How did Nintendo get away with releasing a console less powerful than PS2 almost two years later?
I mean, look how ridiculously blurry the original Twilight Princess was.
>>316465112
The power of the PS2
>>316465112
Cheap as shit bro, and the games were fun as fuck.
>>316465112
Why are there posts years later trying to rewrite history?
The gamecube was in between the ps2 and xbox in power. The ps2 being the weak east obviously.
>>316465112
>bitching about blur in a GC when PS2 was 480i on nearly every game
These kids that grew up with 6th gen are some the dumbest fucks on this site.
>>316465187
>cherry picking that one Gamecube exclusive that was ported in a couple of months to PS2 at the last minute
>>316465295
We can go all of the day bro
>>316465112
Power
Xbox > GCN > PS2
Everyone knows this you retard. Were you even born when these consoles were relevant?
>>316465283
>The gamecube was in between the ps2 and xbox in power. The ps2 being the weak east obviously.
It's you who is trying to rewrite history.
>an actual programmer
"[Gamecube] was by far the worst performing of the 3 platforms. You should see the performance penalty when god forbid the GPU has to clip a polygon, it was so bad I actually wrote code to traverse triangle lists and clip tris with the CPU."
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/was-gc-more-or-less-powerful-than-ps2-spawn.52550/#post-1640713
I wouldn't have it any other way
GC is easily my favorite system. It had so many good games on it
Epic
>>316465392
>specs at a higher clock speeds all around
>all multiplats look better on gamecube
>somehow this makes the gamecube weaker
Just lie my shit up senpai.
so this....is the power....of the gamecube....
woah...
>>316465495
He's acting like the people who tried to suggest the PS3 was a weak system just because it was hard to develop for. GCN was definitely the mid-range console whilst PS2 was the weakest.
>>316465495
>specs at a higher clock speeds all around
>actually thinking clock speed = performance
Holy shit, no wonder you think the Gamecube is more powerful. You are technically illiterate.
>>316465283
Organized shitposting
Most PS2 games aren't even 480p
Also PS2 has no z-buffer and the GPU is shit
>>316465602
>Thinking that one shitty programmer proves your point
Come on senpai! Step it up!
>>316465549
No man look
>>316465602
He's genuinely just trolling spouting lies. The gamecube had the better version of nearly every multiplat. It also had higher clock speeds. It also had more ram if I recall right.
I refuse to let someone tell lies about Nintendos last console.
>>316465446
the gamecube clearly had the most rings
>>316465698
I know, I was agreeing with you.
Gamecube Fill Rate: 162Mhz x 4 pixel pipelines = 648mps
PS2 Fill Rate: 147mhz x 16 pixel pipelines = 2352mps
How the fuck can Gamecube even compete. Holy shit.
>>316465446
>>316465510
This just makes me glad I bought an Xbox HUEG back in the day. And the fact that the Xbox HUEG is the king of hidden gem games.
>>316465295
>PS2 IS A MORE POWERFUL SYSTEM!!!
>that's why the port had to be butchered to be able to run on the glorious PS2!
Ok m8
>>316465669
>Also PS2 has no z-buffer and the GPU is shit
It has though. The GPU was also gifted with extraordinary fillrate.
>>316465698
>The gamecube had the better version of nearly every multiplat.
>>316465392
>"[Gamecube] was by far the worst performing of the 3 platforms. You should see the performance penalty when god forbid the GPU has to clip a polygon, it was so bad I actually wrote code to traverse triangle lists and clip tris with the CPU."
>https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/was-gc-more-or-less-powerful-than-ps2-spawn.52550/#post-1640713
I actually read through the thread and basically his complaint is the GC couldn't do as many polygons as the PS2, that's it. It was more powerful in other regards and this is self evident because GC games consistently look better than PS2 games.
Also, in that thread are other developers thoroughly disagreeing with his opinion the PS2 was more powerful.
>>316465896
I wonder how the framerate was for each
Gamecube was more powerful AND cardinally easier to program for.
Retarded PS2 architecture was the reason why Mikami wanted to run away from it as far as he could.
