Polygon crunching is one of the PS2's particular strengths and Burnout 3 used it heavily. What held it back was the lack of VRAM so textures were muddy and the picture was aliased.
what is true is that with almost the same number of machines as the Xbox, third-party games sold poorly on the GameCube. the omnipresence of Nintendo games overshadowed them.
Nintendo has never released competitive hardware. Every single console they have ever released was outclassed by almost every single competitor, sometimes by entire generational gaps. The only exceptions to this rule are cases where there is no real competitor to compare.
The GameCube was mogged by the PS2 and the xBox both.
>RE4 or Splinter Cell you can see how much they have to scale back
Stop being so naive, stupid and dishonest at the same time.
Comparing multiplaform games to call a console inferior.
We all know that both games would have looked much better on the PS2 if both games had been made exclusively for it.
There is nothing amazing about the Xbox version of Chaos Theory. Looks terrible and below minimum settings of the PC version.
[...]
Gamecube could not handle what Criterion had in mind by the end of the generation. So no Burnount 3,4,5 and Black for the gamecube.
My guess is that the Gamecube can't handle large areas with a lot of stuff going on at the same time. Therefore, no Star Wars Battlefront 2, no Midnight Club 3, no Destroy All Humans, no The Godfather, no Scarface, no Battlefield 2, no Driver 3 and no Mercenaries ports for this console.
you're clearly making a syntactical error. Nintendo has four consoles that are on par with their console generation and or more powerful in certain categories and more powerful in MOST categories compared to their competition. it just depends on your framing the question.
True. The real reason why Nintendo survived Sony's onslaught and Sega didn't is that Nintendo made sure to keep the production costs low and still earn money on hardware while Sega was happy to blow money in hopes of achieving market dominance.
No, the only time people have "proof" of this is when they show bad ports that used the PS2 as the base.
Even MGS2 runs badly on the xbox because of this and you'd have to be insane to think the xbox is weaker than the ps2.
When you compare their best looking games or games that were made for the gamecube and xbox first then ported to the ps2, like RE4 or Splinter Cell you can see how much they have to scale back to make it run on the ps2 and actually graphical performance, like architecture, lighting, physics, etc and not some bullshit like some special effect that was designed for the ps2 runs badly on another console like rain in MGS2 xbox.
MGS2 relies on a lot of post processing effects which the PS2 was uniquely good at. not surprising that it runs better on ps2 than xbox and not indicative of a bad port.
Yes, one thing I like about the PS2 is those effects but they are very unique to the ps2 and I can spot a game being of the ps2 from that alone, so when they changed to the xbox they really should have changed it so it better takes advantage of the xbox's shaders and direct x features.
>RE4 or Splinter Cell you can see how much they have to scale back
Stop being so naive, stupid and dishonest at the same time.
Comparing multiplaform games to call a console inferior.
We all know that both games would have looked much better on the PS2 if both games had been made exclusively for it.
There is nothing amazing about the Xbox version of Chaos Theory. Looks terrible and below minimum settings of the PC version.
https://i.imgur.com/nooMwZh.jpg
Gamecube could not handle what Criterion had in mind by the end of the generation. So no Burnount 3,4,5 and Black for the gamecube.
My guess is that the Gamecube can't handle large areas with a lot of stuff going on at the same time. Therefore, no Star Wars Battlefront 2, no Midnight Club 3, no Destroy All Humans, no The Godfather, no Scarface, no Battlefield 2, no Driver 3 and no Mercenaries ports for this console.
Are there examples of PS2 games ported to the xbox that run better, or is it all bad ports?
Also why is it a bad for from PS2 -> XBox, but inferior hardware when going XBox -> PS2?
I agree with you by the way, that the XBox is obviously better hardware in like 90% of cases. But your argument is a bit one sided.
>Are there examples of PS2 games ported to the xbox that run better, or is it all bad ports?
There's a few, western games usually like true crime ny, psiops, indiana jones. Most games on Xbox usually *look* a little sharper cuz their res is a fuller 640x480 (often with progressive available) unlike the ps2's 448 horizontal res.
I think the differences between platforms are interesting but there's few ports that are deserving of the status of "avoid" this generation. Like there's true crime ny on gc but meh. I think comparisons are fun but nobody else does much but repost old stuff.
>Like there's true crime ny on gc but meh
I had that one. it was still fun for a playthrough. I wouldn't avoid it, but I made no assumptions about it's quality vs other consoles.
I remember people back in the day saying that the gamecube's graphics processing allowed for some effects that the PS2 (and even the xbox in some instances) would otherwise have to offload to the cpu, and that allowed for some titles first developed for GC to excel in some regards. Some form of render targets I seem to remember being included in this. Things like in-game cameras rendering on in-game monitors, and water droplets refracting light properly. Probably others that I just don't remmeber.
It doesn't have a definitive answer.
PS2 is by far the strongest on particle effects. When it comes to Burnout 3, PS3 has better effects even compared to Xbox.
Despite it's advantages, this doesn't change the fact that Xbox has easily superior hardware.
GC vs PS2 is harder.
Soulcalibur 2 is better on GC.
Timesplitters games are better on GC.
Overall I'd say GC looks like better. It certainly has better priorities like textures and progressive scan. At the same time, many games owe their looks to PS2's effects.
Some argue certain games would not be possible on GC. I'm not sure that's true. I don't think Criterion cared enough to port Burnout.
Open world games are the main argument against GC. I'd guess they would be possible. There are some available, but they are all bad multiplatform ports. Would it be possible to do a good port? I don't know.
Gamecube is objectively the more powerful console. Can you imagine PS2 trying to play F-Zero GX? It can't even run Monkey Ball above 30FPS. Anything ported from GCN to PS2 was downgraded.
F Zero GX has good art design but it's not mindblowing technically. The draw distance sucks, physics and collision detection are simple, lighting is flat and the textures don't have much detail.
PS2 could run it with better lighting and physics but more jaggies.
>It's rare for a PS2 game to use mipmapping. Combined with the low resolution textures and you get a very aliased and shimmery image.
On top of it they apply flicker filter to image to make it extra blurry it just like N64.
PS2 games commonly ran at a lower resolution than Gamecube or Xbox games. They also had worse texture compression and I believe filtering too.
GC games and PS2 games usually ran at the same res.
3 months ago
Anonymous
PS2 games are often 512x448, I'm not aware of any Gamecube games which are that low.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>PS2 games are often 512x448
PS2 and GC games are a mix of 640x448, 512x448, and 720x448. 448 horizontal res is insanely common that gen, you're either uninformed or dishonest.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>GC games and PS2 games usually ran at the same res.
That is just bullshit, ps2 games were infamous for picture quality because of interlaced low res games. Especially the first and second gen games up until the end of the system's life.
It's why when you emulate the ps2 it still looks terrible at higher resolutions without activating some option that disables interlacing and pumps out the proper resolution to display.
Just read reviews of early ps2 launch games at you'll often see reviews complaining about horrible interlacing image and artifacts.
When the GC and Xbox came out it was like night and day in terms of picture clarity.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Thank god the PS2 was made for CRT TVs, right?
Go back to Ganker
3 months ago
Anonymous
No, even then it was obvious that many ps2 games were interlaced and they could tell even on crts, people just got used to it and the lower resolutions and muddiness of the ps2.
Here are some quotes for the review of RRV to give an example of how bad the interlaced picture could look when people expected better from the ps2 than the dreamcast when it launched.
>The entire game has a very aliased appearance, making the edges of the cars and tracks look really jagged. The better your TV is, the more noticeable the aliasing becomes. >An excellent arcade racing game marred by the lack of anti-aliasing. It seems to suffer from this much more than other games with the same problem. >The graphics are excellent (minus the very noticeable anti-aliasing issues) but the gameplay is analogous to driving a tank with broken treads. >Once you finally get underway, however, it becomes evident that the graphics suffer from the anti-aliasing problems that plagued the Japanese PS2 launch.
So yes, even on a crt at the time the PS2 had terrible aliasing and interlacing issues that people just took as part of the ps2 experience.
>Muh specs
At the end of the day the PS2 has a fantastic racing a game with fantastic gameplay, graphics run at 60 fps and a legacy people still praise to this day
What do YOU have?
It's common for developers of console-exclusive games to say that their games are only possible on that console. Usually it's just hype, and you shouldn't take it at face value.
>Is it true that the PS2 is more powerful than the Game Cube?
yes, it had a dvd capacity and way better peripherals and wast vastly more successful so it had a lot more games, vastly more. The gamecube was the definition of a failure.
Gamecube had a faster processor but was much less parallel than the PS2, i.e. the PS2 gae the developers several processors which could all run simultaneously taking care of different tasks, much like we have multi core CPU's now but more specialised. Gamecube had more VRAM but it was much slower DRAM vs the PS2s embedded "eRAM" that was right on the GPU chip. Gamecube also had less system RAM than the PS2 (24mb vs 32) and PS2 also gave some of it's co-processors like the IO chip it's own 4mb of RAM which devs could manipulate. Later in the PS2's life developers figured out how to swap textures in and out of VRAM using one of the parallel chips (so with no performance cost) meaning PS2 devs could use just as much VRAM as gamecube devs with little to no performance hit.
For Gamecube and Xbox that gen devs were programming using direct X libraries and other API's prepared by microsoft and ATI whereas PS2 was a more "bare metal" approach where devs got to work directly with the silicon, able to create operations that changed registors on the CPU and allowing them to create their own effects, API's and libraries to write games with. This obviously introduces a lot more comlexity to the development process (thus why many devs just used renderware) however if you area skilled dev team and are able to create your own engine running on the bare metal hardware it will be far far more efficient than a high level direct x style library and will allow you to squeeze every last drop of performance out of a system like the PS2.
Something with this RAM situation must have left gamecube unable to do open world/large area's as well. I know that in the gamecube version of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets the outside area of the castle is divided into smaller sections and you can't free-roam or fly about wherever you want on the broomstick like you could on PS2 and xbox which was my favourite part.
>PS2 also gave some of it's co-processors like the IO chip it's own 4mb of RAM which devs could manipulate.
I think that was removed from later Slim models, and games that have used that have issues on those Slim models. This is one of the issues with allowing developers to have access to every part of the console. They always cause issues on revisions.
>Something with this RAM situation must have left gamecube unable to do open world/large area's as well. I know that in the gamecube version of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets the outside area of the castle is divided into smaller sections and you can't free-roam or fly about wherever you want on the broomstick like you could on PS2 and xbox which was my favourite part.
