> -----Original Message----- > From: James Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 11:55 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Got a PS2 SlimLine for my Biiirthddaaayyy ^_^ > > > This can be done on all the current generation consoles, but > > not on the last. > > I don't get it, in one paragraph you state that the graphics aren't > important and you have other measures of "quality", and then state that > the > game relies of graphics entirely and wouldn't be playable without them, > please, make your mind up. Are graphics important to you or are they just > the "eye candy" you mention later?
You're missing the point - this is about "graphics" so much as the processing behind them. The algorithms that go into those lighting effects, those particulate effects and so forth. A PS1 could produce pretty pictures (look at the classic FMVs for FFVII), what it couldn't do was handle the processing power needed to create realistic lighting, particulate effects and so forth. The PS2 CAN do this, albeit not as well as the XBox. This is why a game like "Splinter Cell" is possible on both platforms. > <SNIP> > > > Physics-based weapons like the Bouncer or the Lava Gun in > > "Ratchet and Clank" couldn't be done until this generation - > > the older systems just didn't have the juice to do that AND > > control two or three dozen enemies on screen. > > > > The giant, fully realized bosses in games like "Prince of > > Persion: The Warrior Within" and many others could not have > > been done in the last generation. > > Yes they could, they just wouldn't have looked as pretty, graphics > again... No - they couldn't. Which is why they weren't done. Read any of the interviews with people from Naughty Dog when the first Jak and Daxter came out - they're riddled with comments about they tried to do this or that in "Crash Bandicoot" but couldn't. Even more recently take a walk through any of the "Insomniac Museums" available the Ratchet and Clank games: there are always at least one or two exhibits detailing something that the hardware couldn't do then. For example, they display a small puddle of insanely realistic looking water which couldn't be used for all the water in the game because the processer couldn't handle the wave calculations on that scale. > > Many of the more enjoyable experiences on the modern consoles > > can't be done without pressure sensitive controller buttons, > > and built in analog sticks - both things the previous > > generation were either lacking completely or never took full > > advantage of. > > There were analogue sticks on the PSOne that were used in the majority of > later games, admitidly not so much (if at all) in the earlier games > because > the analogue controller didn't exist in the beginning. True - but as I said they were never taken full advantage of because they weren't stock equipment. > > A gadget like the Eyetoy wasn't possible on previous consoles > > due to both the lack of high-speed peripheral report and the > > simple lack of the processing power needed to do motion > > capture and analysis. > > The interface wasn't available I will grant you that, but the processing > power required is nimimul, there is no motion capture being performed just > a > simple motion tracking system that your average pocket calculator could > handle. Have you played with unit? The processing power needed is far from minimal. There is DEFINITELY motion capture being performed (which is needed for many of the more psychedelic effects) as well and motion tracking, collision detection. In addition there's alpha channel masking with multiple layers (especially in some of the cool "wizardy" demos available). If you really think that the processing power is minimal you're doing a great disservice to those people. > > The level of realism in "Silent Hill 2" along with many other factors > > Graphics again... Not only. Don't you have ears! Sound is often much more important to people than sight when determining realism. Since our primary acuity is visual the brain is hardwired to constantly fill in blanks, make up for missing information and so forth. Sound on the other hand is more directly linked to memory and cognition (it passes through fewer mental "filters") and in omnidirectional were vision is purely binocular. Sound is also much more strongly connected to the emotional centers of the brain (which is why a picture of someone scratching their nails on a chalkboard isn't as effective as the sound of it). (As an aside, smell is even more strongly connected to both memory and emotion... but we're not there yet in terms of consoles.) When a bird flies by does it "look" good even if it's not flying like a bird would? When a fog encroaches does it still look good even if it's not reacting realistically to the moving objects in the game. It's actually more important how something moves than how it looks. This was the mastery, for example, of the original "Prince of Persia" or "Our of this World". The graphics were actually quite primitive, very ugly in stills - however the rotoscoped movement completely compensated for that. Another example would be Serria's classic "Grabriel Knight" game (the first one). I believe it was the first one to use actual lip synching with it's ugly 8bit sprites. But it made a hugely significant difference to the game. These are the underlying aspects of graphics - this is what makes the eye candy mean something and affect gameplay. > > Take a look at the games you play and eliminate the graphics > > from consideration. I think you'll find that the actual > > reason you like the games has very little to do with the > > graphics (there's a reason it's called "eye candy"). Don't > > the vastly improved AI, realistic physics, multi-channel > > sound, improved controller, content quantity, and all these > > other things play any role? > > Yes, but mostly the graphics are the reason to upgrade or switch console. > A > driving game on the dreamcast or PSOne can have just as good handeling, > just > as chalenging oponents, and all the other gameplay stuff, but will never > be > able to look as sweet. The same aplies to a beat-em-up or any other genre > you like. When talking about splinter cell at the top of this mail you > yourself state that the games main problem on older hardware would be the > inability for the graphics engine to display the required information to > the user. Exactly - and that's a gameplay element, not a graphical one. The PS2 (to bring the conversation around) CAN display the information required for gameplay. It CAN'T display all the eye-candy that the XBox can. And the XBox can't display all the eue candy of a high end PC and nothing (yet!) can display all the eye-candy the developers would dearly love to throw at you. > > To say that any game from today done on an older console > > would "play the same" shows a remarkable misunderstanding of > > what makes great games truly great. > > At the end of the day I understand your desire to defend your ownership of > the PS2 in the same way the owner of ANY car will defend it and tell you > how > great it is even when it is a rust bucket, it is the basic human desire to > protect what we own and the distaste for admitting hard earned cash went > on > a datsun. I could say the same about you, of course but this truly shows a misunderstanding of what I'm talking about. It's not a defense of the PS2 - it's a defense of the reasons you're slagging the PS2. It's an attack on the idea that BECAUSE one system looks marginally better than another that system is in all ways better. It's an reply to the statement "The XBox has better graphics so the PS2 sucks." I've tried to make that clear, I apologize if I haven't. I've not bought an XBox because of some imagined dedication to the PS2 but rather because it has no games (or at least not enough games) to make be buy it. So far the games I've wanted to play are either available for the PS2 or Cube (and PLAY just as well even if they don't look quite a good) or, if I really want the looks, available for the PC (and my PC soundly kicks the XBox's ass in the visuals department). At the same time none of the current generation consoles offer me everything which is why there's still a Dreamcast, a TuboGraphix 16, a Jaguar, a Nomad and a Gameboy in the house. My simple statement remains: there can be more than one good thing in the world at the same time. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:141255 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