Had some fun exclusives, I was an idort back then and life was good
>>316465698
>The gamecube had the better version of nearly every multiplat.
.
>>316465905
Back then polycounts mattered far more, especially to the developers. They weren't as aware that you can make graphics look good without high polycounts.
It's still a stupid rant.
>>316465896
Why does the moon look like it's combusting in the PS2 screen.
>>316465952
60FPS.
That's how they did it back in the 6th generation.
>>316465112
But it was more powerful than the PS2 retard. And that was despite it being like 99 dollars or whatever.
>>316465698
>The gamecube had the better version of nearly every multiplat.
..
>>316465112
Stop this meme
Shitposters don't even try anymore.
>>316465821
>Theoretical
Either you are literally an illiterate retard who doesn't know what words means or you suck at shitposting.
Also, fill rate means jack shit if the entire system is bottle-necked by the shitty CPU that the PS2 had.
Add to the fact that the CPU had to handle game audio as well.
>>316465905
>I actually read through the thread and basically his complaint is the GC couldn't do as many polygons as the PS2, that's it
You do realize that polygons, lighting and clopping are calculated in the same place right?
>Also, in that thread are other developers thoroughly disagreeing with his opinion the PS2 was more powerful.
One of the lead programmers of Burnout 3 says that the game wasn't on Gamecube because the system just wasn't capable of it.
http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?26634-PS2-vs-Dreamcast-Graphics&p=639356&viewfull=1#post639356
>But here's the thing; there's no way the simulation would have run on the GC as it was. There was a lot of stuff going on when a crash happened, and I don't think the GC could have handled that. And half the challenge of B3 was navigating traffic. Reducing that to ensure a smooth frame rate would have been a hell of a job, and would have reduced the fun involved.
>But I still stand by my opinion that over all, GC was a weaker machine. Sure it could do nice looking graphics using large detailed textures, but that's as far as it went.
>>316466149
>entire system is bottle-necked by the shitty CPU that the PS2 had.
Oh really?
PS2 Emotion Engine (MIPS FPU + VU0): 3.08 GFLOPS
Gamecube Gecko: 1.9 GFLOPS
It was actually Gamecube with the ridiculously weak CPU that couldn't handle Burnout 3's physics and collision which is why it didn't get ported.
People only ever thought Gecko was more powerful due to muh megahertz myth
>>316466149
Fillrate means a ton. It's actually one of the reasons PS2 did so well technically despite the apparent shortcomings.
Fillrate's one of the most important caps. Reach it, and your frame rate tanks, end of story, no workaround.
>>316465446
PS2 version is also locked at 30FPS instead of 60FPS and 480i only
>>316466535
I think the point he was making was you were never going to get close to reaching the fillrate limit anyway due to other limitations.
Granted I'm ignorant on this subject but from what I understand fillrate has been a non-issue for a long time because you're going to hit a dozen other caps before you hit that one.
The Gamecube is always the odd one out, even though people claim that it's in the middle between the PS2 and Xbox.
If that were true, it and Xbox would be the same and PS2 would be different.
Could it be that Gamecube was actually the weakest?
>make an obvious bait thread
>/v/ falls for it anyway
>>316466687
If fill rate isn't the limit, then it's usually memory bandwidth. And PS2 has more of that than Gamecube too.
>>316465958
this game, THUG1, also supports 480p on gamecube but only 480i on PS2. PS2 version also has far more tearing and worse framerate drops.
the only thing PS2 has over gamecube here is online multiplayer and slightly better controls.
>>316465295
>what is Tales of symphonia having to be locked to 30 Fps on the gaystation 2 down from the silky smooth 60 fps on the gamecube
Even back then, Nintendo was paving the way with their "gameplay over graphics" modus operandi.
>>316466869
>480p on gamecube but only 480i on PS2.
Progressive scan support isn't a measure of a console's power but whether the console has enough VRAM to hold a progressive framebuffer. Yes, the PS2 had too little VRAM, that was the console's biggest weakness.