This has nothing to do with GameCube at all. GameCube and Xbox were the lead platform. The Xbox version being better of course. The PS2 version was ported by another developer, it was mostly inferior compared to GC/Xbox version, except for added in open world. Which is not available on Xbox/GC. That's favorite part of many people, thus PS2 is the best version of that game.
>if you area skilled dev team and are able to create your own engine running on the bare metal hardware it will be far far more efficient than a high level direct x style library and will allow you to squeeze every last drop of performance out of a system like the PS2.
What were some of the games that you think took most advantage of the approach described here?
was the ps2's shitty video output and low res textures a technical necessity or an unfortunate design choice. going back to it now the dreamcast ends up looking far easier on the eyes.
It's a tradeoff for having fast VRAM. The upside is being good at post processing, transparencies, and stuff like Shadow of the Colossus's dust effects.
I have had multiple people on this board in just the last month falsely claim some Gamecube multi-plats were better on other consoles. There are many more games than most seemingly know about which run best on Gamecube, usually games that were ported from Gamecube to PS2/Xbox
i'm curious, did any games primarily developed for gamecube end up markedly worse on xbox? i recall super monkey ball deluxe had prerendered cutscenes that were realtime on gamecube for some reason.
The PS2 had a couple of advantages over the Gaycube.
1. PS2's VPU0, a floating point co-processor used for math and physics calculations, is clocked at 2.44 GFLOPs. GameCube's Gekko CPU has a similar unit but it's only 1.9GFLOPs.
2. INSANE fillrate. PS2's fillrate beats every console and even every PC back then. It crunches through overdraw potato chips. GameCube's fillrate was the weakest back then, they chose a powerful but cheap GPU which sucked at post processing effects.
The gamecube excelled at polygon crunching and general tasks due to the higher clock speed of the GPU and CPU, but PS2 handled physics and visual effects a shit ton better. That's why GTA was never ported to the Gamecube. It was the cheapest system back then, and you got what you paid for, a bing bing wahoo machine.
Don't forget storage media. Some devs didn't bother with a GC port because they didn't want to go through the trouble of crunching stuff down or splitting data across those minidiscs.
The slow floating point unit is the most critical downside of the system. The PS2 had 2.44 + 0.64 external and internal FPUs it could use for physics. Although the external FPU is sometimes shared with the GPU (VU1) for 3D vector processing, that amounts to over 3 GFLOPs. Xbox's FPU inside the pentium 3 CPU is also capable of 2.8 GFLOPs. Gamecube's FPU is only capable of 1.9 GFLOPs. That means many games couldn't be run on the gamecube, especially ones like GTA that use a ton of physics routines.
I liken the GameCube to characters in fighting games that are powerful while being easy to learn AND easy to master, while the PS2 is that character that seems janky as frick at first but turns out to have the highest skill ceiling in the game and can demolish the aforementioned characters upon mastering them, but only after working at them for ages, and even then they don't look the prettiest while doing so.
PS2 is a PS1 on 5 lethal doses of steroid. The architecture is a mess but powerful when the programmer is a genius freak. That said, a GC with an extra FPU could probably demolish it.
I will never understand the hardware aspect of the console war.
It's always GC vs PS2 or Xbox vs PS2, but never GC vs Xbox.
I think this is pure rent free behavior from the purple and green losers... always attacking the PS2 to have something to cope with to make them feel better.
The PS2 was released almost 2 years before the XBOX and GC, yet it is still capable of delivering incredible visuals despite having less raw power.
This discussion would only be valid and healthy if the 3 consoles came out at the same time, which didn't happen. The only valid "my fav console is better than yours fav console" fanboy wars is Xbox vs GC, as both were released at about the same time having acess to faster chips and enhanced technology.
GC and PS2 traded blows depending on what you wanted to do, but Xbox was just plain faster than both most of the time. That's why.
PS2 is a PS1 on 5 lethal doses of steroid. The architecture is a mess but powerful when the programmer is a genius freak. That said, a GC with an extra FPU could probably demolish it.
If the GC had 128 bit vectors like PS2 instead of 64 bit, the PS2 would lose it's biggest edge.
>If the GC had 128 bit vectors like PS2 instead of 64 bit, the PS2 would lose it's biggest edge.
No, that's only one of them. PS2's biggest edge is actually its highly modifiable GPU and extremely high fillrate. Also Nintendo could've spent 20 bucks to implement an FPU co-processor, but of course they didn't, they're cheap as shit.
the gamecube also doesn't have a dull blurry filter smeared over the screen. the ps2 is the true successor to the n64 in that aspect.
Gaycube couldn't even render light traces, particles, and smokes because its fillrate sucks, about half of xbox's and a quarter of PS2's in fact. The graphics looks like dreamcast tier but without the excellent transparency effects.
Yes, fillrate. The amount of effects you could get on screen and even the kind of new gameplay mechanics you could achieve with the fillrate are more important than how "crisp" looking the game is.
PS2's edge when it comes to lighting and particle effects definitely comes down to VU1 rather than GS. GS has nothing to do with the vertex pipeline.
GS isn't "highly modifiable", it's stupid and fast. It's good for effects with lots of overdraw like fog or smoke or motion blur but that's about it.
GameCube's vector FPU is...fine, a decent effort, but it's nowhere near the PS2 which had like four FPUs running in parallel.
>PS2's edge when it comes to lighting and particle effects definitely comes down to VU1 rather than GS. GS has nothing to do with the vertex pipeline.
Well both VU0 and VU1 are technically part of the graphics processing too. >GS isn't "highly modifiable", it's stupid and fast.
You could literally use microcodes to convert the color bits into other kinds of data and trade color depth for new visual effects. It's highly modifiable in comparison to the other two systems. >It's good for effects with lots of overdraw like fog or smoke or motion blur but that's about it.
There's nothing "that's about it" about it. It's over 2.5 times as fast as xbox's. >GameCube's vector FPU is...fine, a decent effort, but it's nowhere near the PS2 which had like four FPUs running in parallel.
That means it's not a decent effort. the PS2 could even use VU0 for general purpose calculations, not just vector processing.
I wonder who exactly started the fillrate meme with the PS2? It's like someone decided to retrofit power of the cell memes to the previous generation.
3 months ago
Anonymous
These memes existed since then. You don't remember Saddam Hussein's PS2-guises missiles?
3 months ago
Anonymous
I remember that and "toy story level graphics" but the fillrate meme feels exceptionally 2010s.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>ps2's fillrate
Makes games look and run better. >ps3's cell
Makes games run worse and not look any better.
Simple as.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Makes games look and run better
It's a pointless piece of trivia that has little impact on anything.
3 months ago
Anonymous
It's not totally irrelevant. Shadow of the Colossus still looks better on PS2 than PS4 because of it.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Shadow of the Colossus still looks better on PS2 than PS4 because of it
That's a result of a talentless company (Bluepoint) making all new assets.
3 months ago
Anonymous
It's a result of PS4 having 10x the resolution but less than 4x the bandwidth. There's only so many transparencies you can stack on top of each other unless you seriously compromise resolution or framerate.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Imagine if Konami weren't such a lazy piece of shit when it comes to porting games. We wouldn't have this transparency fillrate meme today.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Also SH2 PC port and even the remake look horrendous. The fog effect is too much even for modern PCs and they didn't bother to emulate it using some other means. And also try finding me a better looking game than SH3 on gamecube and xbox.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>The fog effect is too much even for modern PCs and they didn't bother to emulate it using some other means
Literally one lazy port and people draw insane conclusions like this.
3 months ago
Anonymous
PS2 ports are constantly missing effects like that. MGS HD collection on PS3/360 severely downgraded post processing and some other effects like Fortune's intro cutscene. DMC HD also downgrades the underwater effects and is lacking motion blur and depth of field.
It's not a conspiracy why all these ports are missing the same graphical features.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>It's not a conspiracy why all these ports are missing the same graphical features.
Because they're outsourced to the morons at Bluepoint. There isn't some magic effect only the PS2 can do because of muh fillrate despite whatever youtuber came up with this nonsense saying so.
3 months ago
Anonymous
t. nocoder
3 months ago
Anonymous
Do you even know what fillrate means?
3 months ago
Anonymous
>little impact on anything
Some games straight up wouldn't run without it.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Imagine if Konami weren't such a lazy piece of shit when it comes to porting games. We wouldn't have this transparency fillrate meme today.
GC and DC being more powerful than PS2 is the most popular reddit meme though.
3 months ago
Anonymous
People thinking that DC had any chance to compete technically are being silly.
It does a scant few things better than the PS2, and most of those things the GC did as well.
But I do like the DC. It needed an earlier US release, and it needed better first party games. Sonic didn't cut it. Shenmue broke the bank for a niche experience (though I frickin love that game personally).
You don't know what microcode is or what programmability means in terms of rasterization. You're not completely wrong but it'd be futile to try to correct you, so this is your last (you).
PS2's edge when it comes to lighting and particle effects definitely comes down to VU1 rather than GS. GS has nothing to do with the vertex pipeline.
GS isn't "highly modifiable", it's stupid and fast. It's good for effects with lots of overdraw like fog or smoke or motion blur but that's about it.
GameCube's vector FPU is...fine, a decent effort, but it's nowhere near the PS2 which had like four FPUs running in parallel.
It is because they are bad ports. It's not hard for modern computers to brute force those effects. You're being ridiculous. PCSX2 can emulate many of those effects just fine while HD remasters are missing them.
We are comparing and emulator to a native port. Those effects are completely possible on proper ports. They are lazy ports. That's the issue. It's not the magical PS2 fillrate.
Except PCSX2 emulates many effects just fine without maximum accuracy. If they wanted to implement those effects properly they could. As for the effects that they don't work unless maximum accuracy, they are rare and could be implemented other ways. Even maximum accuracy like solution maybe could be used because you're just using it for a certain effect. You are not emulating entire PS2. Bluepoint didn't implement even basic ones in their ports, let alone maximum accuracy ones.
In most ways except polygon crunching capability basically
Polygon crunching is one of the PS2's particular strengths and Burnout 3 used it heavily. What held it back was the lack of VRAM so textures were muddy and the picture was aliased.
Big oof, rare case of fpwp. Please do more research before posting please.
what is true is that with almost the same number of machines as the Xbox, third-party games sold poorly on the GameCube. the omnipresence of Nintendo games overshadowed them.
Nintendo has never released competitive hardware. Every single console they have ever released was outclassed by almost every single competitor, sometimes by entire generational gaps. The only exceptions to this rule are cases where there is no real competitor to compare.
The GameCube was mogged by the PS2 and the xBox both.
Meds. Now.
Truth hurts
you're clearly making a syntactical error. Nintendo has four consoles that are on par with their console generation and or more powerful in certain categories and more powerful in MOST categories compared to their competition. it just depends on your framing the question.
That ONE fricking video from this fat disheveled neet has caused more obfuscation and confusion about Nintendo then anyone could ever imagine.
枯れた技術の水平思考
True. The real reason why Nintendo survived Sony's onslaught and Sega didn't is that Nintendo made sure to keep the production costs low and still earn money on hardware while Sega was happy to blow money in hopes of achieving market dominance.
No, the only time people have "proof" of this is when they show bad ports that used the PS2 as the base.
Even MGS2 runs badly on the xbox because of this and you'd have to be insane to think the xbox is weaker than the ps2.
When you compare their best looking games or games that were made for the gamecube and xbox first then ported to the ps2, like RE4 or Splinter Cell you can see how much they have to scale back to make it run on the ps2 and actually graphical performance, like architecture, lighting, physics, etc and not some bullshit like some special effect that was designed for the ps2 runs badly on another console like rain in MGS2 xbox.
MGS2 relies on a lot of post processing effects which the PS2 was uniquely good at. not surprising that it runs better on ps2 than xbox and not indicative of a bad port.
Yes, one thing I like about the PS2 is those effects but they are very unique to the ps2 and I can spot a game being of the ps2 from that alone, so when they changed to the xbox they really should have changed it so it better takes advantage of the xbox's shaders and direct x features.
>RE4 or Splinter Cell you can see how much they have to scale back
Stop being so naive, stupid and dishonest at the same time.
Comparing multiplaform games to call a console inferior.
We all know that both games would have looked much better on the PS2 if both games had been made exclusively for it.
There is nothing amazing about the Xbox version of Chaos Theory. Looks terrible and below minimum settings of the PC version.
Gamecube could not handle what Criterion had in mind by the end of the generation. So no Burnount 3,4,5 and Black for the gamecube.
My guess is that the Gamecube can't handle large areas with a lot of stuff going on at the same time. Therefore, no Star Wars Battlefront 2, no Midnight Club 3, no Destroy All Humans, no The Godfather, no Scarface, no Battlefield 2, no Driver 3 and no Mercenaries ports for this console.
So funny how 4re is on every damn system 6th gen onwards but not on xbox, no, xbox gets dino crisis 3 lmao
Are there examples of PS2 games ported to the xbox that run better, or is it all bad ports?
Also why is it a bad for from PS2 -> XBox, but inferior hardware when going XBox -> PS2?
I agree with you by the way, that the XBox is obviously better hardware in like 90% of cases. But your argument is a bit one sided.
>Are there examples of PS2 games ported to the xbox that run better, or is it all bad ports?
There's a few, western games usually like true crime ny, psiops, indiana jones. Most games on Xbox usually *look* a little sharper cuz their res is a fuller 640x480 (often with progressive available) unlike the ps2's 448 horizontal res.
I think the differences between platforms are interesting but there's few ports that are deserving of the status of "avoid" this generation. Like there's true crime ny on gc but meh. I think comparisons are fun but nobody else does much but repost old stuff.
>Like there's true crime ny on gc but meh
I had that one. it was still fun for a playthrough. I wouldn't avoid it, but I made no assumptions about it's quality vs other consoles.
I remember people back in the day saying that the gamecube's graphics processing allowed for some effects that the PS2 (and even the xbox in some instances) would otherwise have to offload to the cpu, and that allowed for some titles first developed for GC to excel in some regards. Some form of render targets I seem to remember being included in this. Things like in-game cameras rendering on in-game monitors, and water droplets refracting light properly. Probably others that I just don't remmeber.
It doesn't have a definitive answer.
PS2 is by far the strongest on particle effects. When it comes to Burnout 3, PS3 has better effects even compared to Xbox.
Despite it's advantages, this doesn't change the fact that Xbox has easily superior hardware.
GC vs PS2 is harder.
Soulcalibur 2 is better on GC.
Timesplitters games are better on GC.
Overall I'd say GC looks like better. It certainly has better priorities like textures and progressive scan. At the same time, many games owe their looks to PS2's effects.
Some argue certain games would not be possible on GC. I'm not sure that's true. I don't think Criterion cared enough to port Burnout.
Open world games are the main argument against GC. I'd guess they would be possible. There are some available, but they are all bad multiplatform ports. Would it be possible to do a good port? I don't know.
Soulcalibur 2 is a notable argument as unlike RE4, it was built first for PS2. Remember Namco's arcade system is just an improved PS2.
Gamecube is objectively the more powerful console. Can you imagine PS2 trying to play F-Zero GX? It can't even run Monkey Ball above 30FPS. Anything ported from GCN to PS2 was downgraded.
>Can you imagine PS2 trying to play F-Zero GX?
etc etc
I love the PS2 but nowadays I look at something like this (and even while playing my own games) and think man this would look better upscaled
Wipeout mogs F-Zero graphically
Wipeout is ugly, boring and feels like slow motion compared to F-Zero.
