StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Uraniun235 wrote:

The next-gen consoles will probably be pushing around 100 GB/s of memory bandwidth

I want links.

I just want to know how memory bandwidth is suppoused to magically increase processors's throughput.

MKSheppard wrote:No, that's Doom 3

And unless ID took the que to start improving even more, it's already surpassed by Half-Life 2, which releases THIS year.

The Halo 2 video looked jerky in that the control didn't seem smooth. Oh, the scripted stuff was beautiful, but once the player took control, it lost the fluidity that I love to have with a mouse/keyboard.

One of my friends tried to make the argument that the Xbox controls force a more "thoughtful" play experience, rather than "twitch" gaming. I countered that if you *have* to throw up a bad interface to maintain game balance, there's something wrong with the game that should be addressed.

Darth Wong wrote: I suggest a visit to an optometrist. Halo2 looks fuzzy; the edges of objects are blurry and indistinct. Object detail is weak. Comparing it to Doom3 is like comparing VHS to DVD.

Your right, it doesn't really compare as far as shear polygons or detail. But the larger budgets and greater art staff of console game makers give a distinct advantage in the area of art design. Take Final Fantasy IX for example. Here is a game pushing almost zero polygons, with static backdrops and yet it looks fantastic because of its animation and art design. Want something more recent? Try Kingdom Hearts. It may not compare in sheer polygons, but I'd love to see that kind of animation and art design on a PC.

You must be joking. PC players can set up hotkeys up the wazoo. And as for vehicle control, Halo's scheme sucks; it does not separate turret aiming from navigation.

Actually, I just meant that Halo created a slick control scheme for a console game and I wasn't comparing it to the PC version. They had less to work with and they did a great job.

Let me say this again: nothing will beat a mouse/keyboard on a PC for FPS and certainly not for RTS. However, there are certain games that lend themselves better to a gamepad and as time goes on I think that control schemes on consoles will become more evolved.

I've played Halo on the XBox, and it's not an amazing experience. The combat elements are mundane; it's the story that makes it worthwhile, not the gameplay. Some of the level designs are insanely repetitive, by the way.

Matter of taste eh? Anyways, Halo's level design is hardly a knock against console gaming. It's common knowledge that Halo was rushed at the end to meet the Xbox launch; I have much higher hopes for Halo 2.

Actually, I've found that console game designers play it safe and there's no innovation to be found in that market. Just bigger and flashier iterations upon a few "tried and true" themes.

The barrier to entry for console development has caused some of that in the past but with the skyrocketing costs of both console AND PC development, both sides have to secure major funding before they can make a game. These days the publisher’s really only want sequels, so it hurts innovation. Did you read the recent interviews that Carmack and Warren Spector have given about this topic? They seem to believe the PC is seeing lack of innovation as because of barriers to entry and Warren Spector thinks that consoles may be where the MAJORITY of the innovation is happening today (aside from the mod community). The reason being simply that with the bigger audience, console titles have greater chances at success. Once a developer has a good hit under their belt they can get a lot more freedom to innovate.

Look at some of the games being developed for consoles right now. Fable, BC, Oddworld 4, Metal Gear Solid...I doubt you can argue that these games show or showed some incredible innovation in game design. Or how about this:

http://www.gamespot.com/gba/adventure/b ... ag=mp_2to9

Lately I think it is the PC that is guilty of flashier sequels with little substance (did anyone play Unreal II?).

The wild card here is mods; mods have the potential to innovate on the PC with Counter-Strike being the most famous example. There is no way in hell I am going to downplay the importance of mods, but remember that aside from Counter-Strike, we haven't seen a lot of innovation there either lately.

Seriously, I think you need to get your eyes checked out.

*laugh* Okay, you're right. Sudeki doesn't technically compare to Doom III. But the art design is still some of the most fantastic I have ever seen.

If consoles are to evolve, they will have to become more PC-like. They're already at the limits of what can be done with the current paradigm, and simply amping up the graphic resolution and CPU power won't change anything.

True that we aren't seeing the kind of game evolution that we saw in the jump from 2D to 3D, but as we get more memory and faster CPU's we can create more and more interactive worlds without necessarily reinventing the wheel. Yes, I want more innovation in games but with rising development costs now pushing $10 million for the average game, this isn't going to be easy unless we can get more and more indie publishers out there that are willing to take some risks.

A fucking $200 game which comes with its own dedicated controller in order to address the X-Box's shitty control scheme? If that's the wave of the future, you're fucked. The last thing you need is a shitload of ridiculously expensive games which come with their own dedicated controllers.

Lol, Mike you aren't getting what I'm saying. I would never BUY Steel Battalion. But I do admire it for its innovation and I think the developers had a great idea, they just didn't get the implementation down pat. Doesn't mean we should fault them for trying now should we? Perhaps the key here is to design controllers for consoles that work with different genres. Gamepads will work with most games, but you can get a steering wheel setup for racers, flight stick for flight sims and a SB controller for mech games. I think that if Capcom had announced, say, FOUR games from different developers that would work on the SB controller, then maybe it would have had an even better response.

Shogoki wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:

The next-gen consoles will probably be pushing around 100 GB/s of memory bandwidth

I want links.

I just want to know how memory bandwidth is suppoused to magically increase processors's throughput.

It isn't; memory bandwidth is essential to higher resolution games though as you are throwing a hell of a lot more data across the memory bus. Remember the GeForce 2 Ultra?

Gamepads will work with most games, but you can get a steering wheel setup for racers, flight stick for flight sims and a SB controller for mech games.

Why not just make the controller ports on consoles fucking USB ports?

Draw up some standards for how the controller hardware is to interact with your console and pass them on to the hardware companies. (This should be extremely easy for Microsoft, who makes both joysticks AND Xboxen) The hardware companies send samples back to the console makers for testing, and they get a shiny seal of approval so that the gamers know what hardware will work with their console.

But then, I suppose this would be less money for all involved.

Want something more recent? Try Kingdom Hearts. It may not compare in sheer polygons, but I'd love to see that kind of animation and art design on a PC.

PC lacks this not because it's incapable of it, but because nobody's developing that stuff for PC.

Uraniun235 wrote:

The next-gen consoles will probably be pushing around 100 GB/s of memory bandwidth

I want links.

Well, I guess I'll just have to give you what you want then

http://www.aceshardware.com/read_news.jsp?id=75000390

A 128-bit yellowstone interface at 3.2 Ghz = 100 GB/s. Scary huh?

Uraniun235 wrote:

Gamepads will work with most games, but you can get a steering wheel setup for racers, flight stick for flight sims and a SB controller for mech games.

Why not just make the controller ports on consoles fucking USB ports?

Draw up some standards for how the controller hardware is to interact with your console and pass them on to the hardware companies. (This should be extremely easy for Microsoft, who makes both joysticks AND Xboxen) The hardware companies send samples back to the console makers for testing, and they get a shiny seal of approval so that the gamers know what hardware will work with their console.

But then, I suppose this would be less money for all involved.

The Xbox uses USB technolgy, it just uses a proprietary interface so they can license peripherals. Part of the price we pay for getting our consoles dirt cheap (they are sold at a loss typically) is that we have to pay for stuff like this. Fortunately, it is easy to turn a PC contoller into an xbox controller (for the manufacturer anyways).

Want something more recent? Try Kingdom Hearts. It may not compare in sheer polygons, but I'd love to see that kind of animation and art design on a PC.

PC lacks this not because it's incapable of it, but because nobody's developing that stuff for PC.[/quote]

Absolutely correct. And why no development of games with such great animation and art design? Because they will never sell in the numbers required to turn a profit. Are you aware of how much Square spends on their games?

The Kernel wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:

The next-gen consoles will probably be pushing around 100 GB/s of memory bandwidth

I want links.

Well, I guess I'll just have to give you what you want then

http://www.aceshardware.com/read_news.jsp?id=75000390

A 128-bit yellowstone interface at 3.2 Ghz = 100 GB/s. Scary huh?

Goody, goody, can i now see the processor, gpu or whatever that can process data at a rate 100Gb/s?

Shogoki wrote:

The Kernel wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote: I want links.

Well, I guess I'll just have to give you what you want then

http://www.aceshardware.com/read_news.jsp?id=75000390

A 128-bit yellowstone interface at 3.2 Ghz = 100 GB/s. Scary huh?

Goody, goody, can i now see the processor, gpu or whatever that can process data at a rate 100Gb/s?

The GPU for the Xbox is going to be a variant of the ATI R400 that hasn't taped out yet. The PS2's "Cell" chip isn't public yet, nor is the GS2 that will power the graphics.

Best guess is that the R400 Xbox gpu will be a 16-pipeline DirectX 10+ GPU with advanced shading, NURBS and a decent HOS implementation. The GS2 will likely be similar to the GS in the PS2, just with more pipelines and probably some built in logic for shading and other effects.

It is very likely that both chips will use integrated 1T SRAM or e-DRAM to create an on-chip cache for improved bandwidth and latency similar to Gamecube's Gekko processor.

The biggest issue I see is that the PS3 will likely be even harder to develop for because it places massive emphasis on parralelism through its sixteen core CPU.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Xbox2 will have an IA-64 variant CPU similar to Deerfield (that's Itanium II LV) but based on either the Montecito or Tanglewood core. This makes a lot of sense since it's built in x86 emulation should provide enough performance for backwards compatibility and Intel would LOVE to increase the volume on these low end IA-64 chips.

So, wich one of them does the 100 gb/s?

Hope Sony isn't bullshitting about the capabilities of the PS3 like they did with the PS2. Where's the real-time CG cutscenes?

Shogoki wrote:So, wich one of them does the 100 gb/s?

Well so far only the PS3 architecture is slated to use Yellowstone technology, but it would be naiive of us to think that Microsoft hasn't come up with a powerful memory/bus technology to combat it.

It's really about necessities though. The PS3 will need more system bandwidth then the Xbox2 because it is moving so much data between the CPU and the GPU due to the use of it's vector units on the Cell chip for T&L processing. This is similar to the issue in the PS2 which was a lack of bandwidth. I don't know if you know this or not but the PS2 graphics chip has 16 pipelines which was an enormous amount for the time. In order to keep those pipelines fed it has to move a great amount of data between its two chips because after the graphics data has finished T&L processing on the Emotion Engine, it needs to be textured on the Graphics Synthesizer. Most developers will tell you that the PS2's main weakness is bandwidth and a combination of Yellowstone plus on-chip cache will seriously help with the similar deisgn of the PS3.

As for the Xbox, it isn't nearly as bandwidth starved as the PS2, but it can't do high resolutions without a performance hit. It has to render all of its frames progressively so 1920x1080 is just too much for most games to handle. 720p is better, but it isn't worth it for most developers considering that:

a) most people don't have HDTV
b) they can better use the bandwidth on textures

The Xbox2 and the PS3 will have such ungodly high amounts of memory bandwidth that high-res shouldn't be much of an issue (not to mention Anti-aliasing) so that the developers can pretty much write the whole game from scratch for HD. Of course, this means that HDTV is going to become an even hotter commodety when the new consoles are launched...

Hamel wrote:Hope Sony isn't bullshitting about the capabilities of the PS3 like they did with the PS2. Where's the real-time CG cutscenes?

The PS2 has some serious power, it just can't use most of it because of system bottlnecks (mostