Melchiah
Member
BO2 was the only game, that hardlocked my PS2, twice.
IIRC, the PS2's Silent Hill 2 is slightly better than the Xbox port. I think it was mostly about the fog.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Best ver. of games during the Gamecube, PS2 and X-Box era
- Thread starter Tizoc
- Start date
BO2 was the only game, that hardlocked my PS2, twice.
IIRC, the PS2's Silent Hill 2 is slightly better than the Xbox port. I think it was mostly about the fog.
Nervous Sausage
Member
Nothing in there is accurate? Really? Tell me then, do you think the PS2 or Gamecube could have even remotely ran games like Half Life 2, Morrowind and Doom 3 without completely butchering them in the process? iD Software went on record to say that porting Doom 3 would have been completely impossible to do on any other console without totally ruining it. Do you also think the fact that the Xbox was underutilized by third parties is inaccurate? Considering how big of a difference there was in the Splinter Cell series and exclusives but not much else, I think it's 100% accurate to say that it was underutilized. Fact is, the Gamecube was a lot closer to the PS2 than it was to the Xbox, hence the reason it got a PS2 port and not an Xbox port of Splinter Cell, and you have nothing that can even attempt to prove otherwise besides a shitty little remark like that. If you're going to call me out, make sure to back your opinion up with something resembling a fact because I sure have and you haven't given shit.
If that's glorious HD, I don't even want to know what a godawful, subpar port looks like.
I miss this game so much...
Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory on PS2 interesting. I love the original trilogy on Xbox and Chaos Theory is the only game I have for both platforms. I have watched some videos about the first 2 games and they are noticeably inferior on the Sony's machine.
However, the PS2 port of Chaos Theory is really good, IMO. Yeah, the graphics are clearly worse: textures and lighting especially, but it's pretty much the same game as the Xbox version, unlike the earlier ones. Some levels (only a few, I think) are a little bit shorter, but nothing major, the game is intact. And even though the Xbox version looks much better, I think the PS2 version looks impressive for a PS2 title.
I actually remember reading from a Finnish gaming magazine "Pelaaja" about the PS2 version back in the day... So here's my rough translation, now that I found it:
Programmer Dominic Guay: "PS2 and Xbox versions are like Batman and Superman. Both are superheroes and both do the same thing, but in a completely different way. [...] They offer basically the same game, but the end result will be reached by completely different means."
The PS2-version's textures utilize a technology called Geotexturing and it has been develeoped by Montreal studio's programmers. Geotexturing is basically the same thing as normal mapping - it creates an illusion of three-dimensional surfaces. [...] Additionally, a new water system has been developed for the PS2, that makes the water look realistic.
So overall, they got around some of the weaknesses of PS2 and made a solid port.
However, the PS2 port of Chaos Theory is really good, IMO. Yeah, the graphics are clearly worse: textures and lighting especially, but it's pretty much the same game as the Xbox version, unlike the earlier ones. Some levels (only a few, I think) are a little bit shorter, but nothing major, the game is intact. And even though the Xbox version looks much better, I think the PS2 version looks impressive for a PS2 title.
I actually remember reading from a Finnish gaming magazine "Pelaaja" about the PS2 version back in the day... So here's my rough translation, now that I found it:
Programmer Dominic Guay: "PS2 and Xbox versions are like Batman and Superman. Both are superheroes and both do the same thing, but in a completely different way. [...] They offer basically the same game, but the end result will be reached by completely different means."
The PS2-version's textures utilize a technology called Geotexturing and it has been develeoped by Montreal studio's programmers. Geotexturing is basically the same thing as normal mapping - it creates an illusion of three-dimensional surfaces. [...] Additionally, a new water system has been developed for the PS2, that makes the water look realistic.
So overall, they got around some of the weaknesses of PS2 and made a solid port.
Shin Johnpv
Member
The Xbox ports were completely butchered mess' that ran at horrible framerates, so yes I do think the GC probably could have come close to that. It would have taken extensive re-working of the engine but it would be doable in a playable form. The Xbox had the advantage of using DirectX as it's API, not that it was some monster box of supreme power. In some ways the GC was better than it, and in other ways the Xbox was better than the GC.
