|
Home > Archive > Sony playstation2 > September 2005 > The Real Reason for the "Prerender" Bullshit Campaign
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
The Real Reason for the "Prerender" Bullshit Campaign
|
|
| Blig Merk 2005-09-18, 8:30 pm |
| The real reason the xflop fanfairies have siezed on spreading the
"prerender" bullshit is that everybody can see the xflop 1.5 full
circle graphics are only slightly better than this generation rather
than being next generation, and that the visuals for the PS3 are 2 to 3
times better than the xflop 1.5 full circle. So, since the xflop 1.5
full circle graphics are so obviously inferior to the PS3, then the
only "reason" can be that the PS3 footage is all "prerendered".
It is particularly humorous and the height of irony that the xflop
fanfairies have made such a monumental issue out of this misconstrued
perception. It has been the xflop fanfairies that have been the biggest
graphics ho's and yet they almost universally demonstrate this peculiar
inability to distinguish the difference between software rendered
cinematics, software rendered computer graphics, real-time game engine
cutscenes and real-time game engine in-game scenes. There must be a
reason for this strange contradiction in perceptions, on one-hand
idolizing graphics and on the other hand, being unable to distinguish
the differences in the sources and creation of those graphics.
Something else that is becoming very obvious and commented on in many
places is that the game action on the xflop 1.5 full circle is very
stuttery. It is turning out that the majority of the "launch window"
games are locked at 30fps: Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero, Oblivion, Project
Gotham Racing 3, Ghost Recon, Quake 4, several others. This is only on
the xflop 1.5 full circle, not on the PC for those games that are
actually PC games like Oblivion, Quake 4 and Ghost Recon (which will be
out on the PC well before the xflop 1.5 full circle port). Of course, a
lot of people will argue that 30fps is all that is needed, that nobody
can see beyond that. True, not individual frames but the overall
effect of only 30fps is jittery overall action and screens. Even most
PS2 games are at least 60fps. It is also turning out the xflop 1.5 full
circle games will initially be running on only one processor, making
their performance about the same as a medium end PC. This probably
explains why the frame rate is being locked to 30fps. The xflop 1.5
full circle is very close to being obsolete soon after it launches.
| |
| masters 2005-09-18, 8:30 pm |
| "Blig Merk" <blig_murk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127083653.405340.149410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> The real reason the xflop fanfairies have siezed on spreading the
> "prerender" bullshit is that everybody can see the xflop 1.5 full
> circle graphics are only slightly better than this generation rather
> than being next generation, and that the visuals for the PS3 are 2 to 3
Pure speculation like the rest of your post. By the way, what's the "real
reason" for your bullshit campaign on here?
| |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 2005-09-19, 12:30 am |
|
I find it very amusing myself. And typical.
I told the Xflops years ago that the PS2 was able to outperform the Xbox
in a few areas. Namely, pixel fillrate and frame buffer bandwidth. The
PS2 also has the ability to generate proceduraly rendered graphics on
the fly. Games like Ratchet and Clank and Jak 3 make heavy use of those
qualities. Conker is a great looking game, but it doesn't have the same
type of graphics we see in Jak or Ratchet and that is because of the
differences in architecture. Anyone that claims Xbox can do Jak or
Ratchet is a misinformed person. Ever see spherical worlds in an Xbox
game?
Xbox doesn't have the framebuffer to pull of the frame buffer effects
used in those PS2 games. These would include but are not limited to,
glowing objects, distrotions, transparencies, etc.
Xbox doesn't have the pixel fillrate to pull of the "niche" effects of
the Ps2 which is also used in the Jak and Ratchet games. Xbox can't do
any kind of procedural animation or polygon rendering on the fly as Jak
and Ratchet do.
We are even getting a 99% accurate port of Resident Evil 4, plus we get
True Animorphic Widescreen resulting in 100,000 more pixels of
information vs the GC's widescreen. We are also getting Ada with her
beutifuly animatied Red Dress which wasn't in the GC version because it
was thought to be too hard to do on the GC.
Yet, we still get Xbots claiming the Xbox is 3x more powerful than the
PS2. This is usually because the Xbox is better at texturing. Xbots just
fail to understand that textures don't make graphics.
It's funny how the Xbot graphics whores are using the same idiotic
nonsense this time around as well.
Take Gears of War for instance, with it's low poly graphics and horrible
framerate. The Xbots claim 360 dominanace because of ... wait for it...
"Better Textures". WOW, you guys really are completely idiotic. Yeah, I
would agree there are better textures in GOW than MGS4 but wow. I mean,
how XXXXing ignorant can you possibly be? MGS4 completely craps on GOW
in every other area by a huge margin. The Hair rendering on Snake's head
was probably harder to pull off in real time than the entire GOW main
character. Yet, due to shitty normal mapping, which I tried to explain
was simply a way to hide low poly models, Xbots claim 360 is more
powerful.
Here is a tip fellow Xbot, you don't know shit about graphics and
animation. You have terrible taste in video games.
In other words, stop being such a Sega fanboy because the Dreamcast died
due to Sega being a shit company. Hanging on to M$ promisses isn't ever
going to bring the Dreamcast back. Oh wait, my bad, Dreamcast is back.
It's called the Xbox360. Too bad it will also suffer the same fate as
the original Dreamcast by the hands of Sony.
| |
| Zackman 2005-09-19, 12:30 am |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 wrote:
quote:
> I find it very amusing myself. And typical.
Wow, you and Bligmerk are soulmates. And I couldn't get through half of
either of your War and Peace-length rants, apropos of absolutely nothing,
without my eyes glazing over.
You what's even more amusing? That you and your lover are this obsessed with
a toy. A toy that plays video games. Seriously, say that to yourself: "I go
on the Internet to argue with people because I am both obsessed with and
threatened by a toy that plays video games." The two of you must lead very
rich and rewarding lives, and I imagine women find it fascinating when you
talk to them about pixel fillrates in Jak 3.
-Z-
| |
| Andrew Ryan Chang 2005-09-19, 12:30 am |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 <XbotsRfags@XXXXyou.org> wrote:
quote:
>Xbox doesn't have the framebuffer to pull of the frame buffer effects
>used in those PS2 games. These would include but are not limited to,
>glowing objects, distrotions, transparencies, etc.
And yet, we see light blooms and glows in Halo 2, distortions in
Ninja Gaiden's sword swings, and I don't know how many games have
transparent polys.
Are you really not just Blig Merk in a second ID talking to
himself to make himself feel better?
--
Lisa: Mom! Dad! Martin died at school today!
Marge: Mmm! I don't see what that has to do with Groundskeeper Willy.
Bart: [pause] Umm...we didn't mention Groundskeeper Willy, Mom.
| |
|
|
| Jordan 2005-09-19, 3:30 am |
| Oops... Forgot about Sudeki. (And Poland.)
- Jordan
| |
| MS#1Fanboy-JoJo 2005-09-19, 8:31 pm |
| In article <jimXe.92920$Ph4.2934750@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
masters@universe.ga says...
quote:
>
>"Blig Merk" <blig_murk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1127083653.405340.149410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>Pure speculation like the rest of your post. By the way, what's the "real
>reason" for your bullshit campaign on here?
>
>
LOL!!!
| |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 2005-09-20, 6:31 am |
| Andrew Ryan Chang wrote:
quote:
> KillzoneBigNuts2 <XbotsRfags@XXXXyou.org> wrote:
>
> And yet, we see light blooms and glows in Halo 2, distortions in
> Ninja Gaiden's sword swings, and I don't know how many games have
> transparent polys.
Seriously? Have you even played a PS2 game other than an Xbox port?
There is NO game on Xbox than pulls off the amount of framebuffer
effects seen in top tier PS2 games. Jak 2 alone pulls off more glowing
objects on screen at one time than all Xbox games combined.
It's simple XXXXing math.
PS2 GS Fillrate = 2.4Gpixels
XBOX GPU fillrate = 900Mpixels
Vector Units do all of the geometry transformation on the fly.
Xbox has to rely on the GPU to do any geometry transformation and while
it can do some it can't even dream of doing what PS2 is pulling off.
We are talking 6.2Gflops vs 3.5Gflops of polygon manipulating power.
Xbox can also do framebuffer and pixel fillrate effects.
But it can't do anywhere near the amount PS2 is doing.
Go buy the PS2 version of Burnout Revenge and the Xbox version of
Burnout Revenge.
You will see better textures and image quality in the Xbox version.
However, you will also see far better effects in the PS2 version.
Why?
Becuase Criterion used framebuffer effects to do them.
| |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 2005-09-20, 6:31 am |
| Zackman wrote:
quote:
>and I imagine women find it fascinating when you
> talk to them about pixel fillrates in Jak 3.
>
It got her so hot.
Since she had no XXXXing idea what Jak 3 was, or what fillrates were,
she made the assumption I was talking about Jaking my 3 foot dick and
filling her mouth with cum for a very low rate.
Needless to say she's not ever going back to your dad.
| |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 2005-09-20, 6:31 am |
| Jordan wrote:
Nice job posting shitty gamespot captures against good xbox captures.
I'm not argueing about which console has the best image quality.
I'm talking about fillrate and framebuffer effects.
There is a big difference between the two.
Zoe2 is a good example of particle effects.
Go find an Xbox game with 100's of enemies on screen, 100s of light and
smoke trails, and thousands upon thousands of snow particles. The game
also needs to run at 60FPS the majority of the time and be able to
render about 100 explosions on screen at once too.
Jeez, Retards are so hard to please.
| |
|
|
| KillzoneBigNuts2 2005-09-20, 6:31 am |
| Jordan wrote:
quote:
> Halo: Combat Evolved
> Halo 2
> Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
> Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords
> Jade Empire
> Project Gotham Racing
> Project Gotham Racing 2
> Ninja Gaiden
> Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge
> The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay
> Doom 3
> JSRF: Jet Set Radio Future
> Steel Battalion
> Fable
> Full Spectrum Warrior
> Thief: Deadly Shadows
> Enclave
None of these games even have particle or framebuffer effects.
Most of the ones you posted are making heavy use of textureing.
| |
| Rene Garcia 2005-09-20, 8:33 pm |
| So you would rather have particles all over at the cost of having the rest
of the game look like crap?
| |
| Rene Garcia 2005-09-20, 8:33 pm |
|
quote:
> You will see better textures and image quality in the Xbox version.
> However, you will also see far better effects in the PS2 version.
Daddy, how come Burnout Revenge looks better on Jimmys xbox ?
Don't worry son, you get to see more sparkly objects "particles" on your
PS2.
But dad the rest looks like crap.
Ummm I'll buy you an XBOX tomorrow.
| |
| Zackman 2005-09-20, 8:33 pm |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 wrote:
quote:
> None of these games even have particle or framebuffer effects.
You're like that guy in Shallow Hal who was creeped out by the gorgeous,
big-breasted, sports-loving chick because her middle toe was longer than her
big toe. While any sane person looks at these games and says "amazing
visuals!" you're looking only at one particular effect that is meaningless
in the big picture. Sucks to be you, another uniconsle fanboy whose slavish
devotion to a company that doesn't know or care he exists keeps him from
enjoying all gaming has to offer.
-Z-
| |
| Zackman 2005-09-20, 8:33 pm |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 wrote:
quote:
> Go find an Xbox game with 100's of enemies on screen, 100s of light
> and smoke trails, and thousands upon thousands of snow particles. The
> game also needs to run at 60FPS the majority of the time and be able
> to render about 100 explosions on screen at once too.
