4MB Video RAM a Problem?
Reinhard
what they're talking about.
Does anyone know how having only 4MB of video ram will limit the PS2?
Sony's stance is that the RAM is so fast and it is "embedded" RAM (whatever
that means), which will allow for extremely fast movement of textures in and
out of the video ram. Is this true?
How would having 8MB or 16 MB video ram improve the console? Since TV has an
upper limit of resolution of about 640 x 480, maybe Sony has determined that
4MB of video ram is all that is required to achieve this maximum resolution.
Anyone have any insights?
Gamer For Life
new testure techniques that use less the half the ram required in older
techiques. FXT1 used this, but the PS2 can even go further, and use smaller
textures.
"Reinhard" <rein...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:zS1O5.412$pD5....@quark.idirect.com...
Rob
http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/playstation2/ee-1.html
And another article comparing the PS2 and PC here:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/2q00/ps2/ps2vspc-1.html
Very good reading!
Kolgar
"Reinhard" <rein...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:zS1O5.412$pD5....@quark.idirect.com...
Sjoerd de Roest
Yes it is a problem. It's not only needed for the resolution of the games
but mostly for the textures. They can't compare to those on the x-box or
even the dreamcast.
Sjoerd
Omarichu
No it's not.
>They can't compare to those on the x-box or
>even the dreamcast.
Keep dreaming, idiot.
---
"I pledge allegiance to the snow of the United snow of America. And to the
republic for which it snows, one nation, under snow, indi-snow-ible, with
liberty and justice for snow." Man reading patriotic plaque immediately
following a snowstorm.
009
You're A Moron
Sjoerd de Roest <mys...@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
news:oq4O5.46852$%e4.7...@amoeba1.srv.nld.sonera.net...
Smax
wrote:
An article on IGN explains the situation very well. Here's the URL:
http://ps2.ign.com/news/16366.html
Here's the relevent passage on the VRAM:
"Let's take those one at a time," explained another developer.
"Texture RAM and V-RAM are the same thing. You have a certain amount,
in this case you have 4MBs. And you have to fit your screens and your
textures into it. So, if you have a lot of VRAM for your screens, then
you don't have much texture RAM, and you use less for your screens
then you have plenty of VRAM. This isn't the whole story. You also
have 32MBs of D-RAM, and that DRAM, which is were all of your code and
data goes, can have textures in it. And you can take textures from the
DRAM and shove it into VRAM. So, for example, you can have 2 MBs of
screen memory out of your 4 MBs, 2 MBs of texture RAM. Well that's not
the whole story. You can have another 4 MBs of texture RAM in DRAM,
and you can say, 'all right, I am going to draw all of my backgrounds
using the 2 MBs that's in VRAM, and I am going to swap that out for 2
MBs of foreground texture, and we're going to swap that out for some
other kind of texture.' Well, then total, you have 6 MBs, which is far
larger than the VRAM that the machine has. But of course that takes a
lot of really, really intricate programming and it takes a
second-generation game to get through to it.
"Everybody working right now [on PS2 games] is asking how much can
they shove into memory, and saying, 'I don't want to deal with any of
that complicated stuff, because the executives in my company only
understand deadlines and all they want is for me to do this game. So,
I'm going to do it as quick as I can.'
"But once you start playing around with the PS2, you have plenty of
memory to go around. Yes, it's a little tighter, maybe percentage wise
than it's been in the past, but hey you also have more power to do
smart things to get around it. So, it's simply going to take somebody
in the second generation to show you, 'Yes, you can work with that
much texture RAM.'
"The Dreamcast, by the way, has more texture RAM innately than PS2.
But in the end, bottom line, the PS2 will end up having more effective
textures than Dreamcast once programmers get used to working on it.
So, again, it's a simple misunderstanding of what you do easy and what
you do heard. Yeah, you're going to have to challenge yourself, but if
these are N64 developers talking, they should understand challenges!
You have a DVD on the system, you don't have to compress everything
like you did on cartridge. They're not saying, 'Hey, look at this,
it's a much better storage system!' They're programmers, so they're
whining! Programmers always whine.
"Still, you're right, textures are one of the difficulties you're
going to have on the PS. No doubt. Textures will be harder to manage
than they were on PlayStation and on N64. Why? Because Kutaragi-san
made the brilliant move, which has never been done before, of putting
VRAM on the chip, which ended up restricting the total amount of VRAM
you can have. So, we gain this incredibly super fast polygon-pushing
pipeline that can put out more polygons than any other system period,
and we lose the simple,
'just-don't-worry-about-it-just-load-up-your-textures-and-go-with-it'
attitude that you had on the previous systems. And remember the VRAM.
It's built into the chip -- it's on chip -- which by the way no other
system has ever had, and it's faster than any other system has ever
been.
"In fact, programming for the PS2 is going to be a challenge greater
than we have ever had before. However, the pay off, as soon as you get
a good system of management, is worth it. See, that's the key, it's
realizing it's worth the pain. The system of management is the way in
which you swap the DRAM and VRAM. The PS2 is many, many times more
powerful than the Dreamcast, and unbelievably more powerful than the
PlayStation. And eventually, these 'issues' will be become just
something that you have to work with. It's just the way it works. It's
slightly harder now to make a PS2 game than it was to make a PS game,
and it takes a lot more people now than it did five years ago."
John Kitchar
quote him exactly----but possibly I missed something...) some very very
unfortunate problems. I remember the two "verys"---he was sure to highlight
this.
Which *helps* explain why DC Quake3A runs and looks great compared to the
choppy PS2 Unreal. It also supports why Namco's R5 has near-zero textured
grey boxes for buildings. It also supports why Summoner has draw-in and runs
under 30 fps. I also explains why Capcom isn't *really* supporting the PS2.
I could go on and on and on...
The PS2 is obviously weak and flawed---yet insanely popular.
JMK
Reinhard wrote in message ...
Jack Calamari
"John Kitchar" jkit...@netpci.com wrote:
>According to id's John Carmack, the PS2's design has, (now I'm trying to
>quote him exactly----but possibly I missed something...) some very very
>unfortunate problems.
When John Carmack has even had the most rudimentary console programming
experience, I might be more inclined to listen to him.
>Which *helps* explain why DC Quake3A runs and looks great compared to the
>choppy PS2 Unreal.
Hold on a second. Quake runs at around 25 FPS with noticeable drops during
multiplayer fragging. I know, I've played it extensively on Seganet. I've also
rented Unreal, and that game runs much faster and more smoothly. It's not even
close. And have you compared the poly counts between Unreal and Quake3A? Quake
has some of the lowest poly characters on the Dreamcast.
>It also supports why Namco's R5 has near-zero textured
>grey boxes for buildings
Come again? The buildings in R5 are grey yes, but zero-textured? Where did you
get this from? I've put massive playtime into this very nice, very fast racer
and the buildings are nowhere near zero-textured. But yes, they're grey.
> It also supports why Summoner has draw-in and runs
>under 30 fps.
Hold on a second. Summoner runs at 30FPS at all times, regardless of what's
going on on screen. I've also put in massive playtime here. Have you? The
programmers were going for something like 3/4 million polygons/second with
Summoner. It wasn't meant to be a visual powerhouse. Still, it looks *very*
nice, draw-in problems notwithstanding. And in case you're confused, draw-in
has little to do with video memory.
>I also explains why Capcom isn't *really* supporting the PS2.
Street Fighter EX3, Onimusha, and Resident Evil 4 are all coming out for the
PS2. Is this some kind of catchall for you to explain away all the PS2
negatives you can gather? Do you realize how imbecilic this makes you look?
>I could go on and on and on...
I'm sure you could. You'd continue to be wrong and ignorant but that seems to
be your modus operandus. This kind of post is very dangerous to this ng. Things
have been so negative, what with Sega and Sony fans having to justify their
console decisions, that we don't need this kind of wrong-headed and
ill-supported diatribe polluting the ng. Sorry if I've offended you but your
post really rubbed me the wrong way.
Jack Calamari
Really, really upset at this post.
John Kitchar
Jack Calamari wrote in message
<20001108023835...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
>This is easily the most infantile response I've ever seen. Are you a troll?
>
>"John Kitchar" jkit...@netpci.com wrote:
>
>>According to id's John Carmack, the PS2's design has, (now I'm trying to
>>quote him exactly----but possibly I missed something...) some very very
>>unfortunate problems.
>
>When John Carmack has even had the most rudimentary console programming
>experience, I might be more inclined to listen to him.
>
So who TF are you---that we should listen to? Let me see...Caramck or YOU?
Funny.
>>Which *helps* explain why DC Quake3A runs and looks great compared to the
>>choppy PS2 Unreal.
>
>Hold on a second. Quake runs at around 25 FPS with noticeable drops during
>multiplayer fragging. I know, I've played it extensively on Seganet. I've
also
>rented Unreal, and that game runs much faster and more smoothly. It's not
even
>close. And have you compared the poly counts between Unreal and Quake3A?
Quake
>has some of the lowest poly characters on the Dreamcast.
This contradicts EVERY known review on this planet. Quake3A gets 9's and
above VS 8.x's for PS2 Unreal. Sorry, but you better do your homework before
coming in here lying like this. No one with any sense of objectivity would
rate PS2 Unreal higher than DC Quake3A---and indeed, no known review does.
Oh---but I should listen to YOU?
>
>>It also supports why Namco's R5 has near-zero textured
>>grey boxes for buildings
>
>Come again? The buildings in R5 are grey yes, but zero-textured? Where did
you
>get this from? I've put massive playtime into this very nice, very fast
racer
>and the buildings are nowhere near zero-textured. But yes, they're grey.
>
The PS2s 4 VRAM limitation forces shitty textures to recycle---hence the
same boring grey box buildings in R5 over and over. And now that I have your
attention, how about that pop-up and fog in two player mode? Face it, the
PS2 is flawed beyond belief. We are talking about a NAMCO flagship title
here, remember? NAMCO.
>> It also supports why Summoner has draw-in and runs
>>under 30 fps.
>
>Hold on a second. Summoner runs at 30FPS at all times, regardless of what's
>going on on screen. >I've also put in massive playtime here. Have you? The
>programmers were going for something like 3/4 million polygons/second with
>Summoner. It wasn't meant to be a visual powerhouse. Still, it looks *very*
>nice, draw-in problems notwithstanding. And in case you're confused,
draw-in
>has little to do with video memory.
So the PS2 has other flaws I'm not even aware of yet; thanks for the heads
up on the matter. Do you want me to post a review where it gets a 3.5 for
graphics and mentions choppy framerates? I can get pin-point specific if you
wish. Do you really want that? It would be better to back away from this
one. It would be all too easy for me to flood this thread with less than
average reviews of Summoner. But I should listen to you?
>
>>I also explains why Capcom isn't *really* supporting the PS2.
>
>Street Fighter EX3, Onimusha, and Resident Evil 4 are all coming out for
the
>PS2. Is this some kind of catchall for you to explain away all the PS2
>negatives you can gather? Do you realize how imbecilic this makes you look?
>
RE was canned essentially---start over from scratch said Capcom. I'll say
"NEVER happen" is a good guess. I say this because of Capcom's known support
of the GC which will launch before they EVER figure out how to deal with "a
tiny" 4mb VRAM in the PS2. SFEX3? Please. Yes, Onimusha with its
revolutionary pre-rendered backgrounds. I'm excited as hell about that one.
Where's all the 2D stuff? Powerstone1? Powerstone2? Powerstone3? Rival
Schools3? Spawn? Gunbirds? Cannonspike?
You are a funny guy.
>>I could go on and on and on...
>
>I'm sure you could. You'd continue to be wrong and ignorant but that seems
to
>be your modus operandus. This kind of post is very dangerous to this ng.
Things
>have been so negative, what with Sega and Sony fans having to justify their
>console decisions, that we don't need this kind of wrong-headed and
>ill-supported diatribe polluting the ng. Sorry if I've offended you but
your
>post really rubbed me the wrong way.
>
Same goes for your post. Exactly how I feel.
>Jack Calamari
>
>Really, really upset at this post.
JMK is really upset by the performance of the PS2. Sony specs: "20 million"
polygons/sec. More like 2-4M AND texture problems. Flawed?
SolidState
console, so he's branded a 'troll' (stop using that ridiculous and
nonsensical work you fools) and his opinion is regarded as blasphemy.
Sony's done a bang up job of recruiting you guys..... hope they're paying
you well.
If somebody makes a comment which 'rubs me the wrong way' I don't retaliate
with stupid remarks and infantile comebacks - I simply acknowledge this as
being someone's opinion. This IS a newsgroup - so STOP telling people
they're not welcome, they're dangerous, they're idiots - it's no good for
ANYONE.
Jack Calamari <jackca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001108023835...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
John Kitchar
http://www.segaweb.com/features/ps2tech.html
Snippets:
The truth is that the PS2 has never displayed more than 2-3 million polys in
a game. The main problem is a memory one. With only a 4MB VRAM cache on its
GS graphics processor, the PS2 is severely limited in what it can achieve on
screen. While it's true that 32MB of main memory and the fairly powerful
Emotion Engine processor are capable of producing in the neighborhood of
10-12 million textured and lit polygons/second, the poor design of the GS
and its small pipeline to main memory restrict the final number to roughly
half of that.
To better understand the PS2's limitations and the Dreamcast's strengths,
you need only look at the available video memory for your answer. While the
DC has 8MB of VRAM, the PS2 has only 4MB of VRAM. The main problem arises
because a polygon takes up roughly 40 bytes of RAM. When you have 5 million
of them in a given second, this amounts to 5 million/60fps = 83,333 polygons
in a give frame of animation. If each of these polygons uses 40 bytes of
VRAM, you will use 3.33 MB displaying these 5 million PPS. This doesn't
leave the PS2 much room for it's framebuffer which uses around 1.2MB just to
display the end data, not to mention that you still need to leave room for
textures to put on those polygons.