Wipeout is F-Zero but better and released on a real console with a real controller.
At least post Phantom speed
Get fricking filtered moron
F Zero GX has good art design but it's not mindblowing technically. The draw distance sucks, physics and collision detection are simple, lighting is flat and the textures don't have much detail.
PS2 could run it with better lighting and physics but more jaggies.
Insanely delusional post.
zero content post
>but more jaggies
99% of gamecube and xbox games didn't employ anti-aliasing anyway
PS2 games commonly ran at a lower resolution than Gamecube or Xbox games. They also had worse texture compression and I believe filtering too.
It's rare for a PS2 game to use mipmapping. Combined with the low resolution textures and you get a very aliased and shimmery image.
GX does not have flat lighting or low detail textures. That's a blatantly wrong statement to make.
>It's rare for a PS2 game to use mipmapping. Combined with the low resolution textures and you get a very aliased and shimmery image.
On top of it they apply flicker filter to image to make it extra blurry it just like N64.
>GX does not have flat lighting
It does
GC games and PS2 games usually ran at the same res.
PS2 games are often 512x448, I'm not aware of any Gamecube games which are that low.
>PS2 games are often 512x448
PS2 and GC games are a mix of 640x448, 512x448, and 720x448. 448 horizontal res is insanely common that gen, you're either uninformed or dishonest.
>GC games and PS2 games usually ran at the same res.
That is just bullshit, ps2 games were infamous for picture quality because of interlaced low res games. Especially the first and second gen games up until the end of the system's life.
It's why when you emulate the ps2 it still looks terrible at higher resolutions without activating some option that disables interlacing and pumps out the proper resolution to display.
Just read reviews of early ps2 launch games at you'll often see reviews complaining about horrible interlacing image and artifacts.
When the GC and Xbox came out it was like night and day in terms of picture clarity.
Thank god the PS2 was made for CRT TVs, right?
Go back to Ganker
No, even then it was obvious that many ps2 games were interlaced and they could tell even on crts, people just got used to it and the lower resolutions and muddiness of the ps2.
Here are some quotes for the review of RRV to give an example of how bad the interlaced picture could look when people expected better from the ps2 than the dreamcast when it launched.
>The entire game has a very aliased appearance, making the edges of the cars and tracks look really jagged. The better your TV is, the more noticeable the aliasing becomes.
>An excellent arcade racing game marred by the lack of anti-aliasing. It seems to suffer from this much more than other games with the same problem.
>The graphics are excellent (minus the very noticeable anti-aliasing issues) but the gameplay is analogous to driving a tank with broken treads.
>Once you finally get underway, however, it becomes evident that the graphics suffer from the anti-aliasing problems that plagued the Japanese PS2 launch.
So yes, even on a crt at the time the PS2 had terrible aliasing and interlacing issues that people just took as part of the ps2 experience.
>Muh specs
At the end of the day the PS2 has a fantastic racing a game with fantastic gameplay, graphics run at 60 fps and a legacy people still praise to this day
What do YOU have?
>What do YOU have?
I have integrity !
I never liked Criterion games actually, Black bored me a lot. I prefer Split/Second as a crazy racing game.
Only Gamecube was powerful enough to run RE4 to its full potential
It's common for developers of console-exclusive games to say that their games are only possible on that console. Usually it's just hype, and you shouldn't take it at face value.
>Is it true that the PS2 is more powerful than the Game Cube?
yes, it had a dvd capacity and way better peripherals and wast vastly more successful so it had a lot more games, vastly more. The gamecube was the definition of a failure.
this board sucks so fricking much with these fake nintendo threads 24/7 , get a new fricking mod
It was in the only way that matters
The market. Controlled the market and made a lot of companies a lot of money.
The library. Gave everyone who bought the hardware an expansive library full of varied and fun games.
Low quality thread
Gamecube had a faster processor but was much less parallel than the PS2, i.e. the PS2 gae the developers several processors which could all run simultaneously taking care of different tasks, much like we have multi core CPU's now but more specialised. Gamecube had more VRAM but it was much slower DRAM vs the PS2s embedded "eRAM" that was right on the GPU chip. Gamecube also had less system RAM than the PS2 (24mb vs 32) and PS2 also gave some of it's co-processors like the IO chip it's own 4mb of RAM which devs could manipulate. Later in the PS2's life developers figured out how to swap textures in and out of VRAM using one of the parallel chips (so with no performance cost) meaning PS2 devs could use just as much VRAM as gamecube devs with little to no performance hit.
For Gamecube and Xbox that gen devs were programming using direct X libraries and other API's prepared by microsoft and ATI whereas PS2 was a more "bare metal" approach where devs got to work directly with the silicon, able to create operations that changed registors on the CPU and allowing them to create their own effects, API's and libraries to write games with. This obviously introduces a lot more comlexity to the development process (thus why many devs just used renderware) however if you area skilled dev team and are able to create your own engine running on the bare metal hardware it will be far far more efficient than a high level direct x style library and will allow you to squeeze every last drop of performance out of a system like the PS2.
Something with this RAM situation must have left gamecube unable to do open world/large area's as well. I know that in the gamecube version of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets the outside area of the castle is divided into smaller sections and you can't free-roam or fly about wherever you want on the broomstick like you could on PS2 and xbox which was my favourite part.
>PS2 also gave some of it's co-processors like the IO chip it's own 4mb of RAM which devs could manipulate.
I think that was removed from later Slim models, and games that have used that have issues on those Slim models. This is one of the issues with allowing developers to have access to every part of the console. They always cause issues on revisions.
>Something with this RAM situation must have left gamecube unable to do open world/large area's as well. I know that in the gamecube version of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets the outside area of the castle is divided into smaller sections and you can't free-roam or fly about wherever you want on the broomstick like you could on PS2 and xbox which was my favourite part.
This has nothing to do with GameCube at all. GameCube and Xbox were the lead platform. The Xbox version being better of course. The PS2 version was ported by another developer, it was mostly inferior compared to GC/Xbox version, except for added in open world. Which is not available on Xbox/GC. That's favorite part of many people, thus PS2 is the best version of that game.
>if you area skilled dev team and are able to create your own engine running on the bare metal hardware it will be far far more efficient than a high level direct x style library and will allow you to squeeze every last drop of performance out of a system like the PS2.
What were some of the games that you think took most advantage of the approach described here?
The PS2 specialized in fog
was the ps2's shitty video output and low res textures a technical necessity or an unfortunate design choice. going back to it now the dreamcast ends up looking far easier on the eyes.
It's a tradeoff for having fast VRAM. The upside is being good at post processing, transparencies, and stuff like Shadow of the Colossus's dust effects.
I have had multiple people on this board in just the last month falsely claim some Gamecube multi-plats were better on other consoles. There are many more games than most seemingly know about which run best on Gamecube, usually games that were ported from Gamecube to PS2/Xbox
i'm curious, did any games primarily developed for gamecube end up markedly worse on xbox? i recall super monkey ball deluxe had prerendered cutscenes that were realtime on gamecube for some reason.
Sonic Heroes was a bit worse on Xbox.
Batman the Rise of Sin Tzu is much worse on Xbox and PS2. As are most sonic games.
Minimal power difference between GC/PS2
Xbox had Morrowind, Half-Life 2 and Doom 3.
Now that's something worth talking about
The PS2 had a couple of advantages over the Gaycube.
1. PS2's VPU0, a floating point co-processor used for math and physics calculations, is clocked at 2.44 GFLOPs. GameCube's Gekko CPU has a similar unit but it's only 1.9GFLOPs.
2. INSANE fillrate. PS2's fillrate beats every console and even every PC back then. It crunches through overdraw potato chips. GameCube's fillrate was the weakest back then, they chose a powerful but cheap GPU which sucked at post processing effects.
The gamecube excelled at polygon crunching and general tasks due to the higher clock speed of the GPU and CPU, but PS2 handled physics and visual effects a shit ton better. That's why GTA was never ported to the Gamecube. It was the cheapest system back then, and you got what you paid for, a bing bing wahoo machine.
Don't forget storage media. Some devs didn't bother with a GC port because they didn't want to go through the trouble of crunching stuff down or splitting data across those minidiscs.
The slow floating point unit is the most critical downside of the system. The PS2 had 2.44 + 0.64 external and internal FPUs it could use for physics. Although the external FPU is sometimes shared with the GPU (VU1) for 3D vector processing, that amounts to over 3 GFLOPs. Xbox's FPU inside the pentium 3 CPU is also capable of 2.8 GFLOPs. Gamecube's FPU is only capable of 1.9 GFLOPs. That means many games couldn't be run on the gamecube, especially ones like GTA that use a ton of physics routines.
>Gaycube
Aren't you too damn old to be talking like a 14 year old? Why don't you go back to Gankereddit if you want to act like a child?
the gamecube also doesn't have a dull blurry filter smeared over the screen. the ps2 is the true successor to the n64 in that aspect.
I liken the GameCube to characters in fighting games that are powerful while being easy to learn AND easy to master, while the PS2 is that character that seems janky as frick at first but turns out to have the highest skill ceiling in the game and can demolish the aforementioned characters upon mastering them, but only after working at them for ages, and even then they don't look the prettiest while doing so.
PS2 is a PS1 on 5 lethal doses of steroid. The architecture is a mess but powerful when the programmer is a genius freak. That said, a GC with an extra FPU could probably demolish it.
I will never understand the hardware aspect of the console war.
It's always GC vs PS2 or Xbox vs PS2, but never GC vs Xbox.
I think this is pure rent free behavior from the purple and green losers... always attacking the PS2 to have something to cope with to make them feel better.
The PS2 was released almost 2 years before the XBOX and GC, yet it is still capable of delivering incredible visuals despite having less raw power.
This discussion would only be valid and healthy if the 3 consoles came out at the same time, which didn't happen. The only valid "my fav console is better than yours fav console" fanboy wars is Xbox vs GC, as both were released at about the same time having acess to faster chips and enhanced technology.
You can count on one hand the amount of multiplat titles that were on just Gamecube and Xbox with no PS2 port.
GC and PS2 traded blows depending on what you wanted to do, but Xbox was just plain faster than both most of the time. That's why.
If the GC had 128 bit vectors like PS2 instead of 64 bit, the PS2 would lose it's biggest edge.
>If the GC had 128 bit vectors like PS2 instead of 64 bit, the PS2 would lose it's biggest edge.
