First night with the Xbox = what's up with the Cube?

Yea! Fun console bickering time! When I got my Cube, I thought the games looked nice. A small updgrade from what the DC could do, but nice. Hmmm... The DC probably couldn't touch that water, but everything else.....a small upgrade. Star Wars had a trick or two up its sleve as well. Not overwhelming, but some nice tricks. Smash Brothers looked like an all-out DC game. So did Bloody Roar, but they looked nice. Hey, I still think to this day the DC can put out some mighty purdy visuals, so I was a happy man as far as the capabilities of my Cube were concerned.

Then I get my Xbox yesterday. JSRF looks like an upgraded DC game, just like the Cube games. But Rallisport. Oh dear God. Rallisport. I've never seen anything like it. So far head and sholders above anything else graphically that I still can't belive it. The trees. The tall grass. The bump mapping on the icy streets at sunset. FOR THE LOVE OF POTATO CHIPS, LOOK AT THAT BUMP MAPPING! I just don't know what to say. This graphics whore has been compleatly bowled over.

So what's the deal then? Did the Cube drop the ball that badly with the visuals on its launch titles, or is the Xbox that much more powerful? I'd like to think the Cube is right up there. So why don't I see it? I guess Resident Evil will answer this question in a few days.

nothing on the cube has knocked my socks off......yet.

The Gamecube's not really at Xbox's level as far as sheer hardware power goes, I think. I haven't seen anything on the Gamecube that's really impressed me graphically, either - Rogue Leader looks nice, but not great.

So the initial opinion seems to be that the Cube just ain't at that level, eh? I really thought it was. If I were a developer (and selling a zillion copies wasn't an issue) I'd be camped outside of Microsoft's door.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
The Gamecube's not really at Xbox's level as far as sheer hardware power goes, I think. I haven't seen anything on the Gamecube that's really impressed me graphically, either - Rogue Leader looks nice, but not great.

---

Ya. Truth be told...we have yet to see Gamecube really deliver some benchmark titles that rival Xbox in graphics.

However, where it pales in comparison with visuals, it makes up in gameplay...as Mario Sunshine, Metroid Prime, "Celda", and other titles to be announced/featured at E3 will demonstrate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chibi Nappa
JSRF looks like an upgraded DC game, just like the Cube games.

---

Are you crazy ?? The shit this game pulls graphically is amazing. Wait until some of the later levels. WOW.
JSRF graphically blows away JGR.
- Kabuki

Well, HALO and JSRF really show some of the best graphical examples on what Xbox can do. 2 different styles of graphics, and both are excellent. I didnt see anything on the Cube yet, to be on that level.

I know that RE remake looks awesome, but I have to wait till tomorrow to really see it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bahn However, where it pales in comparison with visuals, it makes up in gameplay...as Mario Sunshine, Metroid Prime, "Celda", and other titles to be announced/featured at E3 will demonstrate.

---

We hope. :)

What about Luigi's Mansion? I know it's all kiddie like but the visuals were very nice. The way you could interact with everything was awsome. The ghosts,table cloth, mirror,dust, etc. I don't see much of a difference between it and the XBOX. Now, I'm playing them on a regular TV with S-video so I don't have any Hi def input here. Besides, I think that Star Wars is as nice looking as anything on the Box. Graphical tricks or not. It looks bad ass. IMHO

personally i think Rogue Leader looks better than Rallisport

i cant beleive of all games you think Rallisport is the most amazing visually

i hated the fact that the ONLY thing thats like sharp on the road is stuff directly underneath your car it just almost like pops its weird i cant describe it but i dont like it at all

and RL has a bucket load of bump mapping its also doing 16 million polys a second

you need to see the Resident Evil remake in action

The Cube's hardware is good enough - just what Nintendo wants, and needs. Good hardware, good price, a good environment for Nintendo to sell lots of copies of its own games. Nintendo'll try and attract enough third party stuff onto the system to keep the crowd there for the first party stuff, but won't want so much third party stuff that any of the first party games will be overshadowed. Nintendo won't release lots of games on the system at any one time, so they can maximize the sales of each first party game, and so on. There will be some mature/older gamer stuff, but not enough stuff to compromise the kid-friendly image that protects Nintendo's core market.

Nintendo's not an aggressive company, and I don't think they're really looking to expand their market share... the Gamecube's the perfect hardware for Nintendo.

Anyone know if Nintendo is still carrying a relatively huge cash reserve? I remember reading something like that a year or so back.

well i wouldnt nessaceraly say all that

remember Mario, Zelda, Star Fox, and Metroid are all coming out around the same time

from what ive read and from a few developers ive had the opportunity to speek with i think the gamecube will attract developers bassed soley on ease of development

i think the PS2 has alot more power in it then weve seen so far but only a small handful of companies can really make use of it (though maybe with their new performance analyzer thing thatll change) but the gamecube sounds to be really easy for developers to get it to do what they want

Like ive told you befor ein the chat stone from a 3d artist stand point i like the GC because it can do 8 textures per pass
you reach a point in 3d art where more polys doesnt make a difference it ends up being all in the textures


One of my biggest rants on modern 3D games is that devs dont use enough of any hardwares texturing capability and just keep pushing more and more useless polys
you can do soo much with textures that you cant do with polys

thats why from an artist stand point the RE remake impresses me soo much
sure capcom could have made it like Code Veronica and made everything high poly and in 3d instead theyve decided to flex the Gamecubes texturing and lighting muscles and it looks increadible

but thats just me one thing ive learned in the last few years making art is there is soooo sooo much you can do with texturing that adding more polys to something would never do

I've had the XBox since the day it launched and I'm still amazed at the graphics in Halo and NFL Fever, it's amazing.


I'm hoping the 3rd party game companies come to their senses and release their games on Xbox.



I hope the XBox does not fail, it's an amazing piece of hardware.

John - more than whether Nintendo can attract new developers or not, I'm saying that I don't think Nintendo wants them.

Nintendo's chief concern is making sure that each one of their first party games sells a lot, and that their overall market share doesn't really drop. We saw that with the N64 - for Nintendo the N64 was a complete success. So, while third-party development is a necessity to keep their share of the market consistent, too much third-party development will get in the way of their first party game sales. That's what I think, at least.

Holding a big cash reserve just kind of highlights how conservative of a company Nintendo is.

The Gamecube is somewhat equivalent to that of an ATI Radeon card (ATI makes the card in the Gamecube)

And the X-Box is somewhat of an equivalent to that of a GeForce 4 TI4600.

That's a pretty big difference, the GeForce 4 simply has more raw power and visual quality, but the Radeon is definitely competition. The point is, raw poly power IS NOT the primary source of good graphics (Although it is very significant). It depends on the studio's programming and graphics producing skill. An example would be Soul Calibur on Dreamcast, that uses a PowerVR card (very weak by today's standards) the poly count in Soul Calibur is generally low but you cannot tell becuase of the skill the graphics designer used. Also the designers used very detailed texture mapping, that helps ALOT. I no longer compare consoles by raw hardware, Playstation 1 has taught me that good games come from good studios and you shouldn't be hardware dependant. Squaresoft tries to squeeze every bit of power they can get.

Rogue Leader looks pretty damn good on my TV. The only GameCube games that I have played that have been visually underwhelming to the point that it is an issue are the DC ports like Crazy Taxi.

Of course, I did not buy a Cube for texture mapping and poly mania. I want Mario, Metroid, and THQ wrestling titles. Capcom fighters would be nice, too, but they don't exactly push the hardware.

In any case, the Cube is light years ahead of the PS2, but I play more PS2 than GC. It's all about the gameplay, yo.

Rogue Leader- took 8 months to make. Start to finish. THATS AMAZING. What would the game have looked like if they took a whole year? If you listen to the commentary on Rogue they say they started the game one week before E3 and finished right before the Cubes launch. Thats pretty damn nice. Halo took like 4 years....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phire
The Gamecube is somewhat equivalent to that of an ATI Radeon card (ATI makes the card in the Gamecube)

And the X-Box is somewhat of an equivalent to that of a GeForce 4 TI4600.

That's a pretty big difference, the GeForce 4 simply has more raw power and visual quality, but the Radeon is definitely competition. The point is, raw poly power IS NOT the primary source of good graphics (Although it is very significant). It depends on the studio's programming and graphics producing skill. An example would be Soul Calibur on Dreamcast, that uses a PowerVR card (very weak by today's standards) the poly count in Soul Calibur is generally low but you cannot tell becuase of the skill the graphics designer used. Also the designers used very detailed texture mapping, that helps ALOT. I no longer compare consoles by raw hardware, Playstation 1 has taught me that good games come from good studios and you shouldn't be hardware dependant. Squaresoft tries to squeeze every bit of power they can get.

---

*cough* bullshit *cough*
I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but ATI does not make the GC's "Flipper Graphics Chip." Another company made the chip, then after it was finished ATI bought that company. There is absolutly no ATI technology in the Gamecube.

The Gamecube has some solid hardware, the reason the games don't look to sharp yet is because of all the PS2 ports. When some games designed from the ground up on the GC start shipping, we'll see the true power of the Gamecube. I'm looking forward to seeing Resident Evil in action myself. Only a couple more days.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick
In any case, the Cube is light years ahead of the PS2, but I play more PS2 than GC. It's all about the gameplay, yo.

---

Well, of course it's all about gameplay. I play my Neo Geo more than any of em' and the Saturn comes next. I just made a purly visual observation. It just kinda' startled me that the Xbox blew my eyeballs away right out of the starting gate. The Cube didn't and has yet to. I'm guessing that might change tomarrow tho'. Give the Cube's power a test drive? Why, thank you Capcom. Don't mind if I do!

I agree. For my money, Rallisport is undoubtedly the best looking game on the market today. I think about the Cube though, I just think it hasn't had anybody really focused on bringing the best out of it, other than Nintendo and Capcom. Gamecube is an extremely powerful system imo (proven by the likes of RE and Starfox Adventures), but no, it's not quite on Xbox's level. I can't wait until we start seeing second generation Xbox stuff :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phire
And the X-Box is somewhat of an equivalent to that of a GeForce 4 TI4600.

---

GeForce 3, man.

I think the reason the GC only comes up a bit better looking than PS2 or DC is because a overwhelming majority of its games have been PS2 and DC ports. Hmmmmm...

I mean, it makes enough sense that it just may be the reason why...

Well, here's my take on things. I don't really know the details that went into the development of these games or the polys they push. If need be I will go look it up. A key factor is being overlooked though. I think some people are talking aout graphics and others are talking about presentation.

Graphics=the amount of power pulled from a system. For instance game A pushes more polygons and uses more proccessing power than game B.

Presentation=how developers use that power to impress the user.

A system doesn't have to be more powerful than another system to create a better presentation. Many games have good presentation but they have prerendered backgrounds and such that don't push the processor as much as a game with an engine rendered on the fly that may not look as good.

Once you have the difference down then you can get down to the real facts. If you're going to talk about graphics don't base it on what you think looks nice. Bring some facts about how many polygons they pushed. How many textures they used at once. How many frames per second does it run.

If you want to talk presentation. Then you can say this looks good.

Also keep in mind that the graphics of a game don't neccessarily determine the power of a system. Factors such as the knowledge of the developers and the effientcy(sp) of the code comes into play. So don't get so uptight about it. Both systems are new platforms which are still being explored. The time to get worried is when you start to see the improvement in graphics for the system slow down.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zondaro


*cough* bullshit *cough*
I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but ATI does not make the GC's "Flipper Graphics Chip." Another company made the chip, then after it was finished ATI bought that company. There is absolutly no ATI technology in the Gamecube.

The Gamecube has some solid hardware, the reason the games don't look to sharp yet is because of all the PS2 ports. When some games designed from the ground up on the GC start shipping, we'll see the true power of the Gamecube. I'm looking forward to seeing Resident Evil in action myself. Only a couple more days.

---

First of all, you are being redundant. ArtX is the original creator of the Flipper chip, all of ArtX's assets have been bought by ATI, therefore what was once ArtX's is now ATI's and only ATI's (legally). ArtX Technology = ATI Technology now, which is why there is an ATI sticker on a gamecube. And Resident Evil uses prerendered backgrounds so I don't see how that would be a good example of processing power. And I actually double checked the specs on gamecube and it's actually worse than the radeon, much worse in fact. A Radeon can push about 30 million textured polygons per sec, A Gamecube can only push 6-12 textured polygons per sec. Playstation 2 is often boasted as pushing 75 million a sec, but this is realistically more closer to 11 million, so in terms of poly pushing both are almost the same. But there are many more factors than just raw poly pushing so there is still will be a definite difference between the two.

I think that GC Resident Evil and Wreckless: The Yakuza Missions have the best graphics in Console history at this time. If you have not seen Wreckless in motion, well than you are missing out. Sometimes it looks real, and thats not exageration. And yes Ralisport is just gorgeous, textures! Textures, not polys, make games look real. Sure polys are important, but you can make a real low poly count model look smooth and crisp if you got amazing textures. But really Wreckless is amazing, the heat effects, the realistic reflection of light on Tar, Metal, everthing! It all looks real. Being able to see the car behind you in the reflection on the bumper is just fantastic. Mmmmmmmm Wreckless.

I guess I'm talking about presentation then. I could care less what's going on behind the scenes. I'm only interested in what the final thing I'm seeing looks like. Rallisport looks nicer (by far) than anything I have seen on the Cube.

Ahem. Alow me to vere off subject here for a second. Am I a total chowda' head for not owning Halo yet? I'm thinking the next game I want is DoA3 because I loved 2 so much, but all of my friends who found out I just got an Xbox won't shut up about Halo. Is it really that good? I've always found FPS to be terribly annoying due to horrible controls, but I've never tried one on a dual analog pad. I'm thinking that might help the controll issue tremendously now that I would be free to move with my left hand and aim with my right as nature intended.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chojin



GeForce 3, man.

---

Quote from a news site on X-box:

"Some of the possible features of the NV-25 (over the NV-20/GeForce3) are the inclusion of 6 pixel pipelines (up from four) and a second vertex processing unit. The GPU in the Xbox currently has two such units, while the NV-20 does not. "

Halo's great - I don't think it's quite so good that you should feel bad for not owning it, though. The game's almost more of a combat simulator than a FPS at times, though - it's pure gunfighting and driving, no puzzles, exploration, or adventuring. Good stuff.

I really like DOA1 and DOA2, and I was disappointed with DOA3. The game's almost too simple, now, and I prefer the feel of DOA2.

You sound like you have good taste in games, so I think you'd like GunValkyrie. Great, great game, as long as you're willing to learn the controls (MDK2 meets VOOT, basically).

Halo really is the bees knees. I have always found that a FPS plays just fine on a console if it had 2 Analog sticks. The DC pad of course being the single worst FPS pad of all time, well on a console that had FPS at least, I am sure the NES controller is worse. But anyways, it plays fantastic, and the Multiplayer is just a blast, it really is the new Goldeneye. Linking up Multiple Xboxs is just a blast, because your all in the same room usually and can talk the smack right to their face, not through a Keyboard. The one player game is really fun as well, a little bit repeatative at the end, but the enemy A.I. (if on Legendary) is amazing, its like fighting real soldiers. Not owning Halo and having an Xbox just seems odd to me. I need to buy an Xbox this summer.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chibi Nappa
I guess I'm talking about presentation then. I could care less what's going on behind the scenes. I'm only interested in what the final thing I'm seeing looks like. Rallisport looks nicer (by far) than anything I have seen on the Cube.

Ahem. Alow me to vere off subject here for a second. Am I a total chowda' head for not owning Halo yet? I'm thinking the next game I want is DoA3 because I loved 2 so much, but all of my friends who found out I just got an Xbox won't shut up about Halo. Is it really that good? I've always found FPS to be terribly annoying due to horrible controls, but I've never tried one on a dual analog pad. I'm thinking that might help the controll issue tremendously now that I would be free to move with my left hand and aim with my right as nature intended.

---

Halo is pretty good, but I think it is overhyped. The level design is pretty nice and the monsters and other entities move and interact with each other and have good AI. But as you said, the control sucks. The way the story mode plays out is sorta like half-life cause alot of stuff goes in realtime. I'm not a big fan of FPS on consoles, and driving the car in Halo sometimes gets really annoying cause of the controller. Had Halo been on PC it would be a totally different experience, thats how much the controller matters. It's like trying to play a fighting game with a mouse, it feels awkward. DoA3 is good, the gameplay in it has not been upgraded much but the graphics and sound have had a major overhaul.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
as long as you're willing to learn the controls (MDK2 meets VOOT, basically).

---

I played Gunvalk for the first time on a demo disk at a my local Wal-Mart, seems pretty good, but I was suprised on how easy the controls are. I mean as long as you know what does what your fine. The way the magazines made it sound it was like Up was going to be left or something. And when I say Easy I mean compared to how difficult the controls were described by the media. I am sure all the little tricks one can do might take some time to master, but the basic controls are easy.

Yeah, Clash-Master, I don't get it either. I was zipping around, linking 20-25 air dashes, so on just a few minutes after I picked up the controller. Like, I'm all elite and hardcore and stuff, but I can't imagine the game being that hard for anyone, even game journalists.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brotherman
If you're going to talk about graphics don't base it on what you think looks nice. Bring some facts about how many polygons they pushed. How many textures they used at once. How many frames per second does it run.

---

Uhmm, deeming graphics "good" is a matter of taste, not a concrete metric. For instance, some like anti-aliasing while others just think it looks blurry. Your argument seems to say that I should thinkg that the one with more anti-aliasing ability is better despite the fact that I hate the results of that process.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by galvatron


Uhmm, deeming graphics "good" is a matter of taste, not a concrete metric. For instance, some like anti-aliasing while others just think it looks blurry. Your argument seems to say that I should thinkg that the one with more anti-aliasing ability is better despite the fact that I hate the results of that process.

---

But that is where presentation comes in. Presentation includes such personal preferences. Graphics deals with talking about what's pushed and how it affects the system.

To toss this in here, the GC's graphics's have "knocked my socks off" twice now.

First in Rogue Leader, Battle for Endor. When you turn around, and fly away, and the stars start sparkling. Then you realize those aren't stars, they're TIEs... every one of them. Having all those whip around, with all the effects and capital ships with no slowdown ever, that impressed me. And if they had been given a good amount of development time, that game would've been easily twice as good. For those who've unlocked and played Endurance, give it a go and remember how insanely fast it was made.

The second time was in the detail in SSBM. I was messing around with the models in the Gallery, and noticed that I could zoom all the way in to Ganondorf's eye, and you can perfectly make out the red veins on it. Something that can't possibly be seen anywhere outside of that, it was those insane details that really impressed me there.

Yeah, but what did it look like before it was anti-aliased? Also determaning "good" graphics is a balance between Realism and Style. If it looks like a picture taken with a camera, I am going to say, "Wow that looks awesome." but I can also say that about JSRF, which does not look real at all. I think the only way that Graphics can be decided as "good" with out any counter-point is if they look like reality. You may like something better, but that does not mean its actually better. I like the graphics better in Super Mario World than I do in Ralisport, but Ralisport has better graphics. See what I am saying?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brotherman


But that is where presentation comes in. Presentation includes such personal preferences. Graphics does not.

---

I think maybe you mean (graphic) processing power... otherwise, I think you're really missing the point. What you're saying would then be akin to deeming a book well written if it is simply grammatical and features complex sentences, while completely disregarding if the sentences actually meant anthing. If I hate anti-aliasing or cel-shading, then I might as well consider it a non-feature when evaluating the processor. When adding all these bells and whistles to a graphics processor, the end goal is to make something capable of pleasing the end user. If you didn't do that, you suck, in that person's estimation...all the bump-mapping in the world isn't going to mean a thing if I just wanted some 2D graphics.

Heh, good point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by galvatron


I think maybe you mean (graphic) processing power... otherwise, I think you're really missing the point. What you're saying would then be akin to deeming a book well written if it is simply grammatical and features complex sentences, while completely disregarding if the sentences actually meant anthing. If I hate anti-aliasing or cel-shading, then I might as well consider it a non-feature when evaluating the processor. When adding all these bells and whistles to a graphics processor, the end goal is to make something capable of pleasing the end user. If you didn't do that, you suck, in that person's estimation...all the bump-mapping in the world isn't going to mean a thing if I just wanted some 2D graphics.

---

Yeah. That's what I meant by graphics. I think we are both on the same page. The main point I was going for here is that systems give you the potential to be able to create something. What you show off (or present) with that power it called the presentation. There are tons of ways to present things that look good or bad and each of these vary in the amount of power they use. The only way to guage whether or not one system has the capability of doing certain things is for one game proccessor intensive game to be made from the ground up for all systems to do the exact same thing and see where each falls short. So the likelyhood of anything like this happening is low.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phire And I actually double checked the specs on gamecube and it's actually worse than the radeon, much worse in fact. A Radeon can push about 30 million textured polygons per sec, A Gamecube can only push 6-12 textured polygons per sec. Playstation 2 is often boasted as pushing 75 million a sec, but this is realistically more closer to 11 million, so in terms of poly pushing both are almost the same. But there are many more factors than just raw poly pushing so there is still will be a definite difference between the two.

---

I'm glad to know that I can tell my pals at OIT to skip the next three years of classes. Apparently all that Nintendo, Sony and MS need to do to make better graphics processors is use BIGGER numbers. They'll be glad to know that the inner workings of the chips mean absolutly nothing.

I like how you compare the Radeon to the Gamecube itself. A graphics card vs a system. First I don't think any Radeon in any computer on earth will ever approach 30 million textured polygons. Second, the Gamecube's 6-12 million polygons feature eight texture passes, realistic AI, sound, game physics, and realistic lighting. What can a Radeon do again? Oh that's right: it draws and textures polygons.

The PS2 hasn't come close to 11 million polygons.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phire First of all, you are being redundant. ArtX is the original creator of the Flipper chip, all of ArtX's assets have been bought by ATI, therefore what was once ArtX's is now ATI's and only ATI's (legally). ArtX Technology = ATI Technology now, which is why there is an ATI sticker on a gamecube. And Resident Evil uses prerendered backgrounds so I don't see how that would be a good example of processing power.

---

You made it sound like ATI made the chip. That's all I was refering to. You were calling the Gamecube a Radeon. Which it's not. Not even close in terms of design or capablities.

Resident Evil uses pre-rendered backgrounds but also features hella high detailed characters and realistic lighting. BTW, the slick ass lighting game is created using polygons and the T&L part of the Gamecube hardware. So it is a fair example of processing power. Lets just remember what system had a hard time running Code Veronica, the game the Dreamcast ran just fine.

Just to chime in on the discussion between Brotherman and Galvatron.

I had a discussion with Ethugg about VF4 vs DOA3 on a graphics level. I personally think VF4 looks better than DOA3. OF course, I realise, that my basis for believing that VF4 looks better is on the basis that I think there is much better artistic value to VF4, with poly models, texturing, and general artistic direction. In my head I *know* DOA3 is better visually, with its levels, and (I assume) higher poly models, but the fact that I feel all that is wasted on poor atristic direction makes me feel that it looks worse than VF4. On the same hand, thats my opinion on VF4 arcade, not VF4 PS2. Once it hit the PS2, and added jaggies to its already chock full 'o jagginess, I felt it had downgraded on the performance level enough to make me feel the artistic value didnt make up for it(enough) anymore. I believe this is a pretty good example of presentation vs graphical performance, and the point Brotherman is trying to make. Just though I would share.

Oh, and Rallisport makes me change my pants.... often.

Z-roe

"the Gamecube's 6-12 million polygons feature eight texture passes, realistic AI, sound, game physics, and realistic lighting. What can a Radeon do again? Oh that's right: it draws and textures polygons. "

The Radeon can do 8x alpha blending and T&L and much more. Sound is handled by a seperate SPU on the Gamecube and is of minimal impact to the GPU. AI is calculated on the IBM Gekko processor. The Gamecube should have the advantage here, NOT the Graphics card. Even if you got a system setup with trying to get the closest CPU speed to the gamecube and paired it with a Radeon, the PC would still win.

"The PS2 hasn't come close to 11 million polygons. "

Neither has the Gamecube, Super smash brothers sure has alot of polys! :jest: . Mario Sunshine looks like the N64 Mario. But i'm sure Playstation 2 is much closer to it than Gamecube is right now. I'm sure PS2 has at least made it to 5 or 6 million polygons, and if you can't trust specs given out by the company themselves then why believe that Gamecube will push 12 million sustained? And please, as for Resident Evil, rendering less than 4 characters on screen at a time with accelerated lighting is not impressive. The light doesnt even have to process against the background, it only touches the models. At least Devil May Cry was fully 3D. Your only decieving yourself if you think RE is gonna be pushing 6+ Million polys.

"I'm glad to know that I can tell my pals at OIT to skip the next three years of classes."

Your sarcasm is almost as bad as your website :rolleyes: .

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phire
A Gamecube can only push 6-12 textured polygons per sec.

---

I believe Factor 5 claims Rogue Leader pushed 16 million polys a second. If johnpv shows up again, he can clarify this.

Quote:

---

"Some of the possible features of the NV-25 (over the NV-20/GeForce3) are the inclusion of 6 pixel pipelines (up from four) and a second vertex processing unit. The GPU in the Xbox currently has two such units, while the NV-20 does not. "

---

That's all well and good, but the Xbox DOES NOT have a Ti4600. Not even close.

Let's do a little comparison. The Geforce in the Xbox has 64 MB of memory. The Ti4600 has 128 MB. The Xbox has a memory bandwith of 6.4 GB per second. The Ti4600 has a memory bandwith of 10.4 GB per second. The Ti4600 has a 300Mhz core clock. The Geforce in the Xbox has a 250 Mhz core clock. The Ti4600 has a higher pixel fill rate. It can push more polys.

So no, you can't compare the Xbox to a Ti4600.

Let's all not forget that many of the cheaper GeForce 4s are less powerful then good GeForce 3s. Different versions do matter, not just which line it is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MechDeus
Let's all not forget that many of the cheaper GeForce 4s are less powerful then good GeForce 3s. Different versions do matter, not just which line it is.

---

Yeah, the GeForce 4 MX's are pieces of junk.

The Xbox has a really nice GPU, no doubt. It just ain't a Ti4600. Or any GeForce 4 Ti, for that matter. It essentially has a pumped up GeForce 3 Ti200, which is a great card to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Z-roe
Just to chime in on the discussion between Brotherman and Galvatron.

I had a discussion with Ethugg about VF4 vs DOA3 on a graphics level. I personally think VF4 looks better than DOA3. OF course, I realise, that my basis for believing that VF4 looks better is on the basis that I think there is much better artistic value to VF4, with poly models, texturing, and general artistic direction. In my head I *know* DOA3 is better visually, with its levels, and (I assume) higher poly models, but the fact that I feel all that is wasted on poor atristic direction makes me feel that it looks worse than VF4. On the same hand, thats my opinion on VF4 arcade, not VF4 PS2. Once it hit the PS2, and added jaggies to its already chock full 'o jagginess, I felt it had downgraded on the performance level enough to make me feel the artistic value didnt make up for it(enough) anymore. I believe this is a pretty good example of presentation vs graphical performance, and the point Brotherman is trying to make. Just though I would share.

Oh, and Rallisport makes me change my pants.... often.

Z-roe

---

Yes. Good example. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phire
The Gamecube is somewhat equivalent to that of an ATI Radeon card (ATI makes the card in the Gamecube)

And the X-Box is somewhat of an equivalent to that of a GeForce 4 TI4600.

---

actually you wrong on both counts

1 the Gamcubes flipper chip was developed by another company that was bought by ATI right before the GC went into production the only thing ATI has to do with it is name

and also the Xbox's Geforce chip is more like an enhanced geforce 3 (think the code for the commercial geforce 3 is what ever 20 and the Xbox's chip is 25 )

*EDIT* both of these were allready stated didnt see them sorry

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phire


First of all, you are being redundant. ArtX is the original creator of the Flipper chip, all of ArtX's assets have been bought by ATI, therefore what was once ArtX's is now ATI's and only ATI's (legally). ArtX Technology = ATI Technology now, which is why there is an ATI sticker on a gamecube. And Resident Evil uses prerendered backgrounds so I don't see how that would be a good example of processing power. And I actually double checked the specs on gamecube and it's actually worse than the radeon, much worse in fact. A Radeon can push about 30 million textured polygons per sec, A Gamecube can only push 6-12 textured polygons per sec. Playstation 2 is often boasted as pushing 75 million a sec, but this is realistically more closer to 11 million, so in terms of poly pushing both are almost the same. But there are many more factors than just raw poly pushing so there is still will be a definite difference between the two.

---

*sigh* gamers shouldnt talk about things they only know from reading IGN

gamecube can push more than 12 million polys the number nintendo posted about the GC (this has been said many times) was BASED on LUIGI'S MANSION

also have you seen the lighting effects going on in RE theres more than just pre rendered backgrounds slapped in there

ive posted this many time this is an email i received from David Stripinis from factor 5 (the people who made Rogue Leader) in reply to my question about what RL was doing



"----- Original Message -----
From: "David Stripinis" <XXXXXXXXX@factor5.com>
To: <maya@highend3d.com>; <XXXXXX@optonline.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Question for the Factor 5 Guys about Rogue Leader


Thanks. Actually, the number of Ties is much higher, and the number of polys is much lower. We make EXTENSIVE use of Levels of detail, so why there may be a buttload of ships on screen at once, most of them are an order of magnitude or 2 below the ultra high detail versions.

Also remember that we cull polys that arent seen. I would estimaet that at any one time you are only seeing 1/2 - 3/5 of any object, the rest faces away from the camera and is not drawn. Actual numbers are in the 12 -16 million poly / sec range.

Remember though that this is only first gen, so we'll probably be doubling that if not more by the end of the lifecycle.

- -
David Stripinis

Director of Animation | Factor 5



"Occasionally, I have moments of genius. But
most of the time I just nod along and fake it." "


people underestimate the GC too much

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint of Killers

I believe Factor 5 claims Rogue Leader pushed 16 million polys a second. If johnpv shows up again, he can clarify this.

---

if i didnt have to work tonight i would have cleared that up sooner and would have fucking won that ebay auction for SF collection on the saturn
DAMN WORK!!!!!!

in case anyone is wondering about t hat email im a 3d animator and the program i use is the same one the factor 5 guys use so i asked them about the game on the list serv

the people who made rallisport are also on the list serv ironicaly

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phire
Mario Sunshine looks like the N64 Mario.

---

oh, so you've played super mario sunshine? how is it? surely you must be miyamoto's right hand mand to have had access to the finished version of the game at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kinopio

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phire
Mario Sunshine looks like the N64 Mario.

---

oh, so you've played super mario sunshine? how is it? surely you must be miyamoto's right hand mand to have had access to the finished version of the game at this point.

---

let me edit what he said.


screenshotsof Mario Sunshine looks like the N64 Mario.


Now , I'll respond to it.


"I hope the game looks better once its in action. But I didn't really mind the graphics of Mario 64, so a game looking similar but to a larger degree isn't a problem to me. "

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gongos
Ok, now to enter this discussion,a s i have been a pretty vocal supporter of both the x-box and the gamecube, but there is a lot of system biased nonsense coming out here. The x box has had its share of beautiful games, but i think that the gameplay of the game and overall immersiveness is a strong factor in judging a system's initial offereings. And really the x-box has yet to have a strong, compelling game to clash with either Rogue leader, or with maximo. they have so far put out a large amount of ports, a horrible star wars game(obi wan), azurik, and a large number of raceing games. If anythign what i bought the box for was for some very deep, compelling games like project ego and jet set, and recently i have come to appreciate marrowind. but when it comes to x-box's visual's one could counterpoint the beauty of halo with the uglyness of azurik, or obi wan, or new legends. the gamecube has yet to put out a graphical tour de force, though i would argue that the second level of rogue was pretty damn impressive, but the attention to deatails in games like rogue squadron, or ssbm, or especially luigi's mansion so far show that nintendo is concentrating on making the little details in their games that much more apparent. Look at Star fox, when it comes out, they are going to have realistic fur on Fox, a graphical trick that has yet to be replicated on either of the big systems. the box will always have the most horsepower, that is a fact, but it also ignores the individual talents of the developers, Res evil will be beautiful because the developer will make it that good, even on "Weaker" hardware, and box will still get weak games like new legends, from less than cautious developers.

---

Good post. Power means nothing if the Devs. don't use it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brotherman


Good post. Power means nothing if the Devs. don't use it.

---

this is quite true and part of the reason why i think the PS2 has alot more power just its soooo hard to get out it seems only a few devs can use it

where as with the GC (and i hear the Xbox is easy other than DirectX being shit) its quite easy to find its power (like its been said RL was made in 8 months, imagine if they spent 4 years on it like Bungie did with halo)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnpv


this is quite true and part of the reason why i think the PS2 has alot more power just its soooo hard to get out it seems only a few devs can use it

where as with the GC (and i hear the Xbox is easy other than DirectX being shit) its quite easy to find its power (like its been said RL was made in 8 months, imagine if they spent 4 years on it like Bungie did with halo)

---

I know what you mean. I wish devs. would spend more time making games for the ground up for X Box and GC. I also wish that Microsoft would allow devs. the freedom to go deeper into the system than Direct X. From what I've heard, devs. have been asking to be allowed to go deeper.

i agree totally and i think Game Devs could do alot more alot faster being able to skip past Direct X (which IMHO is such shit its on its what 8th version and is still buggy as hell) OpenGL developed by SGI has been at Version 1.2 for years (no major bugs or probs no need for an update) though 3d labs is working with them now to develop version 2.0 to add some things


and i agree i wish there were less PS2 ports

and i wish the companies making games on all 3 at least did something to take advantage of each individual system

but thats only in a dream world i suppose

Ok, as for the X-Box not having the TI4600, yes you're correct, it does not, I got confused by the naming convention NVidia uses, so I do take fault for that. And also, yes rezo I wanted to say that Mario Sunshine screenshots look very much like that of Mario 64. When I said the max poly/sec was 12 million I was only going by what specifications that Nintendo.com had, so I trusted it. Unfortunatly I do not own Rogue Leader. But I will trust that you speak the truth since you are an animator. Brotherman, yes that is true, power is nothing if devs cannot use it, unfortunatly Dreamcast barely got to really shine, it could do 2D great and 3D decently. But I believe PS2 is still untapped as well, with time the programmers will learn more about it, and some more techniques. As of right now, this is my opinion on the industry: Playstation 2 has been on the market longer, it has a strong userbase, programmers therefore will be inclined to learn as much as they can. Other companies will follow because of this, and Sony has previously been a favorite with Playstation 1. If Playstation 2 follows the same path as PS1 then I believe it will dominate on the market (PS1 lasted for some 5+ years I think), Dreamcast was also pushed out of the market. This is solely my opinion though, things can change and I believe it is all up to how many companies Nintendo can get to develop for this system, and Unique games, not ports.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnpv


*sigh* gamers shouldnt talk about things they only know from reading IGN

gamecube can push more than 12 million polys the number nintendo posted about the GC (this has been said many times) was BASED on LUIGI'S MANSION

also have you seen the lighting effects going on in RE theres more than just pre rendered backgrounds slapped in there

ive posted this many time this is an email i received from David Stripinis from factor 5 (the people who made Rogue Leader) in reply to my question about what RL was doing



"----- Original Message -----
From: "David Stripinis" <XXXXXXXXX@factor5.com>
To: <maya@highend3d.com>; <XXXXXX@optonline.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Question for the Factor 5 Guys about Rogue Leader


Thanks. Actually, the number of Ties is much higher, and the number of polys is much lower. We make EXTENSIVE use of Levels of detail, so why there may be a buttload of ships on screen at once, most of them are an order of magnitude or 2 below the ultra high detail versions.

Also remember that we cull polys that arent seen. I would estimaet that at any one time you are only seeing 1/2 - 3/5 of any object, the rest faces away from the camera and is not drawn. Actual numbers are in the 12 -16 million poly / sec range.

Remember though that this is only first gen, so we'll probably be doubling that if not more by the end of the lifecycle.

- -
David Stripinis

Director of Animation | Factor 5



"Occasionally, I have moments of genius. But
most of the time I just nod along and fake it." "


people underestimate the GC too much

---

Great piece! I remember reading Next Gen. Magazine with the interview from Factor 5. They said that the exaust ports on the capital ships, were 150,000 polygons each. Just imagine how many polygons were used to make the whole ship. Rogue Leader is a visual masterpiece, underappreciated by many gamers. I still consider this game as a benchmark for all other games to compare to.


In a recent interview with Yu Suzuki, he stated that the Cube was the easiest of the 3 machines, to program games for. It's no wonder that Sega, and Namco have decided to use Nintendo's hardware for future arcade titles. I can't wait to see what Sega does with F-Zero on the Tri-Force hardware.


As far as Wreckless goes, Gamecube will soon be getting a port of that game. We'll see just how well Nintendo's little box handles it.


Also the estimated 12 million polygons that GameCube can push, has been stated by Nintendo, as real gaming environments, not blank test results posted by companies like Sony, using just polygon pushing numbers.

I forgot to ask a question. John, does Rogue leader allow you to push Progressive video? and if it does, does it cause any impact to the framerate?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phire
Ok, as for the X-Box not having the TI4600, yes you're correct, it does not, I got confused by the naming convention NVidia uses, so I do take fault for that. And also, yes rezo I wanted to say that Mario Sunshine screenshots look very much like that of Mario 64. When I said the max poly/sec was 12 million I was only going by what specifications that Nintendo.com had, so I trusted it. Unfortunatly I do not own Rogue Leader. But I will trust that you speak the truth since you are an animator. Brotherman, yes that is true, power is nothing if devs cannot use it, unfortunatly Dreamcast barely got to really shine, it could do 2D great and 3D decently. But I believe PS2 is still untapped as well, with time the programmers will learn more about it, and some more techniques.

---

Yeah Nvidia does have a weird Naming convention and they trick alot of people with that
My friend learned alot about that stuff when he hung out with some of the Nvidia gusy drunk at a bar at 2 siggraphs ago

like i said the chip in the Xbox is like a tweaked Gefore3 think of it as a geforce 3.5


again i agree the PS2 hasnt been tapped yet but then again i dont think any system has been

i also really wish companies would make games pushing the strengths of the different platforms

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phire
I forgot to ask a question. John, does Rogue leader allow you to push Progressive video? and if it does, does it cause any impact to the framerate?

---

yes RL alows for Progressive scan and i actually got to experience the game in this on a HDTV and i noticed no slowdown or change to the performance at all

and i agree RL is overlooked by many gamers

to really appreciate the visuals of RL you need to watch some one else play it and see just how much is going on there in the graphics

trust me youll be amazed

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gongos
Oh, and one quick edit, if you dont have halo, dont worry, i rented it, got bored and returned it, it is an fps, adn they get really old, really fast, plus the vehical control was unimpressive, i liked the narrative delivery though, it made you feel a little more into the game.

---

I can say that about any game. "Yeah, those platformers, they get really old, really fast. Nothing but jump, jump, jump. Damn, that's boring." "Those racing games, they suck ass. All you do is drive in circles. Where's the fun in that?" "God, I hate those shmups. All you do is fly a little ship around on a 2D plane and shoot stuff. Whee."

The vehicle control is takes some time to get used to, but once you do, you'll realize how ingenious it really is. I HATED driving the Warthog for the first hour or so, and would actively avoid driving it even when I supposed to be using it. Then it hit me how great the control was. You have to forget everything you've been taught by every other racing/driving game ever made. And goddamn, I love those Banshees.

The other thing about Halo is it really shines in multiplayer. Get 4 Xboxes, TVs, and copies of Halo together with 16 people, and you'll see why those PC guys spend days playing without sleep in those freaky LAN parties. And I think 2 player co-op mode is even better.

People have gaming blindspots that prevents them from seeing the fun other people get out of a certain genre. Mine is definitely sports games, and Silent Hill 2.

For a lot of people weened on console games, it's FPS. I, however, still remember the joy of busting through Doom with a friend via modem. I thought nothing would ever top that, but Halo co-op puts it to shame. Played for the first time this weekend (co-op that is) and it's really a brilliant touch to an already great game.

But it's still an FPS game. Those people who don't like that genre should just give up. You'll never get it. :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gamevet

As far as Wreckless goes, Gamecube will soon be getting a port of that game. We'll see just how well Nintendo's little box handles it.

---

I think the PS2 is getting the port of it, or maybe its both. But yeah I agree, this will really show if the PS2 or the Cube can handle it, and it will show if the Xbox is really that superior. You people NEED to play Wreckless, I have played all the games mentioned in this Thread, and Wreckless truley stands above them in detail, and realism, well except for the characters, but the was meant to be like that. The lighting is better than all of those games, the textures are better than all of those games, the amazing effects are better. My god the heat effects are insane!! Wreckless really is the bench mark, but the lackluster reveiws I think are turning people away, from in my opinion is a great game. I am a crazy taxi game whore though. But if anything play a demo of this game at least and really look at the graphics, just look at them! Seeing your car in windows when you are driving down the street is crazy, or seeing the sun blast on to pavement and give of that odd reflective surface that pavement gives off, its sight to see.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint of Killers

Yeah, the GeForce 4 MX's are pieces of junk.

The Xbox has a really nice GPU, no doubt. It just ain't a Ti4600. Or any GeForce 4 Ti, for that matter. It essentially has a pumped up GeForce 3 Ti200, which is a great card to begin with.

---

I stoped reading at this.

GeForce3 Ti200 = Bad Ass. I married mine :)

From all I know - Xbox GPU = "NV2A" a variant of the NV20. I'm not sure what the diffrences are - but I'm told it's better :/ by nearly everyone.

ATI's most recent card is a piece of work I'm told. In an email from John Carmack to the Quake community (about the progress of Doom III) he mentioned being incredibly impressed with the new Radeon - mentioning something that Gamecube fans have been touteing for sometime now - that 8 pass business. I guess ATI has integrated that into their most recent card.

