VF4 PS2 Release

Re: /me gets out violin

The NAOMI 2 is more powerful than the PS2 therefore the PS2 version looks less stellar. For an INFORMED outlook read this:

<a target="_blank" href=http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/previews/0>http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/previews/0</a>,10869,2842311,00.html

 

Naomi better than PS2?!

Now this is something I just can't understand.

PS2 has lousy texture memory but it can shift 20 polygons on screen at any one time with all it's features while Naomi2 can do 10. So, I was never worried about the character models the way I was for VF3tb on DC.

With regard to the lighting effects, the multiple light sources aside, I always thought that was down to a lack of development time. AM2 have only spent the better part of six months on the conversion (See the Coremagazine.com interview with Yu Suzuki) . Arguably, five because they spent the last amount of their time working on the PS2 exclusive modes and options.

Now, for a Development team that's had only a years research of PS2 hardware prior to taking on the conversion I think they've done an admirable job when you considered all the things they've added for the home release and assuming the game engine will be perfect. (I have faith in Suzuki and CO.)

Imagine if they had eight months or even ten, with Namco's past experience with TTT as it began to make T4.

If only they had more time.

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

I can't believe people are still harping on the VRAM when the GC has 3 megabytes and the Xbox has none in the traditional sense. You can't compare DC and Naomi 2 VRAM compared to the other consoles. The architecture is completely different with a different method of handling textures. On the DC and Naomi 2 it's tradtional to have your textures stored in VRAM. On the Xbox, GC and PS2, it's designed to store them in main memory. 4 megabytes is adequate for what it was designed for. The only problem the PS2 has in this regard was not having texture decompression on the GS. So while 4 megabytes isn't a whole lot in the traditional sense, it is certainly adequate for how it was designed. In fact, this design is what makes both the GC and the PS2 better 2D machines than the DC despite having less VRAM.

But hey by comparison the Naomi 2 has 32 megabytes of VRAM in the traditional sense. The GC and Xbox might not be able to handle that either. Maybe the Xbox since it can dynamically change how much memory it dedicates to textures, but I'm not even sure the Xbox could spare that much in this case. Keep in mind, Naomi 2 will store more data than needed to minimize loading so all of that 32 megabytes isn't likely used at any given time and also it is storing all the textures even if they are visible or not unlike what the GC and PS2 do. And that would be assuming that VF4 is actually filling up the VRAM which it doesn't have to be either. Remember Naomi 2 is a multi-purpose hardware, not VF4 dedicated hardware, thus VF4 doesn't have to be pushing it to the limit in every regard.

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

The Gamecube has 16mb dedicated to video alone, not 3. The PS2 does not store textures in main ram, it stores it in the 4 MB of ram.

If the PS2's limited VRAM wasn't such an issue then tell me why most programers complain about it?

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

I can't believe people are still harping on the VRAM when the GC has 3 megabytes and the Xbox has none in the traditional sense
Ps2 has 4MB of VRAM and 1.2 GB/s of bandwidth to the GS.
DC has 8MB, and 800MB/s to the PVR and its a deferred renderer and uses hardware texture compression. Naomi 2 is the same, except it has 32MB of RAM. In effect, DC has far better texturing capability than the PS2.
GC has 3.2 GB/s and Xbox has 6.4 (from memory)/s to the graphics chips and both support compression. Ps2 is woeful in thus regard.
Most developers opt to store a good amount of texture detail from a scene on the chips VRAM because the streaming capabilities of the system are crap. This is why AM2 couldn't spare any VRAM for filtering. Developers and people harp on about it for a reason.

4 megabytes is adequate for what it was designed for.
Obviously that statement is wrong because PS2 has poor texturing capabilites and many of its titles do not use filtering.

In fact, this design is what makes both the GC and the PS2 better 2D machines than the DC despite having less VRAM.
How is that? There is NO difference between the methods of the DC, PS2, GC or Xbox in their basic texture management. ALL of them stream textures to the graphic chip, either locally or from main memory - no difference. The difference is the efficiency of the method.
DC has dedicated RAM, so bandwidth is not an issue.
GC doesn't but it has much more banwidth than PS2.
Xbox doesn't but it also has more bandwidth than PS2.
Both of the above also support compression and their respective graphics chips can request textures at will.
GS, on the other hand, has crap bandwidth, no compression, and can't even request textures. They have to be sent to it by the EE. Lame design which is proven in the games it has.


Check out the review at Gamespot and take a look at the low res images. That's what the game looks like on your TV from a single frame. Yuk

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

Ok class, and to sum all this up...

While others who would rather wait and pass judgement (or have actually played a near complete version) have sounded off to the contrary, Rugal clearly believes that he can define a good or poor conversion based on released screen captures. (Never mind that there were other PS2 games that looked this poor in stills, but were MUCH better in motion...Ridge Racer V anyone?)

