Turrican comparison...

[ST Dragon]

Originally Posted by keropi

@STdragon
either you have not seen a ps2 game in action, or u are fanatic against it
really, I have a 5600FX on a 2600XP, and a ps2... the graphics and effects of the ps2 are UNBELIEVABLE... my FX at least cannot reproduce them without dropping the speed a LOT, and in many cases looking the same game on the pc and ps2 (punisher, prince of persia warrior within, onimusha, nfsu2 etc) makes you wonder if a FX5600 really worths its money, considering that I payed for it the same as the ps2...
maybe with the new 6800GT card you can have the same results, but the ps2 was released 5 years ago, and a 6800 costs about 4-5 ps2's ...

Fanatical against it? No.

I used to install mod chips & service PS-2, Xbox & PS-1 at my previous work.

I also own a PS-2 & quite a few original games.



Your computer isn't exactly top notch.

That graphics card you got has been reported to be even worse than a GForce4 Ti 4200 is some games. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was those games that you mentioned.

There is no way a PS-2 can achieve the number of polygons, Bump mapping, 8x AA, dynamic Lighting & other advanced effects produced by fairly modern PCs, even with frame lose.



The PCs having to waste a lot of resources on the OS will result in reduced performance in term of FPS compared to the PS-2, but any old GF3Ti500 vastly surpasses it in graphics quality. (Far Cry getting 60FPS on high quality)

Now if you remove all those cool graphical features from PC games, you can have PS-2 looking graphics at constant 60FPS on the PC.



When PS-2 was released in 2000 everybody noticed its disability to produce hardware AA effects unlike the DC which was released in 1998! This was fixed by SONY only a year later when software AA routines were introduced but with great FPS lose!



Even the PS-2 can't maintain constant 60FPS in games like R-Type Final, Gradius III-IV, Gradius V which are supposed to be its domain.

Shikigami No Shiro 2 looks better on the PC compared to the PS-2.



PS-2 is a cool machine but not as powerful as the PC, X-box & GC.

@JudasEZT:
You're right. But note that Risky Woods and Jim Power only scroll in one direction (I don't know about R-Type 2, never played it).

[gimbal]

Still, when looking at Gran Turismo 4, it's really amazing what they can pull out of the limited hardware. I had the same with Final Fantasy 9 on the original playstation (which had no hardware acceleration at all).

[keropi]

@stdragon:

when I got the 5600 it costed me 350euro. The ps2 after 3 months of the 5600 purchase costed me 250euro. the games you say run perfectly on my PAL ps2, at 50fps, and never saw any dropping (unless there is loading on the background)
Now if you want to compare a 250euro machine with a 600+euro gfx card + all other pc components, be my guest...

[ST Dragon]

That's a considerable statement.
Yes the PS-2 is better quality for money than the latest high-end expensive gaming PC.

But that's not what you said in your original statement:

take a ps2 and a modern PC... still the ps2 is better in gfx...

And the answer is that the PS-2 is not better than the PC in graphics as it was described in the previous posts.

[StarEye]

No doubt, the PC can show better graphics than the PS2. While Gran Turismo 4 looks amazing on the PS2, imagine how it would have looked on the PC, with higher resolution and proper anti-aliasing, plus all those other cool stuff. Remember, a PS2 game is also shown on the TV, which will make the ugly details hide in the blurryness.

[ST Dragon]

Originally Posted by RoKo

Please, I don't think we need PC vs PS2 in this thread, too.

@ST Dragon: Old magazine articles, interviews...I read everything I can find about Turrican. At one point Mega Turrican was actually supposed to be published by Konami (according to a German mag at least).

I wouldn't have been surprised if Konami had published it. After all they're known for making another kick ass series Contra.

My favorite is Super Contra III on SNES. I was disapointed by Contra on PS-2. You had to memorize the levels rather than consentrate on the gameplay.

I don't think it's fair to compare a video card that can antialias a 1600x1200 screen in real time with as much fps as possible to a console that only worries about displaying whatever is technically acceptable on a low quality, low resolution tv screen that wouldn't even benefit from antialiasing.

[keropi]

ahem, when I say "modern" pc, I don't mean the ultra-expensive ultra-fast pc... I ment the average pc, that by now, it will use a 6600 geforce card... I should write more clearly... but really, I still doubt that the ultra-fast pc could accomplish all the effects a ps2 can... things like rain, fires, complex transition fx are a piece of cake for the ps2, but not for a pc. keep in mind that the ps2 has only 4MB vram, but these 4MB are installed directly into the gpu, like a cpu's cache... change a few registers, and voila! spectacular fx.... perhaps with a new directX version, these will be added too... take for instance the xbox... mainly a pc, with a geforce3... can a celeron/gf3 pc run games of similar quality? NO.
for now I am happy playing games on both plattforms
but what I wanted to say is that I think that the MD is more powerfull than a normal amiga... and I compared it to a pc-ps2... I did not mean to go that off-topic, but i did...

[ST Dragon]

Well... what ever makes up your day...