables were more cheap for ps2 and easy to DIY if you cant find them, xbox work better with component but s-video is still a good option
Last edited:
pawel86ck
Banned
I have RGB scart cable and also S-Video cable as well. Picture looks better compared to standard composite signal (especially colors on RGB cable), but still sharpness in 480p looks wayyyy better compared to 480i through S-Video or RGB scart (although picture looks great on my CRT even on composite
).EightBit Man
Member
Tiamat2san
Member
Dreamcast for me.
It was short but so much great fighting games an shenmue.
It was short but so much great fighting games an shenmue.
SonGoku
Member
Halo has greater scale etc etc but it looks like crap comprared to Metroid, it almost looks GTA bad (graphics remind me off NOVA 1 & 2).
This is coming from someone who thinks Metroid doesn't look good at all and is overrated for its looks
Last edited:
Chozofication_
Banned
God rallisport 2 is definitely in the running for most impressive 6th gen console game.
Romulus
Member
That's a good question. I only have the console version. I would think so though.
Esppiral
Member
The biggest difference for me on 6'th gen was just using 480p instead of 480i/576i. Standard 480i looks extremely blurry, and I was surprised seeing for the first time how much sharper 480p looks. But 480p looks the best on low resolution screen anyway. I have very old 26 inch 720p screen in my kitchen just to watch something during meals, and 480p from xbox looks extremely sharp on it, wayyy sharper than on my fullHD plasma or 4K LCD (I hope it will be possible to buy 720p OLED screens in the future, xbox games would look INSANE on 720p OLED).
Photos do not do it justice becasue I'm using S8 phone camera but in real life picture is more colorful and not so overshapened (although still sharp)
Ralli Sport 1
Ralli Sport 2
Halo 1 - especially textures are very detailed in 480p, even from up close. Also stars looks beautiful (in 480i I can barely see them because picture is so blurry)
Halo 2 - in 480p water and bump mapping on textures looks insane
Splinter Cell 3 - 480p picture in splinter cell is also much more detailed compared to 480i, but my old 720p LCD screen has very bad black levels, so this particular game looks better on CRT with perfect black levels and contrast.
My xbox console is still working since 2004
Why are those screens 4:3? Those games support widescreen., be sure to select widescreen output on the Xbox dashboard.
K.N.W.
Member
Have a look at the best looking 6th gen game, hacked to run at 480P on a real ps2!! In this rendering mode, the game looks as sharp as on Xbox, has some additional graphical effects (like Snake's doubled image,in the third screenshot), and performs WAAAAY better than on Microsoft's Machine (But you would still rather play it with the original interlaced but 60 locked mode) ....
............
So the ps2 must be more powerfull than xbox. /S
That is only part of the trick; you can also hack a lot of games to render in progressive mode (some need just another hack to skip FMV, because they would freeze your ps2 in this mode), then use gsm to center the image (the hack moves it on the upper half of the screen ), and display it in 480P,720P,1080i and 1080P(NOT KIDDING) ; 480P>480I downscaling (ala XBOX) is also another option. Note that performance in the 480P to 720P/1080I/1080P options are terrible in most of the games, so you should rather just select 480P mode in GSM to center the image or use the 480I to higher resolutions modes, if the ps2 is not cut to run said game in progressive.
Silent Hill 3 upscaled to 720P/1080I/1080P makes you throw the HD collection in the garbage bin, since performance are stellar and you can use a 16:9 hack. Too bad I can't take screenshots at the moment .
............
So the ps2 must be more powerfull than xbox. /S
That is only part of the trick; you can also hack a lot of games to render in progressive mode (some need just another hack to skip FMV, because they would freeze your ps2 in this mode), then use gsm to center the image (the hack moves it on the upper half of the screen ), and display it in 480P,720P,1080i and 1080P(NOT KIDDING) ; 480P>480I downscaling (ala XBOX) is also another option. Note that performance in the 480P to 720P/1080I/1080P options are terrible in most of the games, so you should rather just select 480P mode in GSM to center the image or use the 480I to higher resolutions modes, if the ps2 is not cut to run said game in progressive.
Silent Hill 3 upscaled to 720P/1080I/1080P makes you throw the HD collection in the garbage bin, since performance are stellar and you can use a 16:9 hack. Too bad I can't take screenshots at the moment
.
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
The biggest difference for me on 6'th gen was just using 480p instead of 480i/576i. Standard 480i looks extremely blurry, and I was surprised seeing for the first time how much sharper 480p looks. But 480p looks the best on low resolution screen anyway. I have very old 26 inch 720p screen in my kitchen just to watch something during meals, and 480p from xbox looks extremely sharp on it, wayyy sharper than on my fullHD plasma or 4K LCD (I hope it will be possible to buy 720p OLED screens in the future, xbox games would look INSANE on 720p OLED).
Photos do not do it justice becasue I'm using S8 phone camera but in real life picture is more colorful and not so overshapened (although still sharp)
Ralli Sport 1
Ralli Sport 2
Halo 1 - especially textures are very detailed in 480p, even from up close. Also stars looks beautiful (in 480i I can barely see them because picture is so blurry)
Halo 2 - in 480p water and bump mapping on textures looks insane
Splinter Cell 3 - 480p picture in splinter cell is also much more detailed compared to 480i, but my old 720p LCD screen has very bad black levels, so this particular game looks better on CRT with perfect black levels and contrast.
My xbox console is still working since 2004
PS2 was a cleverly designed HW with a great longevity and a really well planned cost reduction plan (from 180-250nm chips to a single 90nm SoC) and fast and powerful HW.
Xbox took its extra year and something and made good use of that extra time (in those days you could get HUGE GPU architecture leaps in just 12-18 months) and accepted the kind of losses per unit (bought the fastest Hw they could find without really looking at the costs and the vendors they were working with screwed them over too) that possibly made management happy Xbox 360 was launched a bit earlier and could cut production sooner. Monster of a console for sure.
Last edited:
