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

[Clash!]

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.

[Stone]

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.

[galvatron]

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.

[Brotherman]

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.

[MechDeus]

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.

[Clash!]

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?

[galvatron]

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.

[Clash!]

Heh, good point.

[Brotherman]

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.

[Zondaro]

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.

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.