This was more in reference to the heavy use of programmable pixel and vertex shaders if I remember right. Which was one advantage the Xbox had over the PS2 and GC, which was that it had some very early programmable pixel and vertex shaders. Though the GC's TEV, while not the same, could be used to achieve very similar effects.
Yes I do think it's highly inaccurate. The Xbox brought a lot of PC developers familiar with those chips and DirectX to the console space. This wasn't exotic hardware they were working on, the same way the PS2 or the GC were. The Xbox had an X86 CPU, and an Nvidia GPU. Out of the GC and the Xbox, the Xbox BY FAR got more utilized and more of it's "juices" wrung out. You want to talk about something that was highly underutilized you talk about the GC's TEV.
Well I completely disagree. Exclusives are where consoles are going to be utilized best. It's not in multiplatform releases. Besides the fact that as has been stated in here that most multiplatforms ran best on the Xbox. The Xbox had more exclusives pushing it's chips than the GC did. You want to talk difference of graphical quality look at RE4 on the GC, or the Rogue Squadron games and all the tons of PS2 ports.
No that is not a fact actually, just cause you say somethings a fact doesn't make it so. The GC and Xbox were closer in power overall than either of them were to the PS2. While the Xbox had some advantages coming from a PC mind and using DirectX, the GC still had some advantages over it. One thing they really got right with the GC chip was it's ability to render 8 textures per pass, compared to the PS2's whopping ONE, and the Xbox's 4. You also had developers pulling off bump mapping on the GC, and obviously on Xbox. On PS2 only Matrix: Path of Neo ever claimed to use any kind of bump mapping and looking at screen shots, it looks like just that, they claimed to have used it but didn't really.
Now on paper the PS2's poly count, and the Xbox's were actually closer, but in real world use it's the GC and Xbox who had closer poly counts. As soon as you started to do anything to the poly's on the PS2, in regards to textures, or effects the poly's per second took huge fucking hits. Meanwhile you have the GC doing around 32 million polys per second in Rogue Squadron 3, hell a LAUNCH title RS2 was doing between 12 - 16 million.
You want to talk about a console being underutilized you talk about the GC. Only Nintendo, Capcom, and Factor 5 really pushed it to it's limits and their games sit head and shoulders above everything else on the platform visually.
NeoGaf doesn't disappoint. It was developed by a different team than the one that did the Xbox and GC versions. Can't remember IMHO made the PC version though.
However the PS2 version is just a better game, content and gameplay wise.
Best NFS so far too.
Tizoc
Member
Hmm what about the GC ver.? Is the XBox ver. still better than it?
I can't compare it to the Xbox version, but the GC version does suffer from some slowdown. Though it's still better than the PS2 version because the PS2 version is limited to 30 fps while the GC and Xbox versions target 60.
sixteen-bit
Member
Extreme has the bosses unlocked from the start IIRC.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
It's a well known fact that the GCN has better quality video output than the Wii. From the former you get a nice, clean signal, from the latter you get ghosting and shit.
Tizoc
Member
Interesting, how has this affect the Metroid Prime Trilogy for example?
Multiplatform games looked very close most of the time but Xbox was indeed way ahead when comes to GPU and could way more than PS2. It had pixel shaders, and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory destroy tech-wise anything on PS2.
That being said PS2 was console to own. It`s game library is legendary!
That being said PS2 was console to own. It`s game library is legendary!
It's well worth your time.
Ah, thanks. I never knew it had a higher framerate!
Ah, thanks.
Nervous Sausage
Member
In terms of processing power on paper, it goes like this.
Xbox - 733 megahertz
GameCube - 485 megahertz
Playstation 2 - 295 megahertz
Going by these numbers, the GameCube is closer in processing power to the PS2 than it is the Xbox. Never mind the superior GPU in the Xbox. That would sure as hell explain why it got stuck with PS2 assets for Splinter Cell instead of the Xbox version. Also if the Xbox versions of Half Life 2 and Doom 3 ran like a butchered mess, what chance in hell did the GameCube have of running them? And if it somehow did get something like Doom 3 or Riddick, the graphical difference would've been exactly the same as in Splinter Cell. Shit lighting, shit shadows, the game would've been a shell of itself. I'll take it a step further and compare multiplatform games between the Wii and the Xbox.