Now, there are a few tricks which will allow the PS2 to display 5-6 million
PPS, even though it only has a 4MB VRAM cache. One of them is to update the
cache more frequently than once a second. But, there are other bandwidth
limitations that prevent this from happening more than two or three times
per second and the net result is that the PS2 is still limited to 5- 6
million PPS.
(Snip great stuff about Dreamcast---OT)
By contrast, the PS2's GS processor has no ability to decompress textures on
the fly. This means that all texture data must flow over the relatively
small pipeline between main memory and the GS 4MB VRAM cache, at it's
original large size. Currently, this fact has limited PS2 games to only
around 10 MB of texture data/frame, and this is why the buildings look so
similar in Ridge Racer 5. Lack of variety in texturing has made most PS2
games look extremely plain when compared to Dreamcast games like Sonic
Adventure, Shenmue, and even Draconus: Cult of the Wyrm.
AzNsTyLe
don't think so. Could they explain why the textures look so great in Tekken
Tag, SSX, Kessen, Dynasty Warriors 2, The Bouncer, The Getaway, GT 3, and
more. The Dreamcast would choke when running most of these games I mentioned
especially Kessen. Oh do you actually know how the 4VRAM and 32 DRAM on the
PS2 work for yourself, cuz I don't, could you explain instead of getting it
from an *UNOFFICIAL* biased website?
"John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote in message
news:8ub5q...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Mortis[TiT]
whispered to the barman...
> >>According to id's John Carmack, the PS2's design has, (now I'm trying to
> >>quote him exactly----but possibly I missed something...) some very very
> >>unfortunate problems.
> >
> >When John Carmack has even had the most rudimentary console programming
> >experience, I might be more inclined to listen to him.
>
> So who TF are you---that we should listen to? Let me see...Caramck or YOU?
> Funny.
So because someone you've heard of says something, it automatically makes
it true? I'm not saying JC is incorrect but the fact is that he's used
to PCs and the PS2 has a completely different design.
> >>Which *helps* explain why DC Quake3A runs and looks great compared to the
> >>choppy PS2 Unreal.
> >
> >Hold on a second. Quake runs at around 25 FPS with noticeable drops during
> >multiplayer fragging. I know, I've played it extensively on Seganet. I've
> also
> >rented Unreal, and that game runs much faster and more smoothly. It's not
> even
> >close. And have you compared the poly counts between Unreal and Quake3A?
> Quake
> >has some of the lowest poly characters on the Dreamcast.
>
> This contradicts EVERY known review on this planet. Quake3A gets 9's and
> above VS 8.x's for PS2 Unreal. Sorry, but you better do your homework before
> coming in here lying like this. No one with any sense of objectivity would
> rate PS2 Unreal higher than DC Quake3A---and indeed, no known review does.
> Oh---but I should listen to YOU?
Never play PS2 UT so I can't say. I've heard some good things about DC
Q3A but being spoiled by the PC version it's not of interest. Same goes
for PS2 UT.
> The PS2s 4 VRAM limitation forces shitty textures to recycle---hence the
> same boring grey box buildings in R5 over and over. And now that I have your
> attention, how about that pop-up and fog in two player mode? Face it, the
> PS2 is flawed beyond belief. We are talking about a NAMCO flagship title
> here, remember? NAMCO.
Oh c'mon! R5 is a shit game - a fifth generation rehash of an original
shitty game. Should we value the DC based on such titles as Godzilla
Generations or Slave Zero?
> >> It also supports why Summoner has draw-in and runs
> >>under 30 fps.
> >
> >Hold on a second. Summoner runs at 30FPS at all times, regardless of what's
> >going on on screen. >I've also put in massive playtime here. Have you? The
> >programmers were going for something like 3/4 million polygons/second with
> >Summoner. It wasn't meant to be a visual powerhouse. Still, it looks *very*
> >nice, draw-in problems notwithstanding. And in case you're confused,
> >draw-in has little to do with video memory.
>
> So the PS2 has other flaws I'm not even aware of yet; thanks for the heads
> up on the matter. Do you want me to post a review where it gets a 3.5 for
> graphics and mentions choppy framerates? I can get pin-point specific if you
> wish. Do you really want that? It would be better to back away from this
> one. It would be all too easy for me to flood this thread with less than
> average reviews of Summoner.
IGN - 8.0 (gfx)
ZDNET - 8.0 (gfx)
Dailyradar - Hit
It's idiotic to claim such PS2 'flaws' which can so easily be disproved.
Take this example from an SSX review:
"However, as good as the characters are, they aren't as nearly impressive
as the game's immensely beautiful 3D environments. Each of the various
levels in the game are insanely large in scale and are built in a way
that you can pretty much go anywhere in them. So, where do we start? Do
we start with the wonderfully detailed textures that make the
environments look almost real? Or do we go into how there are so many
different graphical special effects that are littered throughout the
games courses that there's never really a boring part of any stretch of
the various tracks? Well, wherever we start, the end result is a game
that's nearly perfect in terms of visual presentation."
If the PS2 had these 'flaws' then we wouldn't be seeing reviews like
this.
> Where's all the 2D stuff? Powerstone1? Powerstone2? Powerstone3? Rival
> Schools3? Spawn? Gunbirds? Cannonspike?
Good question. It's a shame that everthing is 3D nowadays. The most
probable reason is that because the mass-market get's wowed by flashy 3D
gfx us 2D gamers are left out in the cold.
BTW: I though Powerstone was a 3D game, that one where you flew around an
arena and beat up opponents?
> JMK is really upset by the performance of the PS2. Sony specs: "20 million"
> polygons/sec. More like 2-4M AND texture problems. Flawed?
If the PS2 has these flaws then why are we getting some drop-dead
georgeous games on it?
--
___________________________________________________________
-Mortis[TiT]-
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Don't shoot the messanger. Unless he's an anorak-wearing
pigeon raper." - Nite (AGHLTFC)
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a conversation regading Win98:
Frugus(AGVSP2): [Win98] has bugs that are beyond
logical in nature.
HighJack(AGVSP2): Such as? I haven't found any bugs in 98.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teemoney(AGVSP2) quoted from several threads:
"Static pictures don't mean jack squat to me."
"Remember those "photo realistic" shots they had a couple
of months ago. Looks like that was a bunch of bullshit.
The real shots are jaggy as fuck. Check out the cars.
Another Sony must have that doesn't do it. Shit, Crazy
Taxi looks better.
"I don't go crazy over graphics. Graphics are way down on
the priority list for making good games. If I want to look
at something pretty I can just walk down to the Guggenheim."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Highjack(AGVSP2):
"Most of the screenshots were quite underwhelming. I can't
expect you to see the truth, though, can I?"
Highjack(AGVSP2):
"You can't trust them screenshots, can ya?"
-----------------------------------------------------------
When a cat is dropped, it always lands on its feet, and
when toast is dropped, it always lands buttered side down.
Therefore, if a slice of toast is strapped to a cat's back,
buttered side up, and the animal is then dropped, the two
opposing forces will cause it to hover, spinning inches
above the ground. If enough toast-laden felines were used,
they could form the basis of a high-speed monorail system.
___________________________________________________________
Mortis[TiT]
whispered to the barman...
> Here is another point of view:
>
> http://www.segaweb.com/features/ps2tech.html
Oh woe! A PS2 bashing post! How will I ever make souch a comeback!
/52 seconds later/
http://ps2.ign.com/news/16366.html
"But once you start playing around with the PS2, you have plenty of
memory to go around. Yes, it's a little tighter, maybe percentage wise
than it's been in the past, but hey you also have more power to do smart
things to get around it. So, it's simply going to take somebody in the
second generation to show you, 'Yes, you can work with that much texture
RAM.'
"The Dreamcast, by the way, has more texture RAM innately than PS2. But
in the end, bottom line, the PS2 will end up having more effective
textures than Dreamcast once programmers get used to working on it. So,
again, it's a simple misunderstanding of what you do easy and what you do
heard. Yeah, you're going to have to challenge yourself, but if these are
N64 developers talking, they should understand challenges! You have a DVD
on the system, you don't have to compress everything like you did on
cartridge. They're not saying, 'Hey, look at this, it's a much better
storage system!' They're programmers, so they're whining! Programmers
always whine.
"Still, you're right, textures are one of the difficulties you're going
to have on the PS. No doubt. Textures will be harder to manage than they
were on PlayStation and on N64. Why? Because Kutaragi-san made the
brilliant move, which has never been done before, of putting VRAM on the
chip, which ended up restricting the total amount of VRAM you can have.
So, we gain this incredibly super fast polygon-pushing pipeline that can
put out more polygons than any other system period, and we lose the
simple, 'just-don't-worry-about-it-just-load-up-your-textures-and-go-
with-it' attitude that you had on the previous systems. And remember the
VRAM. It's built into the chip -- it's on chip -- which by the way no
other system has ever had, and it's faster than any other system has ever
been.
"In fact, programming for the PS2 is going to be a challenge greater than
we have ever had before. However, the pay off, as soon as you get a good
system of management, is worth it. See, that's the key, it's realizing
it's worth the pain. The system of management is the way in which you
swap the DRAM and VRAM. The PS2 is many, many times more powerful than
the Dreamcast, and unbelievably more powerful than the PlayStation. And
eventually, these 'issues' will be become just something that you have to
work with. It's just the way it works. It's slightly harder now to make a
PS2 game than it was to make a PS game, and it takes a lot more people
now than it did five years ago."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You post a quote, I post a quote. What will you do next? Sing? Some
magic tricks perhaps?
Why don't you take your 'vs' arguments back into the Kindergarten
playground where they belong? I don't have a problem with the DC but I
just want to play the offerings on PS2 more. I have no problem with the
DC fans. It's a pity that you have *issues* with PS2 fans. Some may
wonder why.
Mortis[TiT]
to the barman...
> So let's see - the guy makes a good point which is critical of your beloved
> console, so he's branded a 'troll' (stop using that ridiculous and
> nonsensical work you fools) and his opinion is regarded as blasphemy.
No, he's branded a troll for his biased views. It takes no time at all
in finding soething which doesn't fit his argument but he's too caught up
on his hatred for a lump of plastic (or maybe the manufactorer) to listen
to the other side of the argument.
> Sony's done a bang up job of recruiting you guys..... hope they're paying
> you well.
As a matter of fact, they are. A system which has games that I want to
play is payment enough. I feel the same way about the DC.
> If somebody makes a comment which 'rubs me the wrong way' I don't retaliate
> with stupid remarks and infantile comebacks - I simply acknowledge this as
> being someone's opinion. This IS a newsgroup - so STOP telling people
> they're not welcome, they're dangerous, they're idiots - it's no good for
> ANYONE.
How sage you are! Now if only John could take your advice...
Jerry
> multiplayer fragging. I know, I've played it extensively on Seganet. I've
also
> rented Unreal, and that game runs much faster and more smoothly. It's not
even
> close. And have you compared the poly counts between Unreal and Quake3A?
Quake
> has some of the lowest poly characters on the Dreamcast.
You're very wrong here. I owned Q3DC for a week and returned it, largely
because I hated the framerate. But I just rented UTPS2, and have been
playing all night. But the framerate is even worse. I suddenly found myself
wanting to play Q3DC.
Of course, you can't have huge, heated battles in Q3 with only 3 bots, so
that may explain some of the difference. In a large battle (you and a couple
bots vs. a few enemy bots) the framerate goes way down, much lower than Q3
ever does.
If you look at split-screen playing the difference becomes even more
noticable. Q3DC in two player doesn't lose that many frames. UT is 2 player
split-screen is unplayable, and imo, they shouldn't have even bothered to
include it. We didn't even dare to try 3 player.
I never played Q3 online, so maybe the framerate gets worse then, and this
could explain your view. But since UT can't be played online, it would be
unfair to compare them that way anyway.
Jerry
I 'd vote for the troll defenders, becuase they just seem to have no clue.
"Mortis[TiT]" <mor...@satouk.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14734db68...@usenet.free-online.net...
> SolidState staggered into alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 and whispered
> to the barman...
>
> > So let's see - the guy makes a good point which is critical of your
beloved
> > console, so he's branded a 'troll' (stop using that ridiculous and
> > nonsensical work you fools) and his opinion is regarded as blasphemy.
>
> No, he's branded a troll for his biased views. It takes no time at all
> in finding soething which doesn't fit his argument but he's too caught up
> on his hatred for a lump of plastic (or maybe the manufactorer) to listen
> to the other side of the argument.
> ___________________________________________________________
DarienAllen.com
<jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
<snip>
John....you're lower lip is quivering again.
------------------------
Darien Allen
ICQ-2927081/AOL-Dezign369
Was wünscht jeder? KOPF!
Was benötigt jeder? KOPF!
Mortis[TiT]
the barman...
> So which is worse: trolling, or silly people who defend trolls?
> I 'd vote for the troll defenders, becuase they just seem to have no clue.
Definatley. Trolling is an art and some can be very entertaining.
Teemoney OTOH goes a bit too far with his insults and John here tries too
hard to be factually correct against a wealth of opposing evidence. He
needs to indroduce an element of fantasy and/or fantastical claims to
stick rigidly by. That would make him more entertaining.
Brad Matrix
wrote:
>I've read a lot about this issue, mostly from people who appear to not know
>what they're talking about.
>
>Does anyone know how having only 4MB of video ram will limit the PS2?
See
http://www.mastergamer.com/featuresinterviewodd2.html
Here's the quote from people who have been developing with the PS2 for
a while:
"
Ivan: Would do you think might have have been Sony's rationale behind
such
technical choices as only giving the system 4MB of video RAM?
Lorne: I have no idea. If the hardware designers had asked good game
developers, "What kind of system would you like to have?" it's hard to
believe that we'd still be looking at the same configuration of
hardware."
>Sony's stance is that the RAM is so fast and it is "embedded" RAM (whatever
>that means), which will allow for extremely fast movement of textures in and
>out of the video ram. Is this true?