No, that's only one of them. PS2's biggest edge is actually its highly modifiable GPU and extremely high fillrate. Also Nintendo could've spent 20 bucks to implement an FPU co-processor, but of course they didn't, they're cheap as shit.
Gaycube couldn't even render light traces, particles, and smokes because its fillrate sucks, about half of xbox's and a quarter of PS2's in fact. The graphics looks like dreamcast tier but without the excellent transparency effects.
>muh fillrate
Dreamcast looks better than PS2 most of the time.
Yes, fillrate. The amount of effects you could get on screen and even the kind of new gameplay mechanics you could achieve with the fillrate are more important than how "crisp" looking the game is.
>PS2's edge when it comes to lighting and particle effects definitely comes down to VU1 rather than GS. GS has nothing to do with the vertex pipeline.
Well both VU0 and VU1 are technically part of the graphics processing too.
>GS isn't "highly modifiable", it's stupid and fast.
You could literally use microcodes to convert the color bits into other kinds of data and trade color depth for new visual effects. It's highly modifiable in comparison to the other two systems.
>It's good for effects with lots of overdraw like fog or smoke or motion blur but that's about it.
There's nothing "that's about it" about it. It's over 2.5 times as fast as xbox's.
>GameCube's vector FPU is...fine, a decent effort, but it's nowhere near the PS2 which had like four FPUs running in parallel.
That means it's not a decent effort. the PS2 could even use VU0 for general purpose calculations, not just vector processing.
I wonder who exactly started the fillrate meme with the PS2? It's like someone decided to retrofit power of the cell memes to the previous generation.
These memes existed since then. You don't remember Saddam Hussein's PS2-guises missiles?
I remember that and "toy story level graphics" but the fillrate meme feels exceptionally 2010s.
>ps2's fillrate
Makes games look and run better.
>ps3's cell
Makes games run worse and not look any better.
Simple as.
>Makes games look and run better
It's a pointless piece of trivia that has little impact on anything.
It's not totally irrelevant. Shadow of the Colossus still looks better on PS2 than PS4 because of it.
>Shadow of the Colossus still looks better on PS2 than PS4 because of it
That's a result of a talentless company (Bluepoint) making all new assets.
It's a result of PS4 having 10x the resolution but less than 4x the bandwidth. There's only so many transparencies you can stack on top of each other unless you seriously compromise resolution or framerate.
Imagine if Konami weren't such a lazy piece of shit when it comes to porting games. We wouldn't have this transparency fillrate meme today.
Also SH2 PC port and even the remake look horrendous. The fog effect is too much even for modern PCs and they didn't bother to emulate it using some other means. And also try finding me a better looking game than SH3 on gamecube and xbox.
>The fog effect is too much even for modern PCs and they didn't bother to emulate it using some other means
Literally one lazy port and people draw insane conclusions like this.
PS2 ports are constantly missing effects like that. MGS HD collection on PS3/360 severely downgraded post processing and some other effects like Fortune's intro cutscene. DMC HD also downgrades the underwater effects and is lacking motion blur and depth of field.
It's not a conspiracy why all these ports are missing the same graphical features.
>It's not a conspiracy why all these ports are missing the same graphical features.
Because they're outsourced to the morons at Bluepoint. There isn't some magic effect only the PS2 can do because of muh fillrate despite whatever youtuber came up with this nonsense saying so.
t. nocoder
Do you even know what fillrate means?
>little impact on anything
Some games straight up wouldn't run without it.
GC and DC being more powerful than PS2 is the most popular reddit meme though.
People thinking that DC had any chance to compete technically are being silly.
It does a scant few things better than the PS2, and most of those things the GC did as well.
But I do like the DC. It needed an earlier US release, and it needed better first party games. Sonic didn't cut it. Shenmue broke the bank for a niche experience (though I frickin love that game personally).
You don't know what microcode is or what programmability means in terms of rasterization. You're not completely wrong but it'd be futile to try to correct you, so this is your last (you).
PS2's edge when it comes to lighting and particle effects definitely comes down to VU1 rather than GS. GS has nothing to do with the vertex pipeline.
GS isn't "highly modifiable", it's stupid and fast. It's good for effects with lots of overdraw like fog or smoke or motion blur but that's about it.
GameCube's vector FPU is...fine, a decent effort, but it's nowhere near the PS2 which had like four FPUs running in parallel.
So many interesting things to talk about and /vr/ makes a 100+ thread about the minimal differences between GC and PS2. Come the frick on, you gays
it is much more powerful at having games. get Black personed
It is because they are bad ports. It's not hard for modern computers to brute force those effects. You're being ridiculous. PCSX2 can emulate many of those effects just fine while HD remasters are missing them.
>PCSX2 can emulate many of those effects just fine
Maximum accuracy still runs like ass even on high end PCs.
We are comparing and emulator to a native port. Those effects are completely possible on proper ports. They are lazy ports. That's the issue. It's not the magical PS2 fillrate.
>both emulators and ports just suck for no reason
Except PCSX2 emulates many effects just fine without maximum accuracy. If they wanted to implement those effects properly they could. As for the effects that they don't work unless maximum accuracy, they are rare and could be implemented other ways. Even maximum accuracy like solution maybe could be used because you're just using it for a certain effect. You are not emulating entire PS2. Bluepoint didn't implement even basic ones in their ports, let alone maximum accuracy ones.