Wii
Xbox
Wii
Xbox
Doesn't seem to matter if we go by raw numbers, or picture proof. Any way you look at it, the Xbox was far ahead of the PS2, Gamecube and the Wii for that matter. The Xbox ran the Source engine, id Tech 4 and also ran more games in 720p than all of those consoles combined.
It still doesn't make it relevant though....
The guy was saying the PS2 had bad graphics compared to the Xbox going off that video of a multi-platform game, which is the best way to compare two consoles (same game, same vision etc). For that matter Xbox had better graphics than that as well, but we can only really compare multi-platform games to get a good understanding.
Besides, this thread is even about multi-platform games.....
Posting Transformers can easily be countered with " But Just Cause is doing more of 'X' than Transformers". Posting an exclusive is pointless, as we wouldn't know how it would look on the other consoles, that is even despite the fact that the OP wanted comparisons of the same game on different consoles.
So, it's still irrelevant.
#passengerseatmodding
7DollarHagane
Banned
developers could barely be assed with developing for gamecube - using 3rd party software is a poor indicator of that system's capabilities.
True, but we aren't trying to determine which console is the most powerful; we already know. This is just to see a list of multi-plat games and what the best version was and for what reason.
You are just using CPU clock rates to determine which console was more powerful? Ehh.. Okay... I'm not exactly an expert, but I remember reading that GC and Xbox clock rates are not directly comparable because of different architecture. Not saying GC was more powerful, but still...
And about those screenshots... You really think multiplatform third-party games really pushed GameCube (or Wii)? Are you kidding? Those games were not popular on the system, so there was no reason to make ports just CG in mind. Your screenshot comparison is bs. RE4 GC etc.?
From a financial standpoint, it would have been stupid to port Doom 3 or Far Cry to GameCube. Was it powerful enough to run those games? Maybe, maybe not.
And was Wii really weaker than Xbox? I know it wasn't massively more powerful, but overall weaker? I don't think so.
Shin Johnpv
Member
You have no idea what you're talking about. You can't compare clock rates of different architectures and have it mean anything. This is fucking computer science 101. Unless your comparing chips with in the same family, which is not the case across the PS2, Xbox, or GC then clock speed is a piss all measure of ability.
Again Multiplatforms don't mean shit about which system is closer in power. Decisions are based on monetary return, not on system power ability. Look at exclusives.
You've gone ahead and ignored EVERYTHING I wrote before. No comment on GC's 8 textures per pass vs Xbox's 4 and PS2's 1, or about the Xbox and GC being able to do bump mapping but not happening on the PS2? Or how real world Poly persecond performance?
You don't know what you're talking about.
sixteen-bit
Member
After playing clear games via VGA on DC and component on GC it's jarring to play PS2 games even over component because the IQ is so muddy by comparison.
Metallix87
Member
Wow. Insane inaccuracies abound!
It was easier to get the PS2 version of a game running well on the GameCube than it was to take the Xbox version and get it running decently on GameCube. Considering publisheres viewed the GameCube as not a major part of the mature demographic, Xbox versions got more resources because it was viewed as the M-rated console. The PS2 just due to market saturation. So when you're getting the leftovers of two other consoles, you're going to get the version that takes less effort to get running.
The GameCube was perfectly capable of good real time lighting and bump maps and all that fun stuff. Rogue Leader, Starfox Adventures, and Resident Evil 4 all proved that. You just didn't see it a lot due to porting the PS2 versions of games, and the PS2 versions of multiplats tended to omit those two effects because the PS2 either did not support it or would be too taxing. The Wii suffered from this as well, with stuff like Ghostbusters.
Another note I remember is that the GameCube could push data around faster than the OXbox, hence why in a few games they had better load times than the Xbox version, even with the hard drive. Wind Waker also relied on the GameCube's relatively fast streaming times to do it's overworld seamlessly.
Also, I wouldn't judge the Wii's capabilities based off Far Cry Wii. That was a lazy, cash in port from Ubisoft. It didn't even have the damn map editor. There were a few ports of games to Wii where the Wii version got a team of 3 people that were handed a DVD of the PS2 assets and told to get it ported.
The GameCube was perfectly capable of good real time lighting and bump maps and all that fun stuff. Rogue Leader, Starfox Adventures, and Resident Evil 4 all proved that. You just didn't see it a lot due to porting the PS2 versions of games, and the PS2 versions of multiplats tended to omit those two effects because the PS2 either did not support it or would be too taxing. The Wii suffered from this as well, with stuff like Ghostbusters.
Another note I remember is that the GameCube could push data around faster than the OXbox, hence why in a few games they had better load times than the Xbox version, even with the hard drive. Wind Waker also relied on the GameCube's relatively fast streaming times to do it's overworld seamlessly.
Also, I wouldn't judge the Wii's capabilities based off Far Cry Wii. That was a lazy, cash in port from Ubisoft. It didn't even have the damn map editor. There were a few ports of games to Wii where the Wii version got a team of 3 people that were handed a DVD of the PS2 assets and told to get it ported.
The more things change...
I actually played builds of the WIP version of Riddick for PS2 and it was something of a miracle for the time. It wasn't Xbox quality but it did attempt normal mapping on PS2. Never got released though so I'll never be able to factually back up my statements, but I remember just thinking, "Wow. Vivendi must have their head so far up their own ass if they don't finish this." And then they didn't.
Dunno if someone already covered this, but the Viewtiful Joe 1 & 2 games are far superior on GC than their PS2 versions. Not only are the graphics cleaner and sharper on GC, but there's less slowdown and the loading times are shorter.
Now the PS2 version of VJ1 has Dante as an exclusive selectable character, but I don't think he outweighs the poorer engine and graphic quality.
Now the PS2 version of VJ1 has Dante as an exclusive selectable character, but I don't think he outweighs the poorer engine and graphic quality.
He was also using the Just Cause video as evidence that the PS2 was comparable to the PSP, which is completely ludicrous.
It's okay to stray from the intended topic a tiny bit when there's a salient point to be made.
HYDE
Banned
Yes.
Start trying to imagine 'cause it's freaking amazing with both control schemes...
Wii is the definitive edition, and includes Ada's Seperate Ways.
Can we have like a definitive list in the OP? I really like the concept of this thread a lot because I'm collecting for all these consoles and want to know which versions of these games to buy.
I have another one
Mega Man Anniversary Collection - Fundamentally the same game across all 3 platforms except the gamecube has the jump button infuriatingly mapped to the b button with no option to change it. They each have different bonuses, but that's up to preference which you prefer.
I have another one
Mega Man Anniversary Collection - Fundamentally the same game across all 3 platforms except the gamecube has the jump button infuriatingly mapped to the b button with no option to change it. They each have different bonuses, but that's up to preference which you prefer.
Tizoc
Member
Ya know I really should do that...
Tizoc
Member
CvSNK2's best version is the Dreamcast, followed by the PS2 ver.
Far as Capcom Classics go, consider getting the Arcade Cabinet compilation as those are M2 ports of some of the games from those older compilations.
CvSNK2's is DC? How so? I heard good things about the xbox version. The Arcade Cabinet does cover the games I'm interested in, but to be honest I like getting physical copies of games where I can.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
According to the list in the OP, the PS2 version of GTA are the best? Maybe my memory's faulty, but I remember the xbox versions being superior.
The Xbox versions have slightly better visuals but a choppier framerate. I tended to prefer the Xbox versions because of the custom soundtrack feature, though. Of course that was partially because I'd already played them to death on the PS2 and was tired of the same music over and over.
Well, that would be the original PC port. There is a new version on Steam I've noticed, not sure what that is like, but the original PC port was fucking horrendous when it first came out.
GameAddict411
Member
my jaw literally dropped to the floor when i saw the difference between the PS2 and the original xbox in just cause, i was really underestimating the power of the xbox. hell it looks noticeably better than wii games; This also takes me to the last vs next gen in-term of graphical jump, the original xbox was very capable and apart from the resolution jump on the X360 version, just cause on it is very close to the original xbox version.
but why! please, everyone, also tell us why it's better!