Now clearly Xbox is handicapped. The CPU is trash - but the GPU is a golden piece of work. Everything else about it is as nice as it gets for a console - but a AMD XP 64 Bit CPU would have been appreciated.

The Gamecube = powerfull, but I wouldn't use a game that has pre-rendered backgrounds a showcase of technological superiority. It is just not that. I looks good - presentation is 100% but the technical aspect of it leaves me thinking ANY SYSTEM (PS2 and Xbox) could do that. Not that it matters in terms of the game - it'll be great for RE fans reguardless.

Rallisport is impressive, but with work and time - that could probably be done well enough on GC. Halo, while lacking the IMMEDIATE graphical oohs and ahhs, is something that could only be done on Xbox (not because it is so spectacular, but because it is made just so) and high-end PC's. That to me is the technological definition of the systems. What can it do that others could not adequately (at the same level) do. Halo strikes me as a perfect example of this. Currently - nothing have I seen on PS2 or GC that could only be done exclusively on that system - barring PCs.... expect Time Crisis 2 (because Xbox doesn't yet have a Gun :)

Rouge Leader looked great, the lighting was what I liked best about it - speaking of incredible lighting... have YOU seen the Doom III video yet?

ºTracer

people need to stop putting Resident Evil Down and saying its just pre rendered backgrounds any system can do

have you seen the game in action on a tv if not then please dont comment

ive seen so many people eat their words once they see the game in action

once you see how much is going on with real time lighting and other effects

plus all the texturing going on (theres that 8 textures per pass that other systems cant do )

Look at it this way for the Xbox to do a GC game that is say doing 16 million polys a second and using all 8 textures per pass it has to do 32 million polys a second (2 passes of 4 textures) for the PS2 to do it ( i beleive it can only do 1 or 2 textures per pass) it would have to do either 128 million polys a second (8 texture passes) or 64 million polys a second (4 texture passes)

so while youd be seeing the same amount of polys on screen as the GC one was doing it would have to do alot more work to get the same texturing work

I dont think thats something people are realising

its all about finesse and reifinment over raw power

and i personally think Halo could be done on the GC easily and aybe be done on the PS2 if it was handled by one of the few teams that knows how to harness the PS2's power

OK then. Before we can say anything about RE, we need to know what polys the characters models are pushing, amount of textures used, etc. Then we can talk. And the fact that it looks good is only presentation and doesn't prove it's a graphical powerhouse of a game. *waits for stats*

From what I've seen of the RE videos, those backgrounds certainly don't look like they are just .bmps sitting there taking up zero processing power. They are lit up like crazy. I'd say the Cube is certainly throwing its muscle around on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TracerBullet
Rouge Leader looked great, the lighting was what I liked best about it - speaking of incredible lighting... have YOU seen the Doom III video yet?

---

Heh, if you put on the commentary for the first level, they talk about how proud they are of the real-time lighting in RL, because they actually upped the movies themselves in that manner during the space battles scenes.

*gasps* Doom III movie?! New one?! Must see!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clash_Master


I think the PS2 is getting the port of it, or maybe its both. But yeah I agree, this will really show if the PS2 or the Cube can handle it, and it will show if the Xbox is really that superior. You people NEED to play Wreckless, I have played all the games mentioned in this Thread, and Wreckless truley stands above them in detail, and realism, well except for the characters, but the was meant to be like that. The lighting is better than all of those games, the textures are better than all of those games, the amazing effects are better. My god the heat effects are insane!! Wreckless really is the bench mark, but the lackluster reveiws I think are turning people away, from in my opinion is a great game. I am a crazy taxi game whore though. But if anything play a demo of this game at least and really look at the graphics, just look at them! Seeing your car in windows when you are driving down the street is crazy, or seeing the sun blast on to pavement and give of that odd reflective surface that pavement gives off, its sight to see.

---

I still think the car models in Gran Tourismo 3 are more impressive, especially in the replay screens. Also, GT3 moves at a much faster pace. I've played a demo of wreckless, and while it is fairly impressive, it did'nt exactly bowl me over. The game was rather slow and repetetive. Also, the pavement effects in the night time track on GT3, during the rain are the most impressive surface effects I've seen in a racer.

OK, just got to comment to a few things here... Wreckless is amazing looking, however, I dont think a port to another system will be the end all be all of comparisons. Unless whoever is doing the porting, isnt porting it, and actually making it ground up for each system... aint gonna happen. So unless a fair and non biased developer comes along, and makes the same game, from the ground up for each system, and tries thier best to max out the system with each version of the game... there will be no singular way to directly compare the systems to each other.

Second, Halo can be done on PS2? Hahahaha... yeah. Im not saying it cant be done.. but it cant. I guess if you dont count bump mapping, lots of great textures, and the nice poly counts, then sure... Halo could be done perfectly on PS2. Otherwise, Xbox is simply is a class above PS2 graphicly.

Z-roe

*giggles*

I remember an old catch-phrase: spec-monkey ^_^

but honestly, a game won't push a system unless it's developed from the ground up for that specific system. Seeing as how doing that three times over for one title isn't gonna matter when it comes to sales, devs will port, multiplatform games will look like PS2 offerings, and most people won't care.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
*giggles*

I remember an old catch-phrase: spec-monkey ^_^

but honestly, a game won't push a system unless it's developed from the ground up for that specific system. Seeing as how doing that three times over for one title isn't gonna matter when it comes to sales, devs will port, multiplatform games will look like PS2 offerings, and most people won't care.

---

I guess I can be a spec-monkey sometimes, heh. I try not to show it very often, becuase when I do, it means Im not, "all about the games.". Because, apparently, enjoying the technical side of systems completely voids you of actually enjoying the game. And here I thought I was enjoying the fuck outta Rocket Knight Adventures just last night. Ok, Im ranting becuase Im angry at something people do that isnt even happening here... sorry.

You're right though, most of the time, GC and X-box titles will look close to PS2 titles, cause devs and pubs dont care. Maybe someday, a few will... and the gaming world will be a bit brighter.

Z-roe

nah, if you dig specs that doesn't null everything else. I don't care for people who espouse specs all day and think that aspect alone makes or breaks a system.