Go find a game on the latest Alienware rig that meets that criteria! I sure
as hell hope you're not suggesting the PS2 would have a prayer of pulling
such a thing off any more than the Xbox would. Or are you from the future
and you own a PS3?
TEH PS2 RULZORZ CUZ IT DOES TEH PATRIKAL EFFEX AND ALSO IT MAKES A A COOL
SOUNDE WHEN U TURN IT ON!!!!111
You've lost all perspective along with your credibility. Not that you had
much of either to start with.
quote:
> Jeez, Retards are so hard to please.
You certainly are.
-Z-
| |
|
|
|
|
| Jordan 2005-09-20, 8:34 pm |
| Actually I was thinking he reminded me of the anti-Dreamcast troll back
in the day who said that Soul Calibur sucked because all the characters
had "narrow torsos". Remember that one? LOL!
- Jordan
| |
|
|
| KillzoneBigNuts2 2005-09-21, 12:30 am |
| Rene Garcia wrote:
quote:
>
>
>
> Daddy, how come Burnout Revenge looks better on Jimmys xbox ?
>
> Don't worry son, you get to see more sparkly objects "particles" on your
> PS2.
>
> But dad the rest looks like crap.
>
> Ummm I'll buy you an XBOX tomorrow.
>
>
Denial is Bliss
| |
|
|
| KillzoneBigNuts2 2005-09-21, 12:30 am |
| Rene Garcia wrote:
quote:
> So you would rather have particles all over at the cost of having the rest
> of the game look like crap?
>
>
That isn't my point.
My point is that the PS2 beats the Xbox in FrameBuffer and Particle
effects. That means the Xbox isn't as powerful as the PS2 in those
specific areas.
That means, Zoe2 is physically impossible to replicate on XBox.
| |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 2005-09-21, 12:30 am |
| Zackman wrote:
quote:
> While any sane person looks at these games and says "amazing
> visuals!" you're looking only at one particular effect that is meaningless
> in the big picture.
The big picture is that MGS2 had massive slowdown on the Xbox.
Zoe2 can't be done on the Xbox.
Burnout Revenge, while it had better image quality than Ps2, had it's
effects scaled back fromt the PS2 version.
Ever wonder why Silent Hill 3 was never ported to Xbox?
Yep, framebuffer bandwidth.
The moving multilayered textures were done on the framebuffer.
It's a technique called "splatting" and while that technique can be done
on the Xbox it can't be done at that level and still allow for the
complex lighting used in SH3.
| |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 2005-09-21, 12:31 am |
| Jordan wrote:
quote:
> Tell you what... go over to Gamespot and pull some gameplay screens
> yourself. Go on... Try to find a single PS2 gameplay screen that looks
> as good as this:
>
> http://image.com.com/gamespot/image...1_screen001.jpg
> http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action...s.html?page=151
>
> I'm even making it easy on you... That Xbox game is three years old.
> Surely there is something on the PS2 in the last three years that looks
> better, right?
>
> - Jordan
>
Again I'm not argueing about which games looks better than another game.
That's all personal preference. IMO, God of War shits all over that game
like an American who just ate at Taco Bell for breakfast.
My point is, there are no particle and framebuffer effects in that game
you just posted.
| |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 2005-09-21, 12:31 am |
| Zackman wrote:
quote:
> KillzoneBigNuts2 wrote:
>
>
> Go find a game on the latest Alienware rig that meets that criteria! I sure
> as hell hope you're not suggesting the PS2 would have a prayer of pulling
> such a thing off any more than the Xbox would.
God DAmn are you XXXXing blind?
Did you not see the screenshots of Zoe2 I just XXXXing posted?
| |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 2005-09-21, 12:31 am |
| Jordan wrote:
quote:
> Tell you what... go over to Gamespot and pull some gameplay screens
> yourself. Go on... Try to find a single PS2 gameplay screen that looks
> as good as this:
>
> http://image.com.com/gamespot/image...1_screen001.jpg
> http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action...s.html?page=151
>
> I'm even making it easy on you... That Xbox game is three years old.