That doesn't mean it was less powerful than Gamecube. It can T&L faster than Gamecube, fill the screen faster than Gamecube, and has faster memory than Gamecube.
>>316466991
cool, what's your refute for the rest of that post? THUG runs worse on PS2 than gamecube.
>2015
>bitching about the raw power differences of the two best gaming consoles ever made
You fucking autists are never satisfied with anything
>>316466293
I can't believe how full of shit developers can be at times. They got those fucking games to work on FAR weaker hardware just 1 year after Burnout 3.
He is also saying, with a straight fucking face. That a console that was able too run the old games just fine and run Rouge Squadron, Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime 2, Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin 2, Twin Snakes, The incredible hulk and fucking F-Zero GX at close too or at 50-60fps, can't run the (up to that point) latest game in the series that looked almost identical to the old games, at a playable framerate?
I don't buy it, they probably just didn't want to port it to the GC thanks to the lackluster sales and are just trying to blame it on something else.
Also, Fillrate/=Polycount. They are not calculated the same way and can not be compared like some anons seem to be doing in this thread.
>>316467082
Gamecube version is doing less work with inferior textures and lighting.
>>316467206
the textures look worse there but PS2 and gamecube have the same lighting and shadows
>10 years from now this fruit loop will be making Wii U was really the most powerful threads
>>316467085
>bitching about the raw power differences of the two best gaming consoles ever made
Why not? It was the greatest generation.
>>316467189
He actually addressed in that thread when other posters went "Yeah, but Gamecube can run Rogue Squadron 3 so how can you say it couldn't handle Burnout 3".
He then pointed out that Rogue Squadron 3 has extremely basic lighting, just lots of primitive light maps (not actual light sources) which are computationally basic and only one actual light source. Also the game has extremely basic animation since everybody's flying rather stiff spaceships, there's no dynamic deformations or anything like that. The Gamecube's fixed-function GPU is quite good at churning out polygons, but as soon as you add a lot of lighting to the mix it just crashes.
>Also, Fillrate/=Polycount. They are not calculated the same way and can not be compared like some anons seem to be doing in this thread.
Polygons originate from display lists in the CPU, we know that the PS2's FPU + VU0 is capable of more GLOPS than Gecko.
Then those polygons then have to be transformed. PS2's VU1 is more powerful than Gamecube Gecko's T&L unit, although it might not seen obvious at first. Gecko's T&L unit does not have a polygon post-transformation cache, which means it needs to recalculate vertices several times. This is as much as a 3 times performance penalty, and drags it below VU1.
And then finally you fill the polygon onto the screen. It's very well established PS2's fill rate is several times greater than the Gamecube's.
So in summary, at every single point of the polygon's "life cycle", the PS2 has the advantage.
You can really only make a reasonable case for the Gamecube being "more powerful" than the PS2 at texturing.
OP is a giant faggot with mental problems
PS2 already won, what's your problem?
Are you really this pathetic?
>>316466450
You know that these GFLOPS means jack-shit when developing a vidoegame right?
The numbers you just brought up is the theoretical ''best'' the CPU or GPU can do. It just shows how good a specific part of the system (or the system itself) is able to handle calculations in a perfect scenario. But this is very rarely the case when programming or designing a piece of software that utilizes the entire system.
With that said, the PS2's CPU had to handle audio while also handling game-logic, physics, underlying system software (Anti-piracy, the PS2 ''OS'', etc) and draw-calls at the same time. The gamecube and the Xbox could remove one of those things from the list thanks to them having a dedicated processor for audio. And that frees up way more processing power than one might think.
>>316465283
because morons never owned one and hate on nintendo. most people bought into the ps2 hype.
>>316465698
>the better version of nearly every multiplat
was on the xbox huge.
>>316467840
>The numbers you just brought up is the theoretical ''best'' the CPU or GPU can do. It just shows how good a specific part of the system (or the system itself) is able to handle calculations in a perfect scenario. But this is very rarely the case when programming or designing a piece of software that utilizes the entire system.
Yeah, those numbers don't hold up....if there's a bottleneck somewhere in the system.