>
>How would having 8MB or 16 MB video ram improve the console? Since TV has an
>upper limit of resolution of about 640 x 480, maybe Sony has determined that
>4MB of video ram is all that is required to achieve this maximum resolution.
>
>Anyone have any insights?
>
>
>
Cheers,
Brad Matrix
bradmatrix@hotmail-dotcom(replace -dot with .)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics can be made up to reflect anything.
75% of the population know that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Borton
"Sjoerd de Roest" <mys...@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
news:oq4O5.46852$%e4.7...@amoeba1.srv.nld.sonera.net...
No its not needed for textures which can be shuttled across from the main
ram, just like AGP graphics cards on PCs can run with tetxtures greater than
the amount of ram they have onboard by shuttling textures to and from the
system ram...and the PS2 can do this faster than current AGP4X technology
Jack Calamari
>You're very wrong here.
I don't think so. Like I said, I've had extensive playtime with both UT and Q3A
and think I'm qualified at making the distinction.
>But the framerate is even worse. I suddenly found myself
>wanting to play Q3DC.
But ... the framerate is faster in UT. These things are measurable.
>UT is 2 player
>split-screen is unplayable
Oh, come on. Let's nto go here. It's not anywhere close to unplayable. No need
for exaggeration.
>I never played Q3 online, so maybe the framerate gets worse then, and this
>could explain your view.
Well lag and framerate loss aren't exactly the same thing...
>But since UT can't be played online, it would be
>unfair to compare them that way anyway.
I agree. My point was that UT has a better framerate than Q3A (which doesn't
even reach 30FPS with nothing going on).
Jack Calamari
>So let's see - the guy makes a good point which is critical of your beloved
>console, so he's branded a 'troll'
Huh? Good point? Did you read the same post I did? He basically took 4 megs of
VRAM (a concept he obviously had no conception of) then went on to explain
every single myriad of problems based on it. Like, I said, it makes one look
like an imbecile and makes the environment around here very negative. Do you
like that?
>Sony's done a bang up job of recruiting you guys..... hope they're paying
>you well.
I was going to ask John how many kickbacks he gets from Sega actually.
>
>If somebody makes a comment which 'rubs me the wrong way' I don't retaliate
>with stupid remarks and infantile comebacks - I simply acknowledge this as
>being someone's opinion.
There's a difference between someone having a different opinion and someone
attempting to wrongly make factual assertions that are patently off-base.
>This IS a newsgroup - so STOP telling people
>they're not welcome, they're dangerous, they're idiots - it's no good for
>ANYONE.
I agree. But his post had already done the damage. A quick search on Dejanews
proved it wasn't the first time.
Jack Calamari
>So who TF are you---that we should listen to? Let me see...Caramck or YOU?
>Funny.
My point is is that he's coming to the system from a purely PC-minded view
(obviously, he's never programmed for a console in his life). As has been
proven over and over, the PS2 is about as far from a PC-like architecture as it
could be. That's why I take whatever he says (i.e., whatever you have him say)
with a giant grain of salt. However, I wonder whether you'd react the same way
were he singing the praises of the PS2 (which he could've been - do you have a
link for this or anything?)
>This contradicts EVERY known review on this planet.
That UT runs faster and has higher poly counts than Q3A? Please cite these
reviews.
>Quake3A gets 9's and
>above VS 8.x's for PS2 Unreal.
First of all, you can't compare reviews across platforms - as every review site
on Earth will tell you. Secondly, why do you think Quake got such a high score.
It certainly wasn't for its offline play.
>No one with any sense of objectivity would
>rate PS2 Unreal higher than DC Quake3A---and indeed, no known review does.
>Oh---but I should listen to YOU?
Yes you should. You obviously haven't put in the playtime on both titles like I
have. Sorry but I wasn't referring to the lure of online play. I was simply
talking framerate and poly counts. That's it. Again, have you played both
games?
>
>The PS2s 4 VRAM limitation forces shitty textures to recycle
Read my comments above. This is exactly the kind of thing a Carmack would say.
The VRAM isn't strictly VRAM as much as it is a cache to the EE, allowing easy
access back and forth.
>hence the
>same boring grey box buildings in R5 over and over.
Hence? The word "hence" should be used when one part of your statement leads
logically to the next. This isn't the case. The only factual thing you've said
is that the buildings in RV are grey. They're neither zero-textured or boring
(although how exciting do you want buildings to be when you're speeding by them
at 60FPS?) I suppose maybe you hate grey things but otherwise, what are you
going for here?
>And now that I have your
>attention, how about that pop-up and fog in two player mode?
Categorize under barely noticeable. But in your massive playtime on the title,
has it bothered you?
>Face it, the
>PS2 is flawed beyond belief.
Because of boring grey boxes, right? This is what I'm talking about. You need
to follow your statements logically into your conclusions. Otherwise you come
off as a half-strung dolt. Or a troll. Is that what you're going for?
>We are talking about a NAMCO flagship title
>here, remember? NAMCO.
Yes, I do know who produced R5, thanks. I also know that the game is one of the
best-looking racers I've ever seen, that it's damn fast, and a lot of fun. I
also know that it was a Japanese launch title and has undergone not one change
for its American release. Still, it's a AAA title to be sure.
>And in case you're confused,
>draw-in
>>has little to do with video memory.
>
>So the PS2 has other flaws I'm not even aware of yet; thanks for the heads
>up on the matte
You are a troll. There's no other explanation. You made the laughable assertion
that VRAM was related to the draw-in in one particular game, I proved you
wrong, and you backpeddled. You're not very good at this.
>Do you want me to post a review where it gets a 3.5 for
>graphics and mentions choppy framerates?
Do you want me to post my own review resulting from actual playtime on the
title. Which do you think is more credible? Which do you think the readers in
this ng will take more seriously? Your random reviews and wrong-headed diatribe
easily proven wrong, or someone who has played through Summoner and can
actually comment on it? Eh?
>But I should listen to you?
Yes you should. Again, I've played through the title. You haven't. First-hand
knowledge is of greater benefit than second-hand knowledge.
>RE was canned essentially---start over from scratch said Capcom.
RE wasn't canned. Now you're lying? What's wrong with you?
>I say this because of Capcom's known support
>of the GC which will launch before they EVER figure out how to deal with "a
>tiny" 4mb VRAM in the PS2.
Again, your knowledge (or lack thereof) of the PS2's internal memory structures
has come back to haunt you. Please give it up. You're only making yourself look
worse.
>SFEX3? Please.
Wow, I'm convinced!
>Yes, Onimusha with its
>revolutionary pre-rendered backgrounds. I'm excited as hell about that one.
As am I. Every preview I read has me anticipating this juggernaut of a title.
Honestly, this is one of my most anticipated PS2 titles (along with Bouncher
and Star Wars). It should be great.
>Where's all the 2D stuff?
2D is anathema to Sony's internal politics.
>Powerstone1? Powerstone2? Powerstone3? Rival
>Schools3? Spawn? Gunbirds? Cannonspike?
>
All on the Dreamcast. I own most of them. What do I need with ports? Exclusive
content is always better.
>JMK is really upset by the performance of the PS2. Sony specs: "20 million"
>polygons/sec. More like 2-4M AND texture problems. Flawed?
5-7 million polys without texture problems. Again, you have no knowledge of the
PS2's internal programming regimens. Your posts prove this. You should back off
this insane premise lest you make yourself look even more ignorant.
Ste Birmo
> Ivan: Would do you think might have have been Sony's rationale
> behind such technical choices as only giving the system 4MB of
> video RAM?
>
> Lorne: I have no idea.
That figures. :-)
As many experienced programmers have already pointed out, there
are various techniques you can employ in order to manipulate and so
increase the available texture space on PlayStation2. For various
reasons (time etc) such solutions were not sought and implemented
in most of the first generation stuff, but the signs are that more and
more second gen games are exploring and taking advantage of
these methods.
Phat H Tran
<jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
>Here is another point of view:
>
>http://www.segaweb.com/features/ps2tech.html
>
>Snippets:
>
>The truth is that the PS2 has never displayed more than 2-3 million polys in
>a game.
You would believe any amount of Sega fanboy propaganda, John. Several
PS2 developers have already stated that their graphics engines are
pushing 10-20 million polygons/s on PS2. Naughty Dog, at least 10,
LithTech engine, around 15, Polyphony's GT3, around 20, SCEE's
Dropship, "in the double digits".
>To better understand the PS2's limitations and the Dreamcast's strengths,
>you need only look at the available video memory for your answer. While the
>DC has 8MB of VRAM, the PS2 has only 4MB of VRAM. The main problem arises
>because a polygon takes up roughly 40 bytes of RAM. When you have 5 million
>of them in a given second, this amounts to 5 million/60fps = 83,333 polygons
>in a give frame of animation. If each of these polygons uses 40 bytes of
>VRAM, you will use 3.33 MB displaying these 5 million PPS. This doesn't
>leave the PS2 much room for it's framebuffer which uses around 1.2MB just to
>display the end data, not to mention that you still need to leave room for
>textures to put on those polygons.
Complete and utter crap. The polygon model data takes up main RAM
(not VRAM) proportional to their complexity, but the polygon rendering
pipeline does not need RAM proportional to the number of polygons
rendered per second. Anybody with the most basic understanding of
graphics would know this.
>(Snip great stuff about Dreamcast---OT)
You haven't a clue.
>By contrast, the PS2's GS processor has no ability to decompress textures on
>the fly. This means that all texture data must flow over the relatively
>small pipeline between main memory and the GS 4MB VRAM cache, at it's
>original large size.
This "relatively small pipeline" between main memory and the GS, used
mainly for texture fetching, is at least 50% larger than the entire
pipe the DC has to its VRAM for frame buffer, Z-buffer, and texture
access.
Phat.
---
To e-mail, remove obvious clutter from address.
Phat H Tran
<jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
>According to id's John Carmack, the PS2's design has, (now I'm trying to
>quote him exactly----but possibly I missed something...) some very very
>unfortunate problems. I remember the two "verys"---he was sure to highlight
>this.
Carmack also said that PS2 is "definitely more powerful than
Dreamcast". So, if the PS2 is "weak and flawed", as you put it, then
your previous DC must be more so, right?
>Which *helps* explain why DC Quake3A runs and looks great compared to the
>choppy PS2 Unreal. It also supports why Namco's R5 has near-zero textured
>grey boxes for buildings. It also supports why Summoner has draw-in and runs
>under 30 fps. I also explains why Capcom isn't *really* supporting the PS2.
>I could go on and on and on...
You do already go on and on and on like an idiot about the same 3 or 4
titles... I bet five years down the road, after FFXII sells 10
million copies on PS2, you'll still be pointing at UT to "prove" that
PS2 is "weak and flawed".
DarienAllen.com
<jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
>Sorry I snipped all the rest---I don't have the time to reply to all that
>now. Later I will. But I find this interesting. I say 2-4M and you say 5-7M.
>I'd say we are pretty close to agreeing that the PS2 is flawed when you
>consider Sony's spec sheet claims 20M.
>
>Look Jack, when the DC launched, Sony spoiled the show by lying about a new
>console that was "revolutionary" and "many times" more powerful than the DC.
>Even Sony's own spec sheet today claims 20M polys. Just *look* where we are
>now---even you saying 5-7M. BTW, I still say 2-4M tops.
>
>This kind of false marketing (to *this* extent) hurt the DC obviously---and
>I'm here to collect the bill. The PS2 doesn't perform anywhere near stated
>claims so it's flawed. That's what flawed means correct?
>
>So I'm a troll--sure. Just look at the subject line in this thread and think
>for yourself.
Wow John way to skip the really good points of his response(I know, I
know you'll respond later). I'd hope so because he's got you pinned
down on quite a few issues...can't wait to see how you attempt to
squirm out of them.
DarienAllen.com
pt...@you.know.the.drill.rim.net (Phat H Tran) we were graced with
this statement:
>>By contrast, the PS2's GS processor has no ability to decompress textures on
>>the fly. This means that all texture data must flow over the relatively
>>small pipeline between main memory and the GS 4MB VRAM cache, at it's
>>original large size.
>
>This "relatively small pipeline" between main memory and the GS, used
>mainly for texture fetching, is at least 50% larger than the entire
>pipe the DC has to its VRAM for frame buffer, Z-buffer, and texture
>access.
Wow John another spanking...how are you feeling today?
Jerry
> "Jerry" jerryl...@mail.com wrote:
>
> >You're very wrong here.
>
> I don't think so. Like I said, I've had extensive playtime with both UT
and Q3A
> and think I'm qualified at making the distinction.
>
> >But the framerate is even worse. I suddenly found myself
> >wanting to play Q3DC.
>
> But ... the framerate is faster in UT. These things are measurable.
>
Then measure them and report back the results.
> >UT is 2 player
> >split-screen is unplayable
>
> Oh, come on. Let's nto go here. It's not anywhere close to unplayable. No
need
> for exaggeration.
>
Believe me, I wish I was exaggerating. I'm a UT PC fanatic, and the idea of
playing 4 player split screen with my console gaming friends is something
I've been really looking forward to. But the two player split screen is
extremely jerky. It's very easy to become disoriented, characters seem to
teleport around, etc. etc.
> >I never played Q3 online, so maybe the framerate gets worse then, and
this
> >could explain your view.
>
> Well lag and framerate loss aren't exactly the same thing...
>
What I'm saying is that maybe the DC uses a bunch of overhead for the modem,
and that detracts from the framerate.
> >But since UT can't be played online, it would be
> >unfair to compare them that way anyway.
>
> I agree. My point was that UT has a better framerate than Q3A (which
doesn't
> even reach 30FPS with nothing going on).
Like I said, I'll rent Q3 tonight and compare them side by side.
Jack Calamari
>>You do already go on and on and on like an idiot about the same 3 or 4
>>titles...