> Surely there is something on the PS2 in the last three years that looks
> better, right?
>
> - Jordan
>
OK, I'll try and make another example of what I'm talking about.
Transparencies are framebuffer effects.
Check out this shot of MGS3.
Notice the transparency of the water, notice the high level of complex
geometry in the character and in the mountains beyond him. Also, try to
keep in mind that the lighting is realtime and the water is filled with
hundreds of fish that swim around, and the water splashes up water
droplet particles and ripples as you move throught it. Not only that,
but each ripple creates even more complex transparancy effects by
bending the refracting the light so everything under the water is
refracted.
http://www.flk.be/piclib/ressources...s/MGS_gd_1b.jpg
| |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 2005-09-21, 12:31 am |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 wrote:
quote:
> Jordan wrote:
>
>
> OK, I'll try and make another example of what I'm talking about.
> Transparencies are framebuffer effects.
>
> Check out this shot of MGS3.
> Notice the transparency of the water, notice the high level of complex
> geometry in the character and in the mountains beyond him. Also, try to
> keep in mind that the lighting is realtime and the water is filled with
> hundreds of fish that swim around, and the water splashes up water
> droplet particles and ripples as you move throught it. Not only that,
> but each ripple creates even more complex transparancy effects by
> bending the refracting the light so everything under the water is
> refracted.
>
> http://www.flk.be/piclib/ressources...s/MGS_gd_1b.jpg
>
I'll post some more examples of particle effects.
http://www.rawpulse.com/shared/imag...4nx0y5_god3.jpg
The above shot shows more vast amounts of rain particles at 60fps with
high res textures and pretty nice geometry and lighting.
Here is something that you can't even notice unless you are running the
game on a highly calibrated TV.
How about complex fur shadding?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...uzzballling.jpg
What can you compare that too?
The half assed shit on Conker's tail?
LOL..
| |
|
|
| Rene Garcia 2005-09-21, 12:31 am |
|
"KillzoneBigNuts2" <XbotsRfags@XXXXyou.org> wrote in message
news:78000$4330b381$421392ab$25557@DIALUPUSA.NET...
quote:
> Rene Garcia wrote:
>
>
> Denial is Bliss
>
You are speaking from experience.
| |
|
|
| Zackman 2005-09-21, 8:31 pm |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 wrote:
quote:
> God DAmn are you XXXXing blind?
> Did you not see the screenshots of Zoe2 I just XXXXing posted?
If you think at any point Zone of Enders 2 has -- and I'll quote you here --
"100's of enemies on screen, 100s of light and smoke trails, and thousands
upon thousands of snow particles. The game also needs to run at 60FPS the
majority of the time and be able to render about 100 explosions on screen at
once too" then Bligmerk's cum must have hallucinogenic qualities. You've
never actually played the game, have you? And if the game's so freakin'
amazing, why didn't it sell better? Huh?
Maybe some new console developer will come out with a machine that can't
render more than a couple thousand polys at once but does the best particle
effects ever seen. Then you'd be happier than a pig in a pig in shit.
-Z-
| |
| Zackman 2005-09-21, 8:31 pm |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 wrote:
quote:
> Here is something that you can't even notice unless you are running
> the game on a highly calibrated TV.
You're funnier than Jerry Seinfeld. Not that that's saying much, but still.
"So what is the DEAL with these games that don't have PARTICLE EFFECTS? But
you wouldn't know, your TV isn't a PROFESSIONALLY CALIBRATED SONY WEGA! And
let me tell you about this TERRIBLE airline food that I ate."
quote:
> What can you compare that too?
> The half assed shit on Conker's tail?
> LOL..
Wow, those textures are so awful they make my eyes hurt.
Personally I would prefer better textures and more polygons over sparkles
and fur. But maybe that's just me.