Show me where the bottleneck is in the PS2 which would be holding up the system. Better still, show me which components of the Gamecube are directly faster.
>
With that said, the PS2's CPU had to handle audio while also handling game-logic, physics, underlying system software (Anti-piracy, the PS2 ''OS'', etc) and draw-calls at the same time. The gamecube and the Xbox could remove one of those things from the list thanks to them having a dedicated processor for audio. And that frees up way more processing power than one might think.
The PS2 can use the embedded PS1 CPU inside of it to assist in decoding audio. And no, processing Dolby Pro Logic 2 doesn't take up a lot of processing power (5.1 is a different story). In any case, FPU + VPU0 inside PS2 have plenty of GFLOPS to spare compared to Gamecube's Gecko.
A lot of N64 games managed to calculate Dolby Surround (more primitive but similar Pro Logic 2) during gameplay and that system doesn't have a dedicated sound chip either.
>>316467675
Can't argue with that. Nintendo always had wizards working for them.
With all this in mind, their way of ''hiding'' their system limitations is actually quite impressive in it's own right.
>>316467919
The PS2 was hyped for a reason.
All power concerns aside, it's the best console of its generation by far and one of, if not the best console of all time.
The gamecube, however is entirely underwhelming in pretty much all aspects. It has few noteworthy games, it's no powerhouse, and ultimately didn't do all that well in terms of sales.
>>316468162
I meant they hype of "its so powerful china banned it because it could be used as a super computer for terrists" nonsense.
>>316468124
I didn't know that the PS2 could use it's backwards compatible CPU to help with some tasks while running in PS2 mode. Thats pretty neat.
>>316467994
Of the two fuckface. Obviously xbox had the best. It was very nearly twice as powerful as the gamecube which was nearly twice as powerful as the ps2.
Ps2 games never had real physics because it couldn't handle them.
>>316467919
The ps2 was the better system by far. GameCube just had a few amazing games (kinda like the n64/ps1 situation).
>>316468327
I just bought all 3 of them. that gen had way too many good games.
Stop enabling autistic spergs who make the same shit threads every day.
>>316467919
ps2 is a god tier console..even with my high end rig i still return to it for the vast library of RPGSs
>>316465112
But they didn't get away with it? They only sold 20 million despite exclusives out the ass.
>>316468291
Yeah, it's used both as an audio processor and as an I/O processor.
It's also why in PS2 documentation the audio system is described as two different CPUs, because you're supposed to use both the PS2 CPU and the PS1 CPU to process audio.
That's also why contrary to rumor Sony didn't remove the PS1 CPU from the slim models. If you did that it would actually break a lot of games. The CPU only appeared to disappear off the slim motherboards because it got embedded into a die with other chips, but it's still there.
PS2's GPU is also register backwards compatible with PS1 games. So altogether, you have (almost) perfect hardware backwards compatible. Initial slim models didn't work with some games due to Sony not accounting from some interrupted timing bugs from the die embedding process.
>>316468124
>And no, processing Dolby Pro Logic 2 doesn't take up a lot of processing power (5.1 is a different story).
I would have thought the output encoding format is virtually irrelevant compared to how many voices, the number of channels and the sound quality you are processing at when it comes to the performance impact.
Both DPLII and 5.1 are going to do surround processing more or less the same internally, right? They are just outputting a different signal to be interpreted by an external processor. Even if it's just mapped down to stereo ultimately I would think you are still going to process your audio as if it's surround internally.
>>316468287
I mean, it could. You could install linux on it and it was pretty cheap, so it would work pretty well as a terrist computer. It's discrete, too.
>>316468327
Too bad that 80% of the PS2's library was shovelware.
Sort of like the Wii, but at least the PS2 was harder to develop for. That alone made sure that the shovelware makers had to have some competent programmers working for them atleast.
>>316468592
80% of over 3000 games still leaves more good games to play than some other consoles' entire libraries.
>>316468523
>I would have thought the output encoding format is virtually irrelevant compared to how many voices, the number of channels and the sound quality you are processing at when it comes to the performance impact.