He has no clue as to actual gameplay of the port, which apparently isn't all that important to him anyway. He's writen off this game as shabby, based solely on graphics. Even if they get EVERYTHING right in game mechanics, he would still not be impressed because that's not what is important to him.

So stop all the damn bickering about machines and what not. Bottom line, it'll be VF, it'll look better than all of the versions before it and there's nothing that will change that fact. Even for the bitter fucks who can't stand that they can't pause the game and count the spines in a damn angelfish dorsal fin in the background, cause god knows they could care less if they were actually playing the game.

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

While others who would rather wait and pass judgement (or have actually played a near complete version) have sounded off to the contrary, Rugal clearly believes that he can define a good or poor conversion based on released screen captures
I've already stated the reasons why I think screen captures make it easy and justifyable to compare the conversion to PS2. If you don't have any argument against this other than your silly conclusion, then you're best to keep it to yourself.

9Never mind that there were other PS2 games that looked this poor in stills, but were MUCH better in motion...Ridge Racer V anyone?)
You're kidding, right? RR5 is a flickering mess of a game. It has more jagged edges than a buzz saw. Even through a RGB connection it still looks bad.

He has no clue as to actual gameplay of the port, which apparently isn't all that important to him anyway
I said that I assumed it would be a perfect conversion gameplay wise as it was handled by the developers who made the arcade. And when did I say gameplay wasn't important? Another of your brilliant assesments? Bah. I love the guys like you who come into arguments like these and scream about gameplay - it's not about the gameplay. Get it?

Even if they get EVERYTHING right in game mechanics, he would still not be impressed because that's not what is important to him.
Yeah, right, cause it would make your understand of my arguement all the more easy, eh? Sorry, but you'll just have to think about it some more...

So stop all the damn bickering about machines and what not. Bottom line, it'll be VF, it'll look better than all of the versions before it and there's nothing that will change that fact
Firstly, if it bothers you then don't read the thread.
Secondly, I've selected a cap from VF4 and Vf3 from Gamespot that will illustrate the quality of the conversion, and also highlight its comparison to the Vf3 conversion.


VF3 on DC - video capture


VF4 on PS2 - video capture.
It's quite easy to see that VF4 is indeed a lesser port than VF3TB

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


The Gamecube has 16mb dedicated to video alone, not 3. The PS2 does not store textures in main ram, it stores it in the 4 MB of ram.

If the PS2's limited VRAM wasn't such an issue then tell me why most programers complain about it?


<hr></blockquote>

Haklong: What you just said shows you don't understand the technical design of the system. If you go to Nintendo's own website it states:

Embedded Frame Buffer Approx. 2MB Sustainable Latency : 6.2ns (1T-SRAM)
Embedded Texture Cache Approx. 1MB Sustainable Latency : 6.2ns (1T-SRAM)

Which is equal to 3 megabytes. What you're confusing with on chip embedded RAM is the 16 megabytes of main RAM which is dedicated to storing textures. Think of it this way, that 3 megabytes of emedded RAM which makes up the texture cache and the frame buffer is equal to the 4 megabytes of embedded RAM on the PS2. Now on the GameCube, they list 24 megabytes of system RAM and 16 megabytes of RAM for video/textures. That is 40 megabytes total. Imagine that being like the PS2's 32 megabytes of main RAM. The difference here is that in the GC, they've segmented the memory so you have 16 megabytes for textures and the 24 for the game. The PS2 let's the developer decide how much of the 32 megabytes is dedicated to each. It's more like the design of the Xbox which is similiar in allowing the developer deciding how much of main RAM they want to dedicate to what.

Thus the PS2 does not store it in the 4 megs of embedded RAM, because that is just the frame buffer and texture cache. Like the GameCube, it streams texture from main RAM into the emedded RAM whenever it needs to draw it to the screen.

Developers complained initially becaused they were used to the Dreamcast situation in which you store not the visible textures per frame like the GC and PS2, but you store all your textures in the scene whether they are visible or not. Thus they were literally storing their textures in the 4 megabytes of embedded RAM like you think it's designed for even though they didn't have to. Once you change your philosophy of design to this different type of thinking, it is no longer the issue that it once was. The only complaints now is that you still have to code for it where as the GC has implemented it a way that it's less visible to the developer. But the principle on the GC and the PS2 are the same. The GC can get away with having LESS embedded RAM because it has texture decompression on the graphics chip, rather than needed to decompress it before sending it to the embedded RAM.

As for you rugal, I was about to reply to what you said until I saw your latest post which just shows how silly you are. That is not how the game will look on the screen, and if you knew as much about technical things as you seem to think you do, you would know that. You would know why a direct screen grab from a field rendered method would not be a good indicator on what the game looks like. But no matter how many facts are thrown at you, you're set in your argument and nothing is going to change that no matter how wrong you are. You clealry have something against the PS2 and/or Sony and are pretty closed minded about anything that says otherwise.