>
>I could easily add more---Oddworld, Hiresvglr (sp?), that surfing H2O game,
Is this a threat to use more of your same tactics as you did when you said
you'd flood the thread with Summoner reviews? Are you aware that threatening to
continue using your own inept argumentations is only going to dig you a bigger
hole? Please get some new material.
>But would you use that to argue that the PS2 isn't weak and
>flawed?
He doesn't have to argue anything until you present your case with some actual
logic.
>Sales have nothing to do with it.
Of course they don't because you disagree with them.
Jack Calamari
>Jerry---thankyou very much for telling the truth about PS2 Unreal's
>framerate.
Translation: "Jerry, thank you very much for confirming what I desperately
wanted to believe despite massive evidence to the contrary. I know framerate is
a quantifiable measure, one which has already shown that Unreal is faster than
Q3A but I'm ecstatic that someone else was wrong about the same thing I was."
>The best I can do is the reviews and second hand reports
This is the point. If this is the best you can do, you shouldn't be doing this.
Everything I've claimed has come from massive playtime with whatever title I'm
commenting on. These are the only opinions worth considering. Sorry.
>He said that DC Q3A framerate in the split screen is much
>smoother than PS2 Unreal splitscreen and the graphics? Forget about it, DC
>Q3A blows PS2 Unreal away.
Well I would advise your friend to get some glasses because the polys in the
PS2 game are much higher and the framerate is not only smoother but faster.
I've played both games. You haven't. Again, sorry.
>This finally tipped the scale for him BTW, he's purchasing a DC this
>weekend. PS2 Unreal was that much of a letdown.
So PC ports are how he decides to buy a console? Maybe he is your friend after
all.
Jack Calamari
>Sorry I snipped all the rest---I don't have the time to reply to all that
>now. Later I will.
I urge you not to. Seriously. I thought your first post was you just being a
meathead or something and I would knock some sense into you but the more and
more I reply to your posts, the more I feel like I'm talking to a gibbering
monkey. One who, getting pissed off that everyone else is getting what I'm
saying, runs around "ooking" and eating bananas, desperately trying to get
attention while holding his hands to his ears. Your sentence structure,
grammar, and word choice all seem fine but they're underlined with a
mind-numbing ignorance that I have rarely come across. Sorry, just my opinion.
>I say 2-4M and you say 5-7M.
Without texture problems in the launch games now. Compare the Dreamcast launch
games with those being released today. Do they look better, sometimes much
better than what was released before? Yes. Will the same thing happen with the
PS2? Yes.
>I'd say we are pretty close to agreeing that the PS2 is flawed when you
>consider Sony's spec sheet claims 20M.
And programmers are already getting these numbers so I'd say Sony was right and
you're wrong.
>Look Jack, when the DC launched, Sony spoiled the show by lying about a new
>console that was "revolutionary" and "many times" more powerful than the DC.
Sony didn't lie, sorry. Within the PS2's lifetime (probably near the end of
next year) we will see software many times more powerful than what is out for
the Dreamcast. I'm sorry this bothers you so much but that's the truth. Get
someone with even the most rudimentary programming experience to explain the
differences between the specs in the PS2 and the Dreamcast. The former is
exceptionally more powerful.
>Just *look* where we are
>now---even you saying 5-7M. BTW, I still say 2-4M tops.
I DON'T CARE. You have yet to show one sliver of programming understanding so
you can imagine what I think about what you say.
>This kind of false marketing (to *this* extent) hurt the DC obviously
I don't think so. The Dreamcast has 2.5 million owners in the U.S. in just over
one year. That is a spectacular number that has yet to be beaten - though I
suspect the PS2 will. There is very little correlation between the PS2's false
marketing - which wasn't false to begin with since these results will start
showing themselves with time - and DC sales.
>and
>I'm here to collect the bill.
Jesus, you're sick. Please seek psychiatric intervention ASAP. File this one
under delusions of grandeur.
>The PS2 doesn't perform anywhere near stated
>claims so it's flawed.
You have two problems here. One, the PS2 performs exactly as it should in this
stage of its life. Precisely. If you understood console longevity, you'd
understand this. And secondly, showing off slight graphical problems in launch
software (most of which was refuted as actaully being a problem) doesn't show
performance problems of the hardware. Sorry. You seem to understand this with
regards to the Dreamcast - a simple search of Dejanews will bring up your posts
regarding Q3's framerate. The apologist nature of these posts is appalling
considering what you say about the PS2 here. With you, bad games on the PS2
means flawed hardware while bad games on the DC means poor software
programming. You can't have it both ways.
>That's what flawed means correct?
Of course not.
>So I'm a troll--sure
No, I'm now convinced you're deliberately ignorant - not to mention
unbelievably bitter.
>Just look at the subject line in this thread and think
>for yourself.
The answer is no.
Jak Crow
> You're very wrong here. I owned Q3DC for a week and returned it, largely
> because I hated the framerate. But I just rented UTPS2, and have been
> playing all night. But the framerate is even worse. I suddenly found myself
> wanting to play Q3DC.
> Of course, you can't have huge, heated battles in Q3 with only 3 bots, so
> that may explain some of the difference. In a large battle (you and a couple
> bots vs. a few enemy bots) the framerate goes way down, much lower than Q3
> ever does.
> If you look at split-screen playing the difference becomes even more
> noticable. Q3DC in two player doesn't lose that many frames. UT is 2 player
> split-screen is unplayable, and imo, they shouldn't have even bothered to
> include it. We didn't even dare to try 3 player.
> I never played Q3 online, so maybe the framerate gets worse then, and this
> could explain your view. But since UT can't be played online, it would be
> unfair to compare them that way anyway.
What do people expect from ports of two of the most bloaty PC
games ever made? :)
Jerry
> "John Kitchar" jkit...@netpci.com wrote:
>
> >Jerry---thankyou very much for telling the truth about PS2 Unreal's
> >framerate.
>
> Translation: "Jerry, thank you very much for confirming what I desperately
> wanted to believe despite massive evidence to the contrary. I know
framerate is
> a quantifiable measure, one which has already shown that Unreal is faster
than
> Q3A but I'm ecstatic that someone else was wrong about the same thing I
was."
>
with an s-video switchbox.
In one player mode with one bot, they're actually very close. UT gets a
slightly worse framerate, which gets even worse in the heat of combat. But
in that test they were so close that most people wouldn't even notice the
difference.
In split-screen my memory served me much better. Q3 lost only a few frames,
compared to UTs abysmal framerate.
So neither has a huge framerate advantage in one player mode, contrary to my
earlier post.
> >The best I can do is the reviews and second hand reports
>
> This is the point. If this is the best you can do, you shouldn't be doing
this.
> Everything I've claimed has come from massive playtime with whatever title
I'm
> commenting on. These are the only opinions worth considering. Sorry.
>
> >He said that DC Q3A framerate in the split screen is much
> >smoother than PS2 Unreal splitscreen and the graphics? Forget about it,
DC
> >Q3A blows PS2 Unreal away.
>
I'm a Sony fanboy, and even I'll admit that Q3A blows away UT. Just compare
the texture quality.
> Well I would advise your friend to get some glasses because the polys in
the
> PS2 game are much higher and the framerate is not only smoother but
faster.
> I've played both games. You haven't. Again, sorry.
>
Much higher? If they are, it's not readily apparent. And the texture quality
in Q3 is much better.
You really ought to actually compare both games at the same time. Memory can
be unreliable, as I can now attest to.
> >This finally tipped the scale for him BTW, he's purchasing a DC this
> >weekend. PS2 Unreal was that much of a letdown.
>
> So PC ports are how he decides to buy a console? Maybe he is your friend
after
> all.
IMHO, deciding a console's superiority on the basis of one game is fairly
ignorant. We Sony fans could compare SSX and Rippin' Riders, two
snowboarding games. If you used these two games, the obvious conclusion
would be that the DC is barely more powerful than a PSX, and that the PS2 is
many years ahead of it.
UT was designed by programmers who where new to a completely new
architecture. Plus, the game has a very "rushed to market" feel to it. In
contrast, Q3 was obviously designed by programmers with plenty of DC
experience.
Jerry
"Jak Crow" <new...@werewolves.org> wrote in message
news:8ucmsc$sck$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> What do people expect from ports of two of the most bloaty PC
> games ever made? :)
>
framerate. Or dropped some just for split-screen multiplayer.
Guess I'm stuck with TimeSplitters for 4 player gaming goodness.
Darn.
:)
John Kitchar
a friend who plays DC Q3A a lot (split screen) and just last week, he played
PS2 Unreal. He said that DC Q3A framerate in the split screen is much
smoother than PS2 Unreal splitscreen and the graphics? Forget about it, DC
Q3A blows PS2 Unreal away.
This finally tipped the scale for him BTW, he's purchasing a DC this
weekend. PS2 Unreal was that much of a letdown.
JMK
Jerry wrote in message <4YbO5.706$Et6.2...@nnrp3.sbc.net>...
>
>"Jack Calamari" <jackca...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20001108023835...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
>> Hold on a second. Quake runs at around 25 FPS with noticeable drops
during
>> multiplayer fragging. I know, I've played it extensively on Seganet. I've
>also
>> rented Unreal, and that game runs much faster and more smoothly. It's not
>even
>> close. And have you compared the poly counts between Unreal and Quake3A?
>Quake
>> has some of the lowest poly characters on the Dreamcast.
>
John Kitchar
Jack Calamari wrote in message
<20001108121703...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
>>JMK is really upset by the performance of the PS2. Sony specs: "20
million"
>>polygons/sec. More like 2-4M AND texture problems. Flawed?
>
>5-7 million polys without texture problems. Again, you have no knowledge of
the
>PS2's internal programming regimens. Your posts prove this. You should back
off
>this insane premise lest you make yourself look even more ignorant.
Sorry I snipped all the rest---I don't have the time to reply to all that
now. Later I will. But I find this interesting. I say 2-4M and you say 5-7M.
I'd say we are pretty close to agreeing that the PS2 is flawed when you
consider Sony's spec sheet claims 20M.
Look Jack, when the DC launched, Sony spoiled the show by lying about a new
console that was "revolutionary" and "many times" more powerful than the DC.
Even Sony's own spec sheet today claims 20M polys. Just *look* where we are
now---even you saying 5-7M. BTW, I still say 2-4M tops.
This kind of false marketing (to *this* extent) hurt the DC obviously---and
I'm here to collect the bill. The PS2 doesn't perform anywhere near stated
claims so it's flawed. That's what flawed means correct?
So I'm a troll--sure. Just look at the subject line in this thread and think
for yourself.
JMK
John Kitchar
Phat H Tran wrote in message <3a0b9861...@news.rim.net>...
>You do already go on and on and on like an idiot about the same 3 or 4
>titles...
I could easily add more---Oddworld, Hiresvglr (sp?), that surfing H2O game,
.....
I bet five years down the road, after FFXII sells 10
>million copies on PS2, you'll still be pointing at UT to "prove" that
>PS2 is "weak and flawed".
>
I admitted that the PS2 will probably be insanely popular. FFXII will sell
well of course. But would you use that to argue that the PS2 isn't weak and
flawed? Sales have nothing to do with it.
JMK
Phat H Tran
<jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
>
>Phat H Tran wrote in message <3a0b9861...@news.rim.net>...
>
>I bet five years down the road, after FFXII sells 10
>>million copies on PS2, you'll still be pointing at UT to "prove" that
>>PS2 is "weak and flawed".
>>
>
>I admitted that the PS2 will probably be insanely popular. FFXII will sell
>well of course. But would you use that to argue that the PS2 isn't weak and
>flawed? Sales have nothing to do with it.
I'm not trying to argue a case using sales. I'm merely predicting
that you'll continue to ignore games that properly take advantage of
the PS2 and stick to hurriedly programmed launch games as cornerstones
in your campaign against the PS2.
Omarichu
>for the Wolfenstein and DOOM ports for the Jaguar console
Wow, the Jaguar. Score!
>Objectively,
>I find it hard to believe that the PS2 designers could put together
>such a strong 3D gaming platform with a fundamental design flaw that
>some critics are claiming.
Well the critics are wrong. That's why they're critics and not actual
successful people. You'll find this in all walks of life.
>I must also say that I've read many
>articles and interviews about the alleged 4MB VRAM deficiency and each
>critic and ps2 advocate seems to be biased.
It's not a deficiency. Anyone who says it is is a complete idiot. Hope that
clears things up for you.
---
"I pledge allegiance to the snow of the United snow of America. And to the
republic for which it snows, one nation, under snow, indi-snow-ible, with
liberty and justice for snow." Man reading patriotic plaque immediately
following a snowstorm.
John Kitchar
Jack Calamari wrote in message
>Is this a threat to use more of your same tactics as you did when you said
>you'd flood the thread with Summoner reviews?
Nah---I'll try to keep things fresh Jack, just for you.
Here's a first hand report of EA's Nascar on the PS2 which further supports
my opinion that the PS2 is weak and flawed:
This comes from today's posts BTW.
"I am very disappointed with Nascar 2001 for the PS2. The jaggies are very
apparent in this title. The way the resolution drops when you check your
rear view mirror is very irritating. So are the stuttery graphics that show
up when there is contact between cars. Sometimes it seems that the framerate
is inconsistent. It really makes no sense. I mean there are only 20 cars on
the track and the track detail is nothing spectacular so what's up with the
graphics problems with this PS2 title? Where's the power of this system?
Sigh.... I really cannot see myself playing this game. Back it goes."
Larry
John Kitchar
Phat H Tran wrote in message <3a09eb4f....@news.rim.net>...
>I'm not trying to argue a case using sales. I'm merely predicting
>that you'll continue to ignore games that properly take advantage of
>the PS2 and stick to hurriedly programmed launch games as cornerstones
>in your campaign against the PS2.