To achieve virtual surround you need to do audio matrix multiplication on every single virtual channel. That's not trivial (particularly as it involves some division), but more virtual channels can of course add up in computation cost as well.
>Both DPLII and 5.1 are going to do surround processing more or less the same internally, right?
No. DPLII is just stereo output channels, where the virtual channels have been encoded with matrices. The audio receiver box then interprets these output channels and tries to extrapolate them to 5.1 output. It's almost like compression and decompression. But it's nowhere near as rich as a proper 5.1 source.
You need a lot more virtual channels to achieve true 5.1 because decent surround sound means that different output channels will share at least some sounds.
The problem wasn't that the Gamecube was more or less powerful.
The problem was the Gamecube was designed in an obtuse way on purpose, and Nintendo was famously obstinate about releasing documentation about it for basically no reason. Nintendo was weirdly protective of the Gamecube's full potential.
You can see this a LOT in their multiplats.
If you were a standard third party developer, you were basically stuck with what you could learn on your own and what little you could glean from the sparse documentation you had. That's why the Amazing Spidermans and Simpsons Hit and Run Racings all looked like shit.
But if you were lucky to be on Nintendo's good side, you ended up with Mario Sunshine and Metroid Prime and Star Wars Rogue Leader, where some truely jaw-dropping stuff took place.
In Wind Waker, for example, the game ran at a constant 60fps. The game had no backface culling. Usually, when something is covered up by something else, or if it's off camera, the game will stop rendering that thing. Not Wind Waker! Everything within a huge radius of the character existed in-game whether you could see it or not, including building interiors and sheathed weapons. On top of that, each individual blade of grass (of which, if you remember, there were shit tons) had its own unique call. It wasn't one blade of grass called several times to populate the map, it was MANY UNIQUE BLADES CALLED AT THE SAME TIME, which is so inefficient it would bring even modern GPUs to their knees, but, again, Wind Waker stayed true at 60fps the entire fucking time.
The gamecube was capable of some straight up wizardry, if you knew how to handle it. Nintendo just didn't like handing out that info for weird reasons.
>>316465112
Having good games.
>>316469098
I don't understand.
DPLII is 5 discrete channels which is encoded in a format that is transmitted in a "backwards compatible" stereo format from which it is possible to extract the discrete channels from.
DD, assuming we are talking xbox here, is 5 discrete channels, and a low frequency one but that is non-directional, which is transmitted via a digital bit stream.
The only difference is the format of the audio signal that is output, not the input and, as far as multi-channel is concerned, not the analog output.
>>316465669
>PS2 has no z-buffer
why do you repeat things you heard on /v/ without doing any research? Trust me, you'd fucking know if the PS2 didn't have a z-buffer. You're thinking of the original PlayStation.
I'm curious, what do you think a z buffer does?
>>316469330
Also the reason 3rd party devs latched on to Xbox so quick. MS had support, documentation and a really straight forward platform. The only thing they had to deal with was the insane NDA with those documents due to the Nvidia GPU in it (MS had to send a rep to take back the reference documents and development manuals every time a developer went out of business)
But then it's funny people are bringing up Burnout 3 because Criterion were very close to making it Xbox only because of the sheer amount of things it was pushing. The PS2 version was severely cut back in texture resolution, mipmaps, particle effects and anti-aliasing compared to the Xbox version and had severe framerate issues in places. It's a testament to the gameplay that people accepted the PS2 version, but 3 and Revenge were awful on the PS2 from a technical standpoint.
>>316469330
Actually the gamecube was more easier to code for.
Ps2 had panty on the head retarded architecture that rivaled the ps3 in its shittyness.
>>316469330
>In Wind Waker, for example, the game ran at a constant 60fps
No, it ran at 30fps, with occasional (minor) drops.
>The game had no backface culling. Usually, when something is covered up by something else, or if it's off camera, the game will stop rendering that thing.
That means that the game was not fill-limited, but either T&L or CPU limited (which is not a good thing, because the Gamecube didn't have a lot of fill).