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

That is not how the game will look on the screen, and if you knew as much about technical things as you seem to think you do, you would know that. You would know why a direct screen grab from a field rendered method would not be a good indicator on what the game looks like.
Can you come out with any more rediculous comments?
Firstly, both of those images are direct screen grabs from a console. They ARE an EXACT indication of the singal that is SENT to the TV. EXACT. What would they be otherwise?

Is there some mysterious magical process that takes place in the TV? Please, enlighten me cause I have no idea.

I posted those shots to show you EXACTLY what the difference is between a 640 by480 game with filtering and a 640 by 240 game without filtering.
You can clearly see that the Vf3 shot is far superior in terms of aliasing and texture distortion. It's clear as day.

Secondly, these images are exactly what the game looks like on your TV. If you could grab a single image at 1/30th of a second, this would be it.
The problem is that on VF4, the 30th of a frame image is made up of 2 entirely different fields, which is why there is aliasing, jaggies and so on.
The DC version is made up of 2 different fields as well, but the filtering used reduces the aliasing. Again, filtering is only possible on the DC because it is using a 640 by 480 image to begin with. Vf4 PS2 is not 640 by 480 to begin with (in frame buffer) its 640 by 240, which is low res, and half that of the arcade.

Oh, and here's a shot of TTT US version, which uses filtering. Compare this to VF4. Notice how there is FAR less aliasing. That's cause it isn't low res like VF4

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

Hmm.. Hi, I'm a newbie, and just figured out how cool VF4 really will be. But Rugal's idiocy made me register. Anyway.. If you zoom out on the VF4 pic, the pixle-ness dissappears. It looks great!

Once I figure out how to save the pic at the same res as that FV3 one, I'll post it.

But then again, Its kind of tedious to save every pic to the hard drive, then unzoom. So I guess we can just say they're crappy because they zoomed in too much on the screen. [/sarcasm]

And, in MHO, unless you sit 3 inches from your TV, you won't notice the pixle-ness too much.

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

Oh, and before Rugal jumps on me, I want to let you know, that zooming out does NOT reduce the resolution....

Dear god, what has Bill Gates spawned?

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

Whine whine whine! Rugal have you forgot what makes VF so great? If it was the graphics alone then all previous VF games wouldn't be very good at all. It's the gameplay god damnit! If you want only graphics and crappy gameplay then go play Tekken instead of crying like a little baby.

Geez, give am2 some credit instead! They've done a terrific job, sure the graphics are toned down a little but it still looks great IMO and the gameplay is supposedly close to identical to the arcade version.

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

"have you forgot what makes VF so great? If it was the graphics alone then all previous VF games wouldn't be very good at all. It's the gameplay god damnit! If you want only graphics and crappy gameplay then go play Tekken "

say what??

yo, you got some of the stuff backwords. VF (1,2,3)always had both, the graphics AND gameplay down.

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

Well what I meant was that by todays standards the previous VF games doesn't have very good graphics, but they are still great games because of the gameplay /versus/images/icons/smile.gif

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

Rugal, it sounds to me like you know what your talking about and I agree with the numbers your posting.

One point I wanted to make, is that Balders Gate Dark Alliance for the PS2 renders the screen in tiles, and if you've seen this game running it's quite a sight to behold. It does not have the usual PS2 graphic artifacts, and throws around lavish lighting and particle effects without dropping a frame.

Sega has a lot of great developers, and I think if they had more time they would rewrite their graphics pipeline using bands or tiles. As it is, it's amazing what they accomplished in 6 months!

The Rat

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

I doubt very much that the PS2 version of baulders gate renders the screen in tiles. That would require polygon sorting, which is a very CPU-intensive process. Dreamcast and Naomi 2 are tile-based renderers, although they have hardware that does the sorting in real time.
PS2 is fully capable of full scene Anti aliasing, as seen in baulders gate. It's a method similar to the G-Force, in that it renders the screen 4 times with pixel variations and blends the results together. The cost is fillrate and that's something that most normal PS2 games can't afford. Baulders gate is a top-down game, so fillrate isn't much of an issue. This game uses 4X AA via multisample (method mentioned above). Vf4 doesn't use any form of AA though, which is why it looks ugly.

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

Actually, the developers of the game mentioned that the engine was tile based in OPM (December issue I think).

Whatever they are doing, the PS2 likes it, as their game is gorgeous.

The Rat

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

Well, the would have been referring to the arcade version of the game, which is title based. PS2 is a traditional renderer and does not use tiles at all

 

Re: Naomi better than PS2?!

Uhhh.. I was talking about Balders Gate... oh well...

The Rat