-Z-
| |
| Zackman 2005-09-21, 8:31 pm |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 wrote:
quote:
> The big picture is that MGS2 had massive slowdown on the Xbox.
It's very true that it was a game engine written to the strengths of the PS2
hardware, by a skilled development team that lives and breathes Playstation.
That the game was a XXXXing joke is irrelevant I guess. (And Kojima redeemed
himself with MGS3 anyway.)
quote:
> Zoe2 can't be done on the Xbox.
And Halo 2 can't be done on the PS2. Which one sold better?
quote:
> Burnout Revenge, while it had better image quality than Ps2, had it's
> effects scaled back fromt the PS2 version.
As Gamespot pointed out, Burnout Revenge is better in every respect on the
Xbox. You're the only one who's crying because there are fewer sparkles.
quote:
> Ever wonder why Silent Hill 3 was never ported to Xbox?
Because Silent Hill 2 sold like crap. Thanks for playing.
-Z-
| |
| crymad 2005-09-21, 8:31 pm |
|
KillzoneBigNuts2 wrote:
quote:
> Burnout Revenge, while it had better image quality than Ps2, had it's
> effects scaled back fromt the PS2 version.
So, in the end, which do you prefer?
--crymad
| |
|
|
|
|
| KillzoneBigNuts2 2005-09-23, 3:31 am |
| Jordan wrote:
quote:
> OK, at least you are making an attempt to make sense now. Thank you for
> that.
>
> I'm trying to think of Xbox games that have water effects, and would be
> representative of what you're looking for, but the only one that comes
> to mind is a near launch title (2001) I never played.
>
> Transworld Surf:
>
> Water transparancies:
> http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/sports...ns.html?page=38
>
> Particles:
> http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/sports...ns.html?page=41
> http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/sports...ns.html?page=40
>
> Particles and reflections:
> http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/sports...ns.html?page=32
That was a decent game, it still isn't doing half of what more recent
PS2 games are doing. That game was actually beaten very easily by
Splashdown RGW for PS2. Not only did it have all those effects it even
had HDR lighting.
http://home.earthlink.net/~mmchow/
quote:
>
> When it comes to lighting and self shadowing the prime example that
> comes to my mind are the Splinter Cell games.
Good choice, but the Splinter Cell games are geared towards the Xbox
strengths in pixel shader effects and Texture work. Since the polygon
counts are extemely low res the devs uses Normal Mapping which relies on
high resolution textures and per pixel lighting. Splinter Cell games are
extremely difficult to do accurately on PS2. It usually chokes when it
tries working with those textures and texture based effects.
As I agree the Xbox is more powerful than GC and PS2, it can't beat the
PS2 in a few areas.
This is also why PS2 had no problem with RE4 for Gamecube.
That game didn't have high res texturing nor did it have heavy use of
per pixel lighting. The PS2 should pull that game off with hardly a
problem at all. So far, the PS2 version is about 98-99% accurate to the
GC version and it gets 16:9 + Ada gets her dress complete with dynamic
cloth movement which wasn't done in the GC version because Capcom wasn't
able to pull it off on the GC.
It's even funnier that Capcom pulled it off on PS2.
I can't imagine if Namco was given the opportunity.
The game would probable end up looking better on PS2.
| |
| Zackman 2005-09-25, 2:31 am |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 wrote:
quote:
> Read the threads and weep you dumb XXXX.
quote:
> And finally,Read the threads and weep you dumb XXXX.
Somebody got a little excited with his cut n pasting.
-Z-
| |
| Zackman 2005-09-25, 2:31 am |
| KillzoneBigNuts2 wrote:
quote:
> Read the threads and weep you dumb XXXX.
I daresay the weepy dumbXXXX is the guy who thinks one console's version of
a game is superior to another's because of one niche effect. I'll take
better framerates, better textures, custom soundtracks, 480P, DD 5.1 and a
controller with triggers for analog acceleration control over TEH SPARXORZ
thanks.
-Z-
|
| |
|
|