To achieve backface culling, either the CPU or the GPU need to calculate which was the polygons face. By removing this calculation, the Gamecube was conserving its resources. I guess this was a wise decision for a cel-shaded game considering the system's weaknesses in calculating lighting. Wind Waker isn't really doing any taxing fill effects (like a large number of TEV shader operations).
> Everything within a huge radius of the character existed in-game whether you could see it or not, including building interiors and sheathed weapons.
Once again, this would just square with the fact that the Gamecube was really bad at clipping operations, so it didn't bother. Just like one programmer said >>316465392
> It wasn't one blade of grass called several times to populate the map, it was MANY UNIQUE BLADES CALLED AT THE SAME TIME, which is so inefficient it would bring even modern GPUs to their knees
Ah, that's because the Gamecube isn't comparable to a PC GPU. It's a fixed function vertex shader that operates on data packets, so these sorts of polygon transformation operations are relatively fast (until you light them, that is).
This statement doesn't really say anything, since this kind of operation is specifically attuned to the Gamecube hardware. If you did the "PC way" of rendering, that would bring the Gamecube to its knees. Round peg, square hole. Not comparable.
>The gamecube was capable of some straight up wizardry
Nah, the only wizardly was happening in Nintendo's art department. Good art, bad hardware. Decent enough results.
>>316465698
No game of that generation beats Rogue Squadron 2 in graphics.
>>316469330
>In Wind Waker, for example, the game ran at a constant 60fps.
Proof? Even HD shit is only 30fps.
>>316465112
Probably mentioned a dozen times now but the Gamecube was much stronger than the PS2, this is common knowledge.
>/v/ tries to discuss hardware
>/v/ thinks you can directly compare clocks between a PPC core and a MIPS core
>/v/ thinks you can make broad sweeping generalizations about various architectures when they all have their own nuances and performance characteristics
Never change, you tech illiterate retards.
>>316469593
True 5.1 has its own encoding algorithm and it has far higher computation requirements than Dolby Pro Logic II.
Remember, out of all of your virtual channels, for Pro Logic II your algorithm needs to make sure 2 output channels come out of it. For 5.1, you need to make 5 output channels come out of it.
>>316470102
>common knowledge.
common knowledge is often wrong
>>316469946
>No game of that generation beats Rogue Squadron 2 in graphics.
You can't have played many games in that generation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUJqciSaGrA
It maintains 60fps better than RS2 does too.
>>316470285
>for Pro Logic II your algorithm needs to make sure 2 output channels come out of it
Yes, but there are 5 discrete channels buried in that 2 channel output, just like there are 5 discrete channels in the True 5.1 bitstream. Surely you are processing the same number of virtual channels with DPLII as you would with DD because both are supposed to ultimately result in the output of 5 discrete channels, it's just that for one you encode in a DPLII encoded stereo track and for other you encode in a DD bitstream for transmission two an external processor.
I get that one results in better quality, clarity, positioning, etc. I just don't get that they would have different inputs.
>>316471436
The inputs / virtual channels can be the same (though not often the same case), but the number of operations and the complexity of the encoding algorithm is higher.
Is this a hidden RE4 thread?
>>316471973
Of course, for those people that played Separate Ways
>>316472708
so people that played the wii, 360, PS3 or windows versions? because noone touched the dog shit PS2 version.
>>316473059
Actually the PS2 version had over double the sales of the Gamecube version
>>316473059
The GC version is the lowest selling version out of all of them whereas the PS2's is the highest.
>>316473138
>>316473220
i have literally never researched it and assumed everyone had too high of standards to play the PS2 version
okay
>>316465295
Are there any other decent graphics multiplats to compare?
>>316473289
More people owned the PS2 and the series was mostly PS1 in the previous gen.
All the fans were on PS2. Of course it sold the most. It also had more content, even if the visuals took a hit.
>>316473319
no most 6th gen multiplats look like musty scrotum and run on renderware
>>316465363
Such bait.... such poweeerrrrrr!!!
>>316470406
Common knowledge is OP is a fag.
>>316474293
>source: the opinion of one person that did not decide whether or not a gamecube version was developed
>>316475064
Apparently a Gamecube version was developed.
They hand wrote PowerPC assembly and still couldn't get it running fast enough.
>>316466776
it's not even the first one
>>316475250
i heard it was in development for gamecube but never heard why it got canned. source on that?
>>316475250
http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?26634-PS2-vs-Dreamcast-Graphics&p=645458&viewfull=1#post645458
>B3 wasn't made for the GC because the machine just wasn't capable of it. Even with VU0 running in macro mode, at 50% of the throughput of microcode, the results were better than what we'd get on the GC with hand tuned assembler. You could do more physics, more collision detection, more AI, more everything. Oh yeah...and more graphical effects on higher poly vehicles.
>That's the reason B3 on the Gamecube didn't happen. It just wasn't up to the job.
That's the thing about Gamecube. Being good at texturing doesn't help you in other areas.
>>316470540
Sonyfags think this looks good. God not only do you all have shit taste in games but graphics too.
>>316475250
>>316475587
nothing he said explicitly says they tried
>>316475587
>forum post by some random autist nerd
>>316475879
They tried because the project started under Acclaim who had a great working relationship with Nintendo.
And it does say they tried. Why did they hand-write assembly if they didn't try?
>>316475856
Show me a Gamecube captured game that looks better at 60fps
>>316476064
http://www.consolecity.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=55036&highlight=Burnout
Let's go back in time and see what actually happened.
>>316473621
Renderware was mostly Xbox focused because Microsoft was the only ones who sent engineers to Criterion to help with development and RW was really optimised. Nintendo and Sony told em' to fuck off. Xbox versions of Renderware games at middle and the end of the gen like Burnout Revenge, Just Cause and Black were kicking the absolute shit out of PS2 versions.
Renderware ran like shit and games looked awful on PS2 but it ran like a dream on Xbox
>>316476994
i haven't tried the xbox version of black, i should
>>316476875
>Gamescrewbe
>>316476172
That's the xbox version, the ps2 version has worse graphics and framrate.
>>316476994
Bullshit: the post
Just Cause wasn't a Renderware game.
Renderware was so tightly attuned to the PS2 that it was called "Sony's DirectX". And it's absolute rubbish that Renderware games ran like shit on PS2.
Burnout 3 and Black look EXTREMELY similar on PS2 and Xbox. The Xbox versions are superior, but not by a lot. Considering the significant difference in power between the two consoles, the PS2 is doing extremely well.
Hell, the PS2 version of Burnout 3 even has some advantages: more and better collision sparks than the Xbox version, even if it's slightly worse overall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0blqetCernY
>>316477293
burnout 3 holds 60fps well on both consoles from what i remember
>>316477293
>the ps2 version has worse graphics and framrate.
The PS2 version runs at a lower resolution as per the usual, and is missing exactly one extra reflection pass on the cars. Otherwise they are exactly the same. Both run at 60fps.
>>316471320
That's a really bad fake, are shitposters even trying anymore?
Show me a PS2 game as impressive and good looking as RE4, Custom Robo, Tales of Symphonia, Super Mario Sunshine, Wind Waker, Metroid Prime 1/2
>>316470107
this
the bottom line was:
if a game was designed for a specific system then it ran best on that system while the ports were often crap.
Using multiplatforms as a basis for which was "better" is retarded.
>>316474293
ran okay on the PSP
>>316477980
burnout 2 was on gamecube so what's your point?
those games weren't as technically advanced as burnout 3
>>316477867
I would say SoTC, but the framerate always went to shit the moment you fought any of the bigger bosses in the game.
>>316477517
Jak 3
>>316477867
Metal Gear Solid 2
Metal Gear Solid 3
Zone of the Enders 2nd Runner
Final Fantasy XII
Silent Hill 3
Jak II
Tekken 5
God of War
God of War 2
Shadow of the Colossus
Valkyrie Profile 2
Rogue Galaxy
Burnout 3
Black
>>316478263
meant for
>>316477867
>>316478107
Burnout Legend's was a port of 3 with a few effects missing and worse textures and it ran fine.