>
Lets put things into proper perspective Phat. Dial the clock back to pre-DC
launch. Sega hyped the DC to be many times more powerful than the N64 and
PSX---I believe 3M polys was the number then. Now let's imagine the DC
real-world performance being only *about* equal to the N64 or PSX. Would you
call the DC flawed? Of course because it was claimed to push 3M polys. But
Sony is excused of course. Sony gets another *year* to prove PS2
performance. Would Sega get this chance if the DC performed like the N64?
So now we have every known PS2 developer digging-in and really racking their
brains trying to extract some kind of significant performance gain over the
DC before the mighty X-Box launches. It's very interesting to observe all
this *waste* from the sideline---because I believe that if these same
developers tried THIS hard with DC development, better products would follow
on the DC than PS2. Maybe some developer will put together *something*
interesting, maybe not. It really doesn't matter with the X-Box coming next
fall, does it?
JMK
John Kitchar
Jack Calamari wrote in message
>"John Kitchar" jkit...@netpci.com wrote:
>
>>Jerry---thankyou very much for telling the truth about PS2 Unreal's
>>framerate.
>
>wanted to believe despite massive evidence to the contrary.
What massive evidence? Where? Jack---please point me at ONE review site that
rates PS2 Unreal higher than DC Q3A. Just one Jack.
>>The best I can do is the reviews and second hand reports
>
>This is the point. If this is the best you can do, you shouldn't be doing
this.
>Everything I've claimed has come from massive playtime with whatever title
I'm
>commenting on. These are the only opinions worth considering. Sorry.
>
Sorry Jack, but I believe my friend's report, and this Jerry above way more
than you. You obviously have an axe to grind here and cannot be taken at
face value. Maybe you are some small developer trying to blame newsgroup
"trolls" for your horrible performing/selling PS2 title---who knows. Who
cares?
>>He said that DC Q3A framerate in the split screen is much
>>smoother than PS2 Unreal splitscreen and the graphics? Forget about it, DC
>>Q3A blows PS2 Unreal away.
>
>Well I would advise your friend to get some glasses because the polys in
the
>PS2 game are much higher and the framerate is not only smoother but faster.
>I've played both games. You haven't. Again, sorry.
>
I confirmed this again today. Nope--no way Jack, you lose. PS2 Unreal in
split screen is a choppy mess compared to DC Q3A. Jack, it REALLY looks like
you are lying here. I have two players confirming---plus Jerry, makes it
three against one. Jack---maybe you need glasses...
>>This finally tipped the scale for him BTW, he's purchasing a DC this
>>weekend. PS2 Unreal was that much of a letdown.
>
>So PC ports are how he decides to buy a console? Maybe he is your friend
after
>all.
Ah, back to the old and trusty "PC port" excuse. My friend is actually a big
PC Unreal fan so yeah, the PC port of Unreal is important to him. Something
is wrong with people liking PC games like Unreal? Anyway, it's perfectly
clear what he reports about the PS2 version of Unreal---and it ain't good.
In contrast, he is impressed and respects DC Quake3A---enough to sway him
into purchasing a DC this weekend. Shenmue also helped of course. I've
always said the PS2 was flawed partly because of difficulty in porting PC
games.
JMK
Mortis[TiT]
whispered to the barman...
> >I'm not trying to argue a case using sales. I'm merely predicting
> >that you'll continue to ignore games that properly take advantage of
> >the PS2 and stick to hurriedly programmed launch games as cornerstones
> >in your campaign against the PS2.
>
> Lets put things into proper perspective Phat. Dial the clock back to pre-DC
> launch. Sega hyped the DC to be many times more powerful than the N64 and
> PSX---I believe 3M polys was the number then. Now let's imagine the DC
> real-world performance being only *about* equal to the N64 or PSX. Would you
> call the DC flawed? Of course because it was claimed to push 3M polys. But
> Sony is excused of course. Sony gets another *year* to prove PS2
> performance. Would Sega get this chance if the DC performed like the N64?
What the hell? If there were only shite games on the DC then I would say
it's flawed. There aren't - it's not. Every console has been hyped up
before launch - does anyone actually buy that?
> So now we have every known PS2 developer digging-in and really racking their
> brains trying to extract some kind of significant performance gain over the
> DC before the mighty X-Box launches. It's very interesting to observe all
> this *waste* from the sideline---because I believe that if these same
> developers tried THIS hard with DC development, better products would follow
> on the DC than PS2. Maybe some developer will put together *something*
> interesting, maybe not. It really doesn't matter with the X-Box coming next
> fall, does it?
Because we've bought into the X-Box hype perhaps?
--
___________________________________________________________
-Mortis[TiT]-
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Don't shoot the messanger. Unless he's an anorak-wearing
pigeon raper." - Nite (AGHLTFC)
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a conversation regading Win98:
Frugus(AGVSP2): [Win98] has bugs that are beyond
logical in nature.
HighJack(AGVSP2): Such as? I haven't found any bugs in 98.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teemoney(AGVSP2) quoted from several threads:
"Static pictures don't mean jack squat to me."
"Remember those "photo realistic" shots they had a couple
of months ago. Looks like that was a bunch of bullshit.
The real shots are jaggy as fuck. Check out the cars.
Another Sony must have that doesn't do it. Shit, Crazy
Taxi looks better.
"I don't go crazy over graphics. Graphics are way down on
the priority list for making good games. If I want to look
at something pretty I can just walk down to the Guggenheim."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Highjack(AGVSP2):
"Most of the screenshots were quite underwhelming. I can't
expect you to see the truth, though, can I?"
Highjack(AGVSP2):
"You can't trust them screenshots, can ya?"
-----------------------------------------------------------
When a cat is dropped, it always lands on its feet, and
when toast is dropped, it always lands buttered side down.
Therefore, if a slice of toast is strapped to a cat's back,
buttered side up, and the animal is then dropped, the two
opposing forces will cause it to hover, spinning inches
above the ground. If enough toast-laden felines were used,
they could form the basis of a high-speed monorail system.
___________________________________________________________
Mortis[TiT]
whispered to the barman...
> >>Jerry---thankyou very much for telling the truth about PS2 Unreal's
> >>framerate.
> >
> >Translation: "Jerry, thank you very much for confirming what I desperately
> >wanted to believe despite massive evidence to the contrary.
>
> What massive evidence? Where? Jack---please point me at ONE review site that
> rates PS2 Unreal higher than DC Q3A. Just one Jack.
One cack PS2 game does not = flawed console.
We could discuss why the DC is "weak and flawed" for games such as
Godzilla when it's obviously not with such titles as Sega GT.
John Kitchar
Mortis[TiT] wrote in message ...
>Because we've bought into the X-Box hype perhaps?
>--
Well for sure. But if the damn thing launches with a Namco racer displaying
fog, pop-up and jaggies, I'll be the first to get concerned.
Let's all guess anyway: Unreal on the X-Box, 60 or 30 fps?
OK, I'll go first here with my best guess....ummmm....60.
JMK
John Kitchar
Jack Calamari wrote in message
>"John Kitchar" jkit...@netpci.com wrote:
>
>>So who TF are you---that we should listen to? Let me see...Caramck or YOU?
>>Funny.
>
>My point is is that he's coming to the system from a purely PC-minded view
>(obviously, he's never programmed for a console in his life). As has been
>proven over and over, the PS2 is about as far from a PC-like architecture
as it
>could be.
Again I ask you---who are YOU that I should listen to over someone like
Carmack? You sound like you have more than just a casual interest in this
matter. What, another developer that blames their miserable PS2 sales on
usenet trolls?
And this is good anyway? I call it a flaw---sorry if this disturbs you. So
you think it's neat to be about as far from PC-like as it could be. Great
thinking Jack, but my friend who likes Unreal (and I imagine many more like
him?) disagree. It's a huge blunder possibly---like the Sony square woofer
possibly?
That's why I take whatever he says (i.e., whatever you have him say)
>with a giant grain of salt. However, I wonder whether you'd react the same
way
>were he singing the praises of the PS2 (which he could've been - do you
have a
>link for this or anything?)
>
It's at Slashdot---go find it yourself. Lazy or what?
>>This contradicts EVERY known review on this planet.
>
>That UT runs faster and has higher poly counts than Q3A? Please cite these
>reviews.
>
No---it just shows every known review rates DC Quake3A over PS2 Unreal. Now
YOU say it's because Q3A has online play. Then why is Madden rated equal (or
even higher?) than NFL2K1?
>>Quake3A gets 9's and
>>above VS 8.x's for PS2 Unreal.
>
>First of all, you can't compare reviews across platforms - as every review
site
>on Earth will tell you. Secondly, why do you think Quake got such a high
score.
>It certainly wasn't for its offline play.
>
O-yes we can compare---it happens all the time. Madden VS NFL2K1, DOAHC VS
DOA, TTT VS SC. Where have you been? If your argument about online play
(being the only factor for Q3A's stellar reviews) is correct, then why would
the same sites compare Madden to NFL2K1 so evenly?
Jack, given ALL the comparisons of the above titles, how revolutionary is
the PS2? Fill in this line please: Based on observable games that exist
today, the PS2 is _____ times more powerful than a DC. Just curious what
you'd say. BTW I'd fill in the space with a .9. IMO, the VGA support (which
the PS2 lacks) gives the DC the edge in graphics.
Jack, I was looking for a revolutionary new console, not a console where
Namco's flagship racer is reduced to displaying flickering, jaggies, simple
gray box buildings, pop-up, and fog.
>>And now that I have your
>>attention, how about that pop-up and fog in two player mode?
>
>Categorize under barely noticeable. But in your massive playtime on the
title,
>has it bothered you?
>
Yep Jack, it bothers me quite a lot---along with the jaggies and flickering.
>>Face it, the
>>PS2 is flawed beyond belief.
>
>Because of boring grey boxes, right? This is what I'm talking about. You
need
>to follow your statements logically into your conclusions. Otherwise you
come
>off as a half-strung dolt. Or a troll. Is that what you're going for?
>
Nice insult Jack---clearly, your interest in the PS2 is getting overly
personnal here which spoils any objectivity. I'm about done with you---I can
tell you are getting warm and fuzzy over this. Settle down Jack and keep
focused on the issues here. Insults are not nice and only make you look
desparate. Notice I don't insult you over a silly toy. A grown man insulting
someone over a TOY. Ponder that.
Not *just* the simple gray boxes Jack. It was the sum total of many many
things. No VGA support was really huge to me also---now that you asked.
What's better anyway, 640X480 non-interlaced VS 640X480 interlaced? Is that
like twice the effective resolution?
>>We are talking about a NAMCO flagship title
>>here, remember? NAMCO.
>
>Yes, I do know who produced R5, thanks. I also know that the game is one of
the
>best-looking racers I've ever seen, that it's damn fast, and a lot of fun.
I
>also know that it was a Japanese launch title and has undergone not one
change
>for its American release. Still, it's a AAA title to be sure.
>
O-yes, to be sure. According to you.
>>And in case you're confused,
>>draw-in
>>>has little to do with video memory.
>>
>>So the PS2 has other flaws I'm not even aware of yet; thanks for the heads
>>up on the matte
>
>You are a troll. There's no other explanation. You made the laughable
assertion
>that VRAM was related to the draw-in in one particular game, I proved you
>wrong, and you backpeddled. You're not very good at this.
>
A troll---O-no! Jack---the subject line here is: 4mb Video Ram a Problem?
I'm the ONLY one who thinks it's a problem? BTW, my ticket for this NG is my
shinny new PSONE. It plays 2D games nicely thankyou.
Well then, tell us why the draw-in. Instead of bragging here, tell us about
what causes the draw-in in Summoner. BTW, while your are on such a roll,
please explain why Namco decided to texture all the distant buildings
(boxes) the same in R5? Still more, why the jaggies Jack? Jaggies fixed for
TTT or did Namco blur the game to hide the edges? Why didn't they "fix" R5
this way also? And, if you can, please explain why EA's Nascar games drops
to a lower resolution when the, get this, rear view mirror is displayed.
What am I going to do with you Jack? Are you giving me your best effort
here?
>>Do you want me to post a review where it gets a 3.5 for
>>graphics and mentions choppy framerates?
>
>Do you want me to post my own review resulting from actual playtime on the
>title. Which do you think is more credible? Which do you think the readers
in
>this ng will take more seriously? Your random reviews and wrong-headed
diatribe
>easily proven wrong, or someone who has played through Summoner and can
>actually comment on it? Eh?
>
In a Sony NG? Are you joking? Summoner you know, is famous for solving the
AA problem. At 30 fps, it's solved.
>>RE was canned essentially---start over from scratch said Capcom.
>
>RE wasn't canned. Now you're lying? What's wrong with you?
>
Didn't Capcom start over from scratch with PS2 RE? IIRC, isn't Capcom
waiting for Onimusha results before commiting on this title? So you believe
it will show up on the PS2---I disagree here. Maybe a port of RECV is
possible. Can you point me at a solid release date for PS2 RE? Hey, if I'm
wrong I'm wrong. Show me the truth Jack.
>>I say this because of Capcom's known support
>>of the GC which will launch before they EVER figure out how to deal with
"a
>>tiny" 4mb VRAM in the PS2.
>
>Again, your knowledge (or lack thereof) of the PS2's internal memory
structures
>has come back to haunt you. Please give it up. You're only making yourself
look
>worse.
>
Possibly. Either that or many developers will jump over to X-Box this
summer. We'll see.
>>SFEX3? Please.
>
>Wow, I'm convinced!
>
>>Yes, Onimusha with its
>>revolutionary pre-rendered backgrounds. I'm excited as hell about that
one.
>
>As am I. Every preview I read has me anticipating this juggernaut of a
title.
>Honestly, this is one of my most anticipated PS2 titles (along with
Bouncher
>and Star Wars). It should be great.
>
A juggernaut of a title? Me thinks you are a little desparate for a killer
app.
>>Where's all the 2D stuff?
>
>2D is anathema to Sony's internal politics.
>
>>Powerstone1? Powerstone2? Powerstone3? Rival
>>Schools3? Spawn? Gunbirds? Cannonspike?
