sdstuff64 Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 Chris, I'd say just get an XBox. It's the best gaming system on the planet. Microsoft is that best company out there. I hope they rule the world someday. .................. That is what I was just about to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisrael Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 That is what I was just about to say. We come from the planet Ironica. We have much to teach you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacGurl Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 .................. Speechless? WOW. I never thought I'd see this day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracula-X Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 The liquid sky post is a bit outdated and not a valid technical guide of any sort to go by. Note: I'm not taking sides here, I own both the ps2 and a dc, and I like them both. But having programmed the PS2 I can throw in a comment or two about a particular The truth is that the PS2 has never displayed more than 2-3 million polys in a game. The main problem is a memory one. With only a 4MB VRAM cache on its GS graphics processor, the PS2 is severely limited in what it can achieve on screen. While it's true that 32MB of main memory and the fairly powerful Emotion Engine processor are capable of producing in the neighborhood of 10-12 million textured and lit polygons/second, the poor design of the GS and its small pipeline to main memory restrict the final number to roughly half of that. PS2 games are pushing around 20 million pps these days. The libraries have improved and developers have learned to take advantage of the powerful Vector Units. The pipeline is not small by any stretch of the imagination. To better understand the PS2's limitations and the Dreamcast's strengths, you need only look at the available video memory for your answer. While the DC has 8MB of VRAM, the PS2 has only 4MB of VRAM. The main problem arises because a polygon takes up roughly 40 bytes of RAM. When you have 5 million of them in a given second, this amounts to 5 million/60fps = 83,333 polygons in a give frame of animation. If each of these polygons uses 40 bytes of VRAM, you will use 3.33 MB displaying these 5 million PPS. This doesn't leave the PS2 much room for it's framebuffer which uses around 1.2MB just to display the end data, not to mention that you still need to leave room for textures to put on those polygons. This is misinformation. The author of this article decided to apply the limitation of the Dreamcast to the PS2, errantly. The PS2 does NOT store its polygon geometry in VRAM like the the DC does. The PS2 keeps its geoemtry in RAM, leaving VRAM free for textures (streaming or otherwise) and the display buffer(s). There are lots of other facts and figures to quibble about and it is important to note that the article comes from a sega gaming site and is biased from head to toe. The Dreamcast's video hardware is better in a number respects however, and too boring and long to get into now. The sad fact today is that the Dreamcast is dead. And the PS2 is nowhere near as limited or do the games suffer as bad as the author would have you believe. Slowdown simply comes down to a number of issues. Sometimes it is programmer inexperience (many of the ppl who complain about the difficulty of programming PS2 hail from different programming backgrounds, like Direct-X programmers for example, and have difficulty coping with different paradigms, or apply paradigms they learned on the PC which do not translate well). Sometimes slowdown is a byproduct that developers purposefully neglect as 'adequate' if and only if it is not prevalent throughout. It isn't fair to look at older consoles and indicate that they 'prevented' slowdown on those platforms when in fact they simply kept the machines specifications in mind when creating the game. It's important to note the PS2 has tons of games that don't exhibit slowdown. A good developer will keep the machine's constraints in mind when creating their game, and that's all there really is to it... -DX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eduardo Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 Dracula-X wrote: The sad fact today is that the Dreamcast is dead. Direct Hit !!!!!!! women and children first!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinRyu05 Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 OverallThe Dreamcast is the best machine on the market. Tomorrow nothing will have changed. Technically speaking, nothing on the PS2 comes close to the beauty of Shenmue or Ecco, the speed and power of F355 Challenge or Test Drive: LeMans 24, and the sheer elegance and gaming grace of games like Metropolis Street Racer and Jet Grind Radio. If one full motion video demo of Metal Gear Solid 2 has convinced you that the PS2 is the better machine, then you haven't opened your eyes to the reality before you. The best next-generation machine from a technical standpoint is the Sega Dreamcast. Let other less informed individuals buy a machine capable of less, on the promise of one game thirteen months from now. In the meantime, you and I will be enjoying the technically best games for months to come. nice post. i read the whole thing! and i totaly agree, the DC was, and still is very powerful. just look at soul calibur! that game pushes better visuals than anything i've seen on a ps2 game! the dreamcast is probably one of the best systems ever, sega made so many great decisions with it, with the great hardware and kick-ass games! its pretty simple. the ps2 slows alot because it isnt all that powerful, compared to the gc and xbox. the ps2 has alot less RAM and a slower processor than the other systems. most of the time it really isnt all that bad, but some horrible frame-rates and terrible load times are pretty noticeable. * MUST RESIST TO COMMENT * ... ARRRGH ! reading my own post back... that was a pretty dumb post. pretty ignorant of myself to rush a post like that, i guess i didnt know where this topic was going... nothing pushes better visuals you say??? what about FFX, you can't sit here and tell me that game doesn't have better "visuals' that soul calibur, what are you talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustangarrett Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 Comparing a fighting game and a RPG game is absolutely retarded… that’s like using Mist… (Or one of the new ones) as a comparison to games that require fast frame rates… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinRyu05 Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 i'm camparing visuals not the game, and i'm not the one who said soul calibur has better visualls than ANY, which means all fighting game or not, ps2 game. how can someone say that, oh and another game would be MGS2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE146 Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 The sad fact today is that the Dreamcast is dead. Dead or not it's somehow the most played console I have out right now. Of course this is mainly due to the NES, Atari 5200/800, and Colecovision emulation.. but still! Now the next step is to get the Xbox modded and play the great emu's there.. but that's just such a hassle.. At least the DC plays em right out of the box Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinRyu05 Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 so dissapointing to see a simple question turn into a ps2 hateing thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punisher5.0 Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 It's not what you got; it's what you do with it. This is a little saying of mine that can apply to this thread. Sure the PS2 has less advanced hardware than GC and XBOX, but if the developer programs very efficiently then the graphics should be comparable. Look at what Naughty Dog did with the PlayStation hardware. They built Crash from the ground up, using every clock cycle they could and look what they accomplished. I just wish there were more developers out there that worked this way but I know time is money. It takes at lot less time to buy an engine then to make one yourself. This is why you never see any really large free-roaming 3D games on the PS2. Crazy Taxi, Ecco the Dolphin, and Shenmue are simply not possible on the PS2, because it doesn't have deferred rendering. That gets me everytime . Crazy Taxi was made on PS2 and the game ran very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinRyu05 Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 no really large free roaming 3D games?? what about GTA3 and Vice City, they are bigger than crazy taxi, ecco and shenmue, well maybe not shenmue thats difficult to figure out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdstuff64 Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 no really large free roaming 3D games?? what about GTA3 and Vice City, they are bigger than crazy taxi, ecco and shenmue, well maybe not shenmue thats difficult to figure out Yea I know.Just look and any of the GTAs and you'll find your answer there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osbo Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 I have a couple of cents I'd like to chip in. First, I own a PS1 and it's true, some games are really shitty, but some games are awesome! Like MOH Underground, Metal Gear Snake Solid, Nuke Nukem Time to kill, Crash Bandicop Warped, Rainbow six Lone Wolf (the controllers sucks but oh well) MOH it's good too, GT2, Driver 2... etc etc Now if the PS1 it's so bad, why still on the selfs in the stores? If the DC it's better, why Sega don't make it anymore? PS1 might be a shitty console for hard core gamers, but for the general public, I think it's all right. I just wish they still making games for PS1. Now will I get a PS2? Not for now... 200 bucks for a console it's a lot of $$$ for me, and 49.90 for a game, no thanks! I barelly have time for gaming now, so I guess I'm going to stick with my PS1. Just that Osbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.