I don't think they bothered with the port for GC because the audience wasn't there and they're lazy.
>>316478574
PSP's CPU is actually capable of more GFLOPS than the Gamecube's. (3.2 GFLOPS vs 1.9 GLFOPS)
Interesting. Of course Gamecube's GPU can also do GFLOPS unlike PSP's GPU but it's fixed function, so you can't put that power towards anything but transforming, lighting and clipping polygons.
>>316465363
this
>>316473642
are you retarded?
>>316465392
nice source /s
>>316469913
>decent enough results
http://www.ign.com/articles/2000/11/04/gamecube-versus-playstation-2
get rekt faggots
>Michael Lamb, CEO of Left Field Productions, offers: "One of the bottle necks the PS2 developers I talk to seems to be the limited size of video memory. This will be less of a problem on the Nintendo Gamecube because of the speed of the memory and S3 compression resulting in smaller textures."
>Furthermore, Gamecube renders up to eight effects layers to a polygon in a single pass, whereas the PS2 features a multi-pass rendering system. So, for example, Gamecube developers can effectively start with the base geometry (1), add a bump-map to it (3), add a dirt map (4), add a gloss map (5), add a reflection map (6), add a radiosity light map (7) and an effects layer of their choice (8) -- all in a single pass. By contrast, PS2 developers would have to re-render the polygon itself for every pass meaning eight times the work to get the same effect. So essentially PS2 has to render 1,000 polygons eight times over whereas Gamecube only has to render 1,000 polygons once for the same effect.
jesus christ
GET FUCKING REKT
>But is PS2's CPU with Vector Units really more powerful than Gamecube's? We went to Julian Eggebrecht, president of Factor 5, a developer currently underway with Gamecube projects for a different opinion. "Gamecube's Gekko is the most powerful general-purpose CPU ever in a console. The PowerPC alone is so much better and faster structurally that Gekko not only is much, much faster than the PS2's main CPU but every bit as fast as a 733 MHz Pentium,"
JESUS SO MUCH REKT OH MY GOD
>>316479195
>nice source /s
Source is Brian Fehdrau aka ERP. He's actually developed games for PS2, Xbox and Gamecube. Just like Criterion Games did, who also agree the Gamecube was inferior to PS2. Feel free to look him up.
He also developed World Driver Championship for N64, the game with the highest polygon count on the whole console.
>actually using Julian Eggebrecht as a source
Firstly, he never developed for PS2 or Xbox. Secondly, he's well known for saying technical bullshit for PR purposes. Thirdly, his game for N64, Rogue Squadron, ran like shit compared to World Driver Championship.
When your only source is a Gamecube exclusive developer with a conflict of interest (his company developed the Gamecube's audio tools), then there's a problem.
As for texture memory, it's well known Gamecube does better texturing than PS2. PS2 is better in pretty much every other way.
Memes and asshurt won't save you from the facts, friend :^)
if all of these threads turn out this interesting then OP should shitpost more often
>>316479195
>but every bit as fast as a 733 MHz Pentium
didn't factor 5 get even better performance on the xbox though? IIRC they were working on a star wars game for xbox that moved to wii and then got shitcanned
>>316480730
There are more factors than cpu performance that determine how well a game runs.
>>316465602
Power doesnt equal performance.
The game cube may have been more powerful whilst the ps2 could have performed better, down to optimization.
Think of it like a really heavy car with a 2 litre engine vs a really light car with a 1.4 litre engine.
The heavy car is more powerful but the light car performs better.
Power is raw stats
Performance is the outcome of process.
>OP tried to make another PS2 vs. gamecube shitposting thread about burnout 3 while this was still alive
must not be going the way he wanted
>>316481451
Optimization is the most important factor just as says >>316481692
That was Gamecube's strength, it was really easy to get it going well. But eventually developers hit a wall, so after a long time the difficult PS2 was able to have good performance scratched out of it. And the graphics eventually got even better than Gamecube.
The Gamecube approach was a good one if only either the CPU was better or the GPU was properly programmable...