>>
>
>All on the Dreamcast. I own most of them. What do I need with ports?
Exclusive
>content is always better.
>
>>JMK is really upset by the performance of the PS2. Sony specs: "20
million"
>>polygons/sec. More like 2-4M AND texture problems. Flawed?
>
>5-7 million polys without texture problems. Again, you have no knowledge of
the
>PS2's internal programming regimens. Your posts prove this. You should back
off
>this insane premise lest you make yourself look even more ignorant.
Even 5-7M w/o texture problems is too close to DC performance IMO. And X-Box
will positively crush both systems anyway. IMO, the PS2 isn't revolutionary
at all----it's just a DC-like machine that's a year late. Considering the
shortages, it's really about 1.5 years late. Sorry Jack.
JMK
John Kitchar
Mortis[TiT] wrote in message ...
>Godzilla when it's obviously not with such titles as Sega GT.
>
Yeah but you know something Mortis, no one was bitching and complaining
about what Pen-Pen looked like. I mean sure the game was silly and all, but
the graphics were decent---obviously a huge leap over the N64.
Actually everyone was nit-picking games like Sonic apart over framerates and
cameras---and SR2 (to death) for an unstable framerate. Same weaknesses as
the PS2 minus the jaggies of course.
Overall, the DC delivered what was hyped though. Contrast that to the PS2.
JMK
John Kitchar
Jerry wrote in message ...
>I just rented Q3A-DC, and compared it to UT-PS2, switching between the two
>with an s-video switchbox.
>
Sounds good---although I play DC Q3A in VGA which is tons better. But let's
dig-in anyway, shall we?
>In one player mode with one bot, they're actually very close. UT gets a
>slightly worse framerate, which gets even worse in the heat of combat. But
>in that test they were so close that most people wouldn't even notice the
>difference.
>
But Jack does---what do you know?
>In split-screen my memory served me much better. Q3 lost only a few frames,
>compared to UTs abysmal framerate.
>
This confirms what both of my friends say. One of the guys, a huge Sony fan,
won't even LET me do a A-B test like you did. He knows the result after
seeing Quake3A on the DC. Thanks for the work here. Jack are you listening?
Jack's gone?
>So neither has a huge framerate advantage in one player mode, contrary to
my
>earlier post.
>
>> >The best I can do is the reviews and second hand reports
>>
>> This is the point. If this is the best you can do, you shouldn't be doing
>this.
>> Everything I've claimed has come from massive playtime with whatever
title
>I'm
>> commenting on. These are the only opinions worth considering. Sorry.
>>
>> >He said that DC Q3A framerate in the split screen is much
>> >smoother than PS2 Unreal splitscreen and the graphics? Forget about it,
>DC
>> >Q3A blows PS2 Unreal away.
>>
>I'm a Sony fanboy, and even I'll admit that Q3A blows away UT. Just compare
>the texture quality.
>
Yep again. Not only is the framerate better, the textures in Quake3A BLOW
PS2 Unreal away. Jack, are you listening? And I'll add that in VGA, Q3A's
texture's are REALLY outstanding. Try it if you can---play Q3A on a VGA
monitor. Wow.
>> Well I would advise your friend to get some glasses because the polys in
>the
>> PS2 game are much higher and the framerate is not only smoother but
>faster.
>> I've played both games. You haven't. Again, sorry.
>>
>Much higher? If they are, it's not readily apparent. And the texture
quality
>in Q3 is much better.
>You really ought to actually compare both games at the same time. Memory
can
>be unreliable, as I can now attest to.
>
Jack doesn't know jack about these two games. He's long gone by now.
>> >This finally tipped the scale for him BTW, he's purchasing a DC this
>> >weekend. PS2 Unreal was that much of a letdown.
>>
>> So PC ports are how he decides to buy a console? Maybe he is your friend
>after
>> all.
>
>IMHO, deciding a console's superiority on the basis of one game is fairly
>ignorant. We Sony fans could compare SSX and Rippin' Riders, two
>snowboarding games. If you used these two games, the obvious conclusion
>would be that the DC is barely more powerful than a PSX, and that the PS2
is
>many years ahead of it.
>
Really? SSX by wep (?) VS EA's flagship PS2 title is a fair comparison?
Hmmm. Say, can you do a A-B test on both DOAs? I hear DC DOA is much cleaner
than PS2 DOAHC. I also hear that TTT is washed out and blurry compared to
SC. Can you confirm or are these reports bogus in your opinion?
>UT was designed by programmers who where new to a completely new
>architecture. Plus, the game has a very "rushed to market" feel to it. In
>contrast, Q3 was obviously designed by programmers with plenty of DC
>experience.
>
I don't know---those UT developers were bragging about how they got it up
and running LONG ago. This was used a while back to calm the masses over PS2
development difficulties issues. What a joke it turned out to be in the end.
Thanks for the A-B test and most important, being honest.
JMK
John Kitchar
DarienAllen.com wrote in message ...
>Now at the time of Wed, 08 Nov 2000 18:15:53 GMT,
>pt...@you.know.the.drill.rim.net (Phat H Tran) we were graced with
>this statement:
>
>>>By contrast, the PS2's GS processor has no ability to decompress textures
on
>>>the fly. This means that all texture data must flow over the relatively
>>>small pipeline between main memory and the GS 4MB VRAM cache, at it's
>>>original large size.
>>
>>This "relatively small pipeline" between main memory and the GS, used
>>mainly for texture fetching, is at least 50% larger than the entire
>>pipe the DC has to its VRAM for frame buffer, Z-buffer, and texture
>>access.
>
>Wow John another spanking...how are you feeling today?
>
Better actually---just getting over a rather bad cold. Thanks.
JMK
stenciL
> PC Unreal fan so yeah, the PC port of Unreal is important to him. Something
> is wrong with people liking PC games like Unreal? Anyway, it's perfectly
> clear what he reports about the PS2 version of Unreal---and it ain't good.
> In contrast, he is impressed and respects DC Quake3A---enough to sway him
> into purchasing a DC this weekend. Shenmue also helped of course. I've
> always said the PS2 was flawed partly because of difficulty in porting PC
> games.
I'm a gamer, and I don't want PC games on my PS2. I don't like PC
games. Summoner sucked because it played like a PC game. Quake and
Unreal, in MY opinion, are multi-player geekfests that belong on
high-end PCs connected via high-speed connections and LANs. I want
cool 3-d platformers that let you chill on the couch; immersive RPGs
that tell a story and let you get involved; realistic baseball games
that take an hour to play on my TV (where I watch baseball); puzzle
games that my girlfriend and I can play over and over again - on the
couch.
That's just this gamer's opinion.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
stenciL
> fog, pop-up and jaggies, I'll be the first to get concerned.
>
> Let's all guess anyway: Unreal on the X-Box, 60 or 30 fps?
>
> OK, I'll go first here with my best guess....ummmm....60.
> JMK
Duh. Of cource Unreal will look great on the X-Box. The X-Box is a PC
with a stellar 3D card.
But is anyone going to make truly creative, fun, console games
(platformers, puzzles, RPGs) for the X-Box that won't be available
elsewhere?
stenciL
<jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
> Overall, the DC delivered what was hyped though. Contrast that to the PS2.
> JMK
Opinion. I'm thrilled with my PS2 and it's more than delivered. I'm
playing two really fun, well-done games that I can't get elsewhere (TTT
and Smuggler's Run), plus I have a new DVD player with optical outs.
It delivered to me. The DC didn't. I thought the launch titles were
horrid, Soul Calibur was all eye candy, and Sonic was another passive
pseudo-platformer/pinball game.
stenciL
Sony fan,
> won't even LET me do a A-B test like you did. He knows the result after
> seeing Quake3A on the DC. Thanks for the work here. Jack are you listening?
> Jack's gone?
Why does this surprise anyone? These are PC ports. Unreal no doubt
makes no use of the Velocity chips and relies entirely on the CPU, like
a PC. That's not a PS2 game as far as I'm concerned. That's an
emulation.
Frank Mojica
after the PS2 launch claiming that "it's thinking..."
--
/*
"If this is a crush... then I don't know if I could take the real thing if
it ever happens."
My Home Page:
http://www.cs.odu.edu/~fmojica
Sign the guestbook!
*/
nospam
wrote:
>I've read a lot about this issue, mostly from people who appear to not know
>what they're talking about.
>
>Does anyone know how having only 4MB of video ram will limit the PS2?
>
>Sony's stance is that the RAM is so fast and it is "embedded" RAM (whatever
>that means), which will allow for extremely fast movement of textures in and
>out of the video ram. Is this true?
>
>How would having 8MB or 16 MB video ram improve the console? Since TV has an
>upper limit of resolution of about 640 x 480, maybe Sony has determined that
>4MB of video ram is all that is required to achieve this maximum resolution.
>
>Anyone have any insights?
Have a look at this site.
http://www.consoledomain.com/playstation2/previews/The_Getaway.html
The graphics look super. If the above site is a limit on how graphics
will look then I can't see it as a problem.
Unknown
wrote:
>> Ah, back to the old and trusty "PC port" excuse. My friend is actually a big
>> PC Unreal fan so yeah, the PC port of Unreal is important to him. Something
>> is wrong with people liking PC games like Unreal? Anyway, it's perfectly
>> clear what he reports about the PS2 version of Unreal---and it ain't good.
>> In contrast, he is impressed and respects DC Quake3A---enough to sway him
>> into purchasing a DC this weekend. Shenmue also helped of course. I've
>> always said the PS2 was flawed partly because of difficulty in porting PC
>> games.
>
>I'm a gamer, and I don't want PC games on my PS2. I don't like PC
>games. Summoner sucked because it played like a PC game. Quake and
>Unreal, in MY opinion, are multi-player geekfests that belong on
>high-end PCs connected via high-speed connections and LANs. I want
>cool 3-d platformers that let you chill on the couch; immersive RPGs
>that tell a story and let you get involved; realistic baseball games
>that take an hour to play on my TV (where I watch baseball); puzzle
>games that my girlfriend and I can play over and over again - on the
>couch.
>
>That's just this gamer's opinion.
That's this gamers' opinion too. 110% on the head. I though for sure I
was playing a PC game when I rented (thankfully) Summoner. Quake and
Unreal? Great if online gaming is really your thing....but if not, who
wants those? I'll wait for the good stuff...the real console stuff,
thank you. Bring on the Final Fantasies (except maybe 11 :-( ), Silent
Hills, Resident Evils, Metal Gears, some good platformers, maybe even
some new shooters. That's what it's all about. I'll work on finishing
my PS1 titles untill then I suppose....
Jack Calamari
>Again I ask you---who are YOU that I should listen to over someone like
>Carmack?
Apparently you listen to Carmack (about things you can't even cite) instead of
the dozens of other developers with positive things to say about the PS2 -
including Carmack. Again, you can't have it both ways.
>What, another developer that blames their miserable PS2 sales on
>usenet trolls?
So you're admitting you're a troll? That's actually a step up for you. Of
course you're ignoring sales charts which show stellar sales for PS2 software.
But that's par for the course for you.
>And this is good anyway? I call it a flaw---sorry if this disturbs you.
It disturbs me because you've been proven wrong again and again, and continue
to come out swinging. Sorry, this makes you a dolt. There's no other way to
look at it.
>So
>you think it's neat to be about as far from PC-like as it could be. Great
>thinking Jack, but my friend who likes Unreal (and I imagine many more like
>him?) disagree.
I don't care who feels differently. Do you want PC ports? I don't. That's what
I have a PC for. Every system's greatest games have always been
console-specific. Always. Again, sorry to prove you wrong.
>
>It's at Slashdot---go find it yourself. Lazy or what?
If you can cite him, you can't quote him.
>No---it just shows every known review rates DC Quake3A over PS2 Unreal.
Sorry, every known review doesn't show Q3A over UT. And comparing reviews for
different consoles is attrocious reasoning. Again, par for the course for you.
>Now
>YOU say it's because Q3A has online play. Then why is Madden rated equal (or
>even higher?) than NFL2K1?
NFL2K1 is generally rated more highly than Madden in most reviews I've read -
again, for the online play. But this is another example of your comparing
apples and oranges. Good job.
>O-yes we can compare---it happens all the time.
You don't compare review scores across consoles.
>If your argument about online play
>(being the only factor for Q3A's stellar reviews) is correct, then why would
>the same sites compare Madden to NFL2K1 so evenly?
Again, nice nonsensical comparison.
>Jack, given ALL the comparisons of the above titles, how revolutionary is
>the PS2?
Revolutionary? Not at all. I'd expect within the next year (i.e., ZOE,
Onimusha, RE4, FFX, GT3, etc.) we'll see this so-called revolution. Still, is
it a step-above the DC? Indubitably.
>Fill in this line please: Based on observable games that exist
>today, the PS2 is _____ times more powerful than a DC.
You don't compare launch games to second-generation games on two consoles in
the same generation. Sorry. Rack up another nonsensical copmarison.
>IMO, the VGA support (which
>the PS2 lacks) gives the DC the edge in graphics.
See above. The PS2 doesn't support VGA - which I'm sure about four gamers on
the planet actually care about but when you put a PS2 and DC on the same
television, the PS2 wins out.
>, not a console where
>Namco's flagship racer is reduced to displaying flickering, jaggies, simple
>gray box buildings, pop-up, and fog.
Again, you're judging the entire system against what you conceive to be a poor
game (despite the fact that RRV is one of the best-looking, best-playing racers
to date - something you can't dispell until you actually play it). You would
not do this with the Dreamcast. You cannot have it both ways.
>Yep Jack, it bothers me quite a lot---along with the jaggies and flickering.
Which is why your opinions cannot be taken seriously. Notice how no one is
supporting you? There's a reason for that.
>Insults are not nice and only make you look
>desparate
Sorry, but you're the one looking desperate. Again, repeating the same five
things that have been disproven over and over creates the perception that you
don't know what you're talking about.
> No VGA support was really huge to me also---now that you asked.
And I'm sure a whole other five people across the United States.
>Instead of bragging here, tell us about
>what causes the draw-in in Summoner.
I'd like to know myself. I'm sure the programmer will pop in and say 4MB of
VRAM, right?
>BTW, while your are on such a roll,
>please explain why Namco decided to texture all the distant
Which they didn't, as you'd see if you played the game.
>Still more, why the jaggies Jack?
Sorry, but they're no longer a problem. This is not something you can use
against the PS2 any longer. I'm sorry if this upsets you so much.
>Jaggies fixed for
>TTT or did Namco blur the game to hide the edges
That's what Dreamcast developers do, no?
>And, if you can, please explain why EA's Nascar games drops
>to a lower resolution when the, get this, rear view mirror is displayed.
Actually it doesn't.
>
>What am I going to do with you Jack? Are you giving me your best effort
>here?
Obviously you're giving me yours. Again, repeating the same five things over
and over doesn't do anything for your argument.
>In a Sony NG? Are you joking? Summoner you know, is famous for solving the
>AA problem. At 30 fps, it's solved.
Is that why so many Dreamcast games run at or below 30FPS?
>Didn't Capcom start over from scratch with PS2 RE?
What are you talking about? As opposed to what, snapping their fingers?
>So you believe
>it will show up on the PS2---I disagree here.
Based on nothing whatsoever. Good job
>A juggernaut of a title? Me thinks you are a little desparate for a killer
>app.
Well I haven't found a whole lot on the Dreamcast to be sure. RECV is nice. MSR
is fantastic. I do enjoy Crazy Taxi and DOA2. But Onimusha is Resident Evil in
mideval times. I put massive playtime into this at E3 (again, playtime -
something which you should try more of) and it's going to be fantastic.
>Even 5-7M w/o texture problems is too close to DC performance IMO.
Which makes it a good thing that programmers are already excelling past that.
>And X-Box
>will positively crush both systems anyway
Uh huh. So you didn't buy into the PS2 hype but are the X-Box. Real smart
there.
>IMO, the PS2 isn't revolutionary
>at all----it's just a DC-like machine that's a year late
And yet, nothing you've said leads to this conclusion. I apologize that it's
taken you so long to realize this.
Jack Calamari
>But
>>in that test they were so close that most people wouldn't even notice the
>>difference.
>>
>
>But Jack does---what do you know?
Hey, I'm a framerate junky, I notice these things. Of course if I was saying
Q3A was faster, you'd be tripping all over yourself to believe me.
>One of the guys, a huge Sony fan,
>won't even LET me do a A-B test like you did. He knows the result after
>seeing Quake3A on the DC.
Sounds like a real winner. Seriously. You two were meant for each other.
>Not only is the framerate better
Sorry but the framerate isn't better. UT = 30FPS ; Q3A = less than 30FPS.
Certainly you can do the math.
>the textures in Quake3A BLOW
>PS2 Unreal away.
Not really. The DC has more to work with since it's pushing roughly half the
polygons the PS2 is but the texture-work is nearly identical.
>And I'll add that in VGA, Q3A's
>texture's are REALLY outstanding. Try it if you can---play Q3A on a VGA
>monitor. Wow.
>
I already do. On my PC.
>I hear DC DOA is much cleaner
>than PS2 DOAHC.
If by cleaner you mean blurrier.
> I also hear that TTT is washed out and blurry compared to
>SC.
Again, no one cares what you hear. Until you've had playtime your opinion is
worthless.
>I don't know---those UT developers were bragging about how they got it up
>and running LONG ago.
No they weren't. Of course you can't supply the quote.
>This was used a while back to calm the masses over PS2
>development difficulties issues.
What masses? You?
>What a joke it turned out to be in the end.
A game that runs faster and pushes more polys, is somehow a joke?
>Thanks for the A-B test and most important, being honest.
I.e., agreeing with me. Thanks again.
Jack Calamari
>What massive evidence? Where? Jack---please point me at ONE review site that
>rates PS2 Unreal higher than DC Q3A. Just one Jack.
>
I think this is the crux of the problem. You go off reviews, I go off playtime.
Which do out think is more valuable?
>Sorry Jack, but I believe my friend's report, and this Jerry above way more
>than you.
Of course you do. They agree with you. You actually playing both titles and
forming your own opinion is too much for you obviously. Shows us how we should
take your postings. Seriously.
>I confirmed this again today.
You mean by polling your one friend? Look up the word "confirm."
>PS2 Unreal in
>split screen is a choppy mess compared to DC Q3A.
Sorry but you're wrong.
>Jack, it REALLY looks like
>you are lying here
Not really. Look, I know you're desperate for Q3A to run faster than UT but
these things are measurable, and you are wrong. Sorry.
>My friend is actually a big
>PC Unreal fan so yeah, the PC port of Unreal is important to him.
If he has PC Unreal, he should be even less concerned with a console port.
You're most likely lying here. Wouldn't be abnormal for you.
>Anyway, it's perfectly
>clear what he reports about the PS2 version of Unreal---and it ain't good.
I could care less. Especially about second-hand reports. Look, you believe the
negatives and ignore the positives. That's obvious. It's your burden to bear.
>I've
>always said the PS2 was flawed partly because of difficulty in porting PC
>games.
A new flaw. Wow, yet another minimalization for you to trump over and over
again. Good job.
Jack Calamari
>Yeah but you know something Mortis, no one was bitching and complaining
>about what Pen-Pen looked like
Probably because no one cared very much. But I don't go by "bitching and
complaining" to prove anything but posters with chips on their shoulders.
>I mean sure the game was silly and all, but
>the graphics were decent---obviously a huge leap over the N64.
Pen Pen? Come on.
> Same weaknesses as
>the PS2 minus the jaggies of course
Which are no longer a problem, and basically have a tradeoff of blurring on the
DC. Still you've never played a PS2 so you're not entitled to comment on it.
>Overall, the DC delivered what was hyped though. Contrast that to the PS2.
Which outperforms the DC. Okay. Thanks.
Jack Calamari
>Nah---I'll try to keep things fresh Jack, just for you.
>Here's a first hand report of EA's Nascar on the PS2 which further supports
>my opinion that the PS2 is weak and flawed:
Quoting other poster about bad games and supposing this indicts the system.
Shall I do the same for a bad DC game? Again, you can't have it both ways.
Jack Calamari
>Sega hyped the DC to be many times more powerful than the N64 and
>PSX---I believe 3M polys was the number then.
Sega never gave a number.
>Now let's imagine the DC
>real-world performance being only *about* equal to the N64 or PSX.
Equal to a four and five year old system, versus being outpaced by a one-year
old system? At least compare systems in the same generation.
>But
>Sony is excused of course.
Excused for what? Sorry but like I said, the performance of the launch games is
right where it should be given development cycles. But continue to trumpet
otherwise.
>Sony gets another *year* to prove PS2
>performance.
Get over yourself. They don't get anything. What are you talking about?
Remember what I said about delusions of grandeur.
>So now we have every known PS2 developer digging-in and really racking their
>brains trying to extract some kind of significant performance gain over the
>DC before the mighty X-Box launches.
Sorry but we don't. Most developers are finding it quite easy to outpace the DC
in their cycles. But keep talking about grey boxes. That'll make it not come
true.
>-because I believe that if these same
>developers tried THIS hard with DC development, better products would follow
>on the DC than PS2
I don't think so. The DC is a straight PC-like machine. It doesn't have to be
overclocked or anything. Developers get what they want out of it.
>It really doesn't matter with the X-Box coming next
>fall, does it?
Howso? I imagine you'll be quite surprised when the differences between the
X-Box and PS2 are far smaller than those between the PS2 and DC. Maybe you'll
finally shut up.
Jack Calamari
>Well for sure. But if the damn thing launches with a Namco racer displaying
>fog, pop-up and jaggies, I'll be the first to get concerned.
RRV doesn't display fog, pop-up and jaggies. Sorry. Anymore than F500 displays
paper-matted trees and blurry cars. Please get some new material.
DarienAllen.com
(Jack Calamari) we were graced with this statement:
While I generally side with you here I have to disagree. RRV does
display SOME pop-up(minor), fog (in 2p mode) and alaising issues. None
of this makes it a bad game IMO though.
------------------------
Darien Allen
ICQ-2927081/AOL-Dezign369
Was wünscht jeder? KOPF!
Was benötigt jeder? KOPF!
DarienAllen.com
<jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
>
>DarienAllen.com wrote in message ...
>>Now at the time of Wed, 08 Nov 2000 18:15:53 GMT,
>>pt...@you.know.the.drill.rim.net (Phat H Tran) we were graced with
>>this statement:
>>
>>>>By contrast, the PS2's GS processor has no ability to decompress textures
>on
>>>>the fly. This means that all texture data must flow over the relatively
>>>>small pipeline between main memory and the GS 4MB VRAM cache, at it's
>>>>original large size.
>>>
>>>This "relatively small pipeline" between main memory and the GS, used
>>>mainly for texture fetching, is at least 50% larger than the entire
>>>pipe the DC has to its VRAM for frame buffer, Z-buffer, and texture
>>>access.
>>
>>Wow John another spanking...how are you feeling today?
>>
>
>
>Better actually---just getting over a rather bad cold. Thanks.
From some of the stuff you've been posting lately I'd guess it was a
head cold.
Paolo Costabel
jackca...@aol.com (Jack Calamari) wrote:
> >IMO, the VGA support (which
> >the PS2 lacks) gives the DC the edge in graphics.
>
> See above. The PS2 doesn't support VGA - which I'm sure about four
gamers on
> the planet actually care about but when you put a PS2 and DC on the
same
> television, the PS2 wins out.
>
Actually, the PS2 supports most VESA resolutions, as well as DTV and
HDTV. It's up to the programmers to take advantage of it, though.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Paolo Costabel Visit the Internet Comic Books Database
Sony Imageworks http://www.comicsdb.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jack Calamari
>Yeah, but some of the stuff was damn good if I say so myself
Looks like that head cold is still stinging.
> I admit I'm a
>little out of form with a 101.5 fever.
I can't imagine how you can tell you're out of form. Your postings tend to
always be equally inept.
>But really, IMO Jack was spanked pretty hard by Jerry's A-B test of Unreal
>VS Q3A---points to Jack outright lying here.
Oh, John, John, John. How can I say this so you can understand it? The only one
getting spanked here is you. Over and over and over again. Darien knows it,
Phat knows it, Jerry knows it, Muck knows it, hell, even Omar knows it. The
great thing is is that you come back for more. It's fun shooting you down time
and again. Really it is. Still, keep a firm upper lip and hold your ass up high
for the next paddling.
>Wouldn't you say? Throw me a
>table scrap Darien---Jerry's posts destroy Jack's credibility and confirm my
>statements about the game.
Confirmation bias is a truly sad, pathetic thing to see. You're so desperate
for someone to acknowledge you, let alone agree with you, that you don't mind
hanging yourself out there. Jerry and I share a different opinion on the
fluidity of both games. He and I have contributed massive playtime to both
titles. Both of our opinions are valid. Yours is not. Guess you really do like
getting spanked.
Jack Calamari
wrote:
>While I generally side with you here I have to disagree. RRV does
>display SOME pop-up(minor), fog (in 2p mode) and alaising issues. None
Key word being some. John likes to pass off the notion that the entire game
features a vat of fag running through a map full of pop-up and jaggies. Thanks
for letting me clarify how wrong John is.
>None
>of this makes it a bad game IMO though.
Of course not. Ridge Racer is Ridge Racer. If you love it (as I do), you'll
love this game.
Jak Crow
Is this where you guys start running around claiming you've both
won in typical usenet flamewar tactics?
Jay Swartzfeger
jackca...@aol.com (Jack Calamari) wrote:
> DarienAllen.com darie...@bigfoot.com
> wrote:
>
> >While I generally side with you here I have to disagree. RRV does
> >display SOME pop-up(minor), fog (in 2p mode) and alaising issues. None
>
> Key word being some. John likes to pass off the notion that the entire
> game
> features a vat of fag running through a map full of pop-up and jaggies.
> Thanks
> for letting me clarify how wrong John is.
Vat of fag, eh? :-)
--
Jay in Scottsdale, AZ
"We're meeting G over there"
Jerry
"John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote in message
news:8ue64...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> Jerry wrote in message ...
> PS2 Unreal away. Jack, are you listening? And I'll add that in VGA, Q3A's
> texture's are REALLY outstanding. Try it if you can---play Q3A on a VGA
> monitor. Wow.
>
t.v. screen and couch are much nicer for that. So it's a pain to move it
around all the time. Do they make VGA switchboxes?
SSX (a launch title) vs. Rippin Riders (not a launch title) is unfair? But
comparing Q3A (programmed by veteran DC programmers) vs. UT (a sloppily done
launch title) is fair. I don't understand your logic.
> Hmmm. Say, can you do a A-B test on both DOAs? I hear DC DOA is much
cleaner
> than PS2 DOAHC.
DOA:HC uses no anti-aliasing. I can't do a comparison, as I don't own either
game. But I can tell you that the lack of AA on DOA:HC gets on your nerves
after awhile. Though you do get to use a better controller.
>I also hear that TTT is washed out and blurry compared to
> SC. Can you confirm or are these reports bogus in your opinion?
>
Washed out and blurry is a subjective statement. The fact is, TTT uses
better AA then SC does. We compared SC vs. TTT via the ole switch box, and
we were really amazed at to find the AA was better on TTT. All the edges in
SC have this "shimmering" effect, whereas in TTT, only a few edges have it.
The net result though is a slightly less crisp image. But that's what AA
does.
No one noticed this because when we first saw SC, we were busy being awed by
it. And anyone who is still playing it won't be looking at it critically.
> >UT was designed by programmers who where new to a completely new
> >architecture. Plus, the game has a very "rushed to market" feel to it. In
> >contrast, Q3 was obviously designed by programmers with plenty of DC
> >experience.
> >
>
> I don't know---those UT developers were bragging about how they got it up
> and running LONG ago. This was used a while back to calm the masses over
PS2
> development difficulties issues. What a joke it turned out to be in the
end.
Whatever. I've read a bunch of interview with Cliffy B., and all I can say
is that he obviously sold his soul to Satan. To think that were talking
about selling their graphic engine to other PS2 developers is, quite
frankly, sad. To see my favorite game of all time mutilated so ....
And you might be interested to know that TimeSplitters runs in 4 player
splitscreen mode with a full 60 fps. As far as I know, that's a first. Why
a small startup company can out-program Sega and whoever the hell did UT is
beyond me.
>
> Thanks for the A-B test and most important, being honest.
>
> JMK
>
Most welcome.
Jerry
if you're gonna argue (even with a troll) that you should argue based on
clearly observable facts.
Such as, the PS2 is a much better machine than the DC.
If John wants to believe the DC is better based on a couple of mismatches, I
say let him. While we're playing real games, he'll be playing Virtua Cop 3
and Virtua Fighter Mega Mix Deluxe Vipers 3.
His loss.
And it gives us someone to laugh at.
:)
"Jack Calamari" <jackca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001109172106...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
John Kitchar
DarienAllen.com wrote in message ...
>head cold.
>
Yeah, but some of the stuff was damn good if I say so myself. I admit I'm a
little out of form with a 101.5 fever. There's enough legal drugs in me
to...hmmm...see? Can't think of a good line here.
But is this where we are going Darien, insults? You...nope, can't do it.
But really, IMO Jack was spanked pretty hard by Jerry's A-B test of Unreal
VS Q3A---points to Jack outright lying here. Wouldn't you say? Throw me a
table scrap Darien---Jerry's posts destroy Jack's credibility and confirm my
statements about the game.
BTW, you never finished talking about Rush. How did you like that title?
JMK
DarienAllen.com
<jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
>But is this where we are going Darien, insults? You...nope, can't do it.
Nyah I was bored though we disagree quite often I hold you in quite
high esteem as an on the opposite of my thoughts opponent.
>But really, IMO Jack was spanked pretty hard by Jerry's A-B test of Unreal
>VS Q3A---points to Jack outright lying here. Wouldn't you say? Throw me a
>table scrap Darien---Jerry's posts destroy Jack's credibility and confirm my
>statements about the game.
That whole thread has been pretty nasty...and I followed it for a
bit...but since I quite honestly care so little about FPS...that I had
to bow out.
>BTW, you never finished talking about Rush. How did you like that title?
Fine enough but I have such a short attention span these days that
it's been relegated to the pile of games that might be finished "some
day". Some day of course being this mythical day that I always aspire
to but know I will never make it to. ;)
DarienAllen.com
<new...@werewolves.org> we were graced with this statement:
> Is this where you guys start running around claiming you've both
>won in typical usenet flamewar tactics?
<hush> It's poor form to say that kinda thing. ;)
John Kitchar
Jak Crow wrote in message <8ufdbp$15h2$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>Jack Calamari <jackca...@aol.com> wrote:
Both of our opinions are valid. Yours is not. Guess you really do like
>> getting spanked.
>
>
One game runs faster than the other so how can both of these opinions be
correct?
> Is this where you guys start running around claiming you've both
>won in typical usenet flamewar tactics?
No, I'm done with Jack. When you catch a guy like this in an outright
lie---and then he refuses to admit it, you know it's time to move on. Jack
didn't expect Jerry to report the truth in an objective A-B test and now he
wants to name call like a child. If readers take the time to go through the
posts, I believe they will conclude that Jack obviously lied about the
games. I don't see how anyone could read it any other way.
I'm done about how much better DC quake is over PS/2 Unreal. Time to move
on. Say, that reminds me of a funny story about the weak and flawed PS/2.
Good read: http://www.dailyradar.com/reviews/game_review_1040.html
Later, JMK
Jak Crow
> Whatever. I've read a bunch of interview with Cliffy B., and all I can say
> is that he obviously sold his soul to Satan. To think that were talking
> about selling their graphic engine to other PS2 developers is, quite
> frankly, sad. To see my favorite game of all time mutilated so ....
> And you might be interested to know that TimeSplitters runs in 4 player
> splitscreen mode with a full 60 fps. As far as I know, that's a first. Why
> a small startup company can out-program Sega and whoever the hell did UT is
> beyond me.
The Unreal engine, at it's heart, is one bloaty piece of work, so
porting it to another platform isn't going to give good results.
Jak Crow
> Now at the time of 9 Nov 2000 23:52:25 GMT, Jak Crow
> <new...@werewolves.org> we were graced with this statement:
>> Is this where you guys start running around claiming you've both
>>won in typical usenet flamewar tactics?
> <hush> It's poor form to say that kinda thing. ;)
Ahhh! Sorry! I will accept my stoning now :)
Phat H Tran
<jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
>
>Phat H Tran wrote in message <3a09eb4f....@news.rim.net>...
>
>>I'm not trying to argue a case using sales. I'm merely predicting
>>that you'll continue to ignore games that properly take advantage of
>>the PS2 and stick to hurriedly programmed launch games as cornerstones
>>in your campaign against the PS2.
>
>Lets put things into proper perspective Phat. Dial the clock back to pre-DC
>launch. Sega hyped the DC to be many times more powerful than the N64 and
>PSX---I believe 3M polys was the number then.
Sega initially claimed that it could render 8 million polygons per
second. Achievable in-game polygon rendering rate on the DC is
reported to be in the 3-5 million polys/s range.
>Now let's imagine the DC
>real-world performance being only *about* equal to the N64 or PSX. Would you
>call the DC flawed? Of course because it was claimed to push 3M polys. But
>Sony is excused of course. Sony gets another *year* to prove PS2
>performance. Would Sega get this chance if the DC performed like the N64?
But when you have well-respected developers like Naughty Dog,
PolyPhony Digital, Sony Studio Camden all stating that they're
achieving 10-20 million polygons per second in their graphics engines
this early on in the life cycle of the PS2, it isn't a case of the PS2
performing merely like the DC.
We get hints of the PS2's rendering muscle even in its launch games.
Tekken Tag has the most complex character models and backgrounds, and
most impressive polygon shading effects ever seen in a fighter.
Technically, it blows Soul Calibre away, even if you aesthetically
prefer SC. The depth of field effect in many PS2 games, as well as
the mirage effects in MotoGP, have never been done before in a game.
PS2 games also flaunt long camera angles that used to bog down other
machines because they require so much of the world geometry to be
rendered. And regardless about what you think of the gameplay of
each, Madden on the PS2 stomps all over the DC's NFL2K1 in poly count,
by at least a factor of 4.
If you choose to be blind to the amazingly good stuff that developers
have been able to achieve on the PS2, and simply go on and on bashing
it based on the products of hurried or half-hearted development
efforts, then you are simply a petty, insecure troll.
Phat.
---
To e-mail, remove obvious clutter from address.
Omarichu
>correct?
Well the correct one is that Q3A runs slower than UT. Sorry.
>No, I'm done with Jack.
Of course you are. He, like me, has humiliated the hell out of you and you're
so upset that you can't drive-by him that you won't respond.
>When you catch a guy like this in an outright
>lie
Look, I understand your problem. Q3A is a joke of a game with a piss-poor
framerate and crap poly-characters. It's okay that even a shoddy UT port kills
it. I know you have to use "lie" in there to make yourself feel better but no
one's on your side. Sorry.
> If readers take the time to go through the
>posts, I believe they will conclude that Jack obviously lied about the
>games
Sorry but again, there's no lie. Q3A is slower than UT. You don't have to like
it but that's the way it is. Framerate is a measurable, quantifiable variable.
UT's is faster than Q3's. But it's okay. Everyone who reads this agrees with
Jack and not with you. Especially considering you haven't played both games.
>
>I'm done about how much better DC quake is over PS/2 Unreal.
Sorry but UT on the PS2 kills Q3A in every measure. Graphics, framerate,
textures, polys. Everything. Again, this is too hard for you to take. It's
okay.
---
"I pledge allegiance to the snow of the United snow of America. And to the
republic for which it snows, one nation, under snow, indi-snow-ible, with
liberty and justice for snow." Man reading patriotic plaque immediately
following a snowstorm.
Yxba
>One game runs faster than the other so how can both of these opinions be
>correct?
In order to judge which one is correct, you have to play both games. Therefore,
your opinion is worthless.
>No, I'm done with Jack.
Aw, poor baby. Did he slam you too hard? Prove your lies? LOL, he really gave
you a rough time. You haven't had it so hard for quite some time.
>When you catch a guy like this in an outright
>lie
He's played both games. You haven't. Therefore your opinion is worthless.
>Jack
>didn't expect Jerry to report the truth in an objective A-B test
And what would you be saying if he reported back that UT was faster? Fucking
hypocrite.
>If readers take the time to go through the
>posts, I believe they will conclude that Jack obviously lied about the
>games.
Funny, no one's responded this way!!!! Come on, Johnny, you know no one will
buy your side of the story especially with your worthless opinion!!!!!!
>I don't see how anyone could read it any other way.
You really don't, do you? You sad, sad man. :(
>
>I'm done about how much better DC quake is over PS/2 Unreal.
Taking their offline experiences, Q3 loses. In single-play, Q3 can't even top
25 FPS while UT gets just above 30. Notice the polygon counts on the characters
don't come anywhere close to UT. And the texture work in the darker levels
sucks. Of course, I disagree with you so I'm "lying," right? Just what I'd
expect from someone with a worthless opinion.
>Time to move
>on
Play both games and then get back to us, Johnny boy. I fully expect there will
be some great times had by all when we kick your ass again. LOL
John Kitchar
DarienAllen.com wrote in message
<6hum0tg06ko434i8e...@4ax.com>...
>
>That whole thread has been pretty nasty...and I followed it for a
>bit...but since I quite honestly care so little about FPS...that I had
>to bow out.
>
I tried to keep it clean---I don't think you'll find any insults coming from
my side.
You know, it's pretty unlike me to respond to posts that contain insults. I
regret it now because even though my case is proved, the insults only got
worse.
This NG---pretty sensitive to anything negative about the PS2. These guy
really "love" their toys.
JMK
Omarichu
Replace "insults" with "refutations that completely annihilate my arguments"
and you're right. Of course that would mean you'd never respond.
>I
>regret it now because even though my case is proved,
Your case isn't proved. Sorry. You were wrong once again. But keep at it.
Brad Matrix
wrote:
>
>Howso? I imagine you'll be quite surprised when the differences between the
>X-Box and PS2 are far smaller than those between the PS2 and DC. Maybe you'll
>finally shut up.
The main difference will not be the graphics but the extra
functionality offered by the hard disk in X-BOX.
Currently Sony are offering YABASIC for the PS2 in Europe.
However you can only save to the memory cards.
With the X-Box you would have several gigs to play with.
Cheers,
Brad Matrix
bradmatrix@hotmail-dotcom(replace -dot with .)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics can be made up to reflect anything.
75% of the population know that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DarienAllen.com
<jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
>This NG---pretty sensitive to anything negative about the PS2. These guy
>really "love" their toys.
John you KNOW this is a pot kettle statement right?
Omarichu
>performance--
Nope. The DC could never do Madden, SSX, NHL2001, Bouncer, Onimusha, or Tekken.
Sorry.
Adarsh Daswani
wrote:
>> The main difference will not be the graphics but the extra
>> functionality offered by the hard disk in X-BOX.
>
>How will this be a difference when the PS2 will also have a harddrive?
>
>> Currently Sony are offering YABASIC for the PS2 in Europe.
>> However you can only save to the memory cards.
>
>At the moment.
>
>> With the X-Box you would have several gigs to play with.
>
>So will the PS2.
Apparently you're new to the world of promises made regarding game
consoles. Remember when the first Zelda on the N64 was going to be a
64DD game?
Remember the Genesis modem?
-A.
John Kitchar
DarienAllen.com wrote in message ...
>>really "love" their toys.
>
>John you KNOW this is a pot kettle statement right?
>
>
Not really. The DC is weak also IMO and *you know* I've pointed that out
countless times before. Both the PS2 and DC are similar in
performance---same gen consoles with the edge going to the DC for VGA
support, modem, price, games, etc.
JMK
Lovernios
"Brad Matrix" <bradm...@hotmaildot.com> wrote in message
news:i6ln0t8qn1iltsdr3...@4ax.com...
> On 09 Nov 2000 18:33:04 GMT, jackca...@aol.com (Jack Calamari)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Howso? I imagine you'll be quite surprised when the differences between
the
> >X-Box and PS2 are far smaller than those between the PS2 and DC. Maybe
you'll
> >finally shut up.
>
> The main difference will not be the graphics but the extra
> functionality offered by the hard disk in X-BOX.
How will this be a difference when the PS2 will also have a harddrive?
> Currently Sony are offering YABASIC for the PS2 in Europe.
> However you can only save to the memory cards.
At the moment.
> With the X-Box you would have several gigs to play with.
So will the PS2.
>
Lovernios
release a hd? It's not a complicated add on like the 64DD and seeing as
their eventual strategy for the PS2 is broadband connectivity there is no
reason to believe they wouldn't. I have more faith in Sony releasing a hd
than Microsoft releasing Xbox on time.
Rob.
"Adarsh Daswani" <ada...@NOSPAMunforgettable.com> wrote in message
news:317p0t8eaekomrsde...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:29:58 GMT, "Lovernios" <rap...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> The main difference will not be the graphics but the extra
> >> functionality offered by the hard disk in X-BOX.
> >
> >How will this be a difference when the PS2 will also have a harddrive?
> >
> >> Currently Sony are offering YABASIC for the PS2 in Europe.
> >> However you can only save to the memory cards.
> >
> >At the moment.
> >
> >> With the X-Box you would have several gigs to play with.
> >
> >So will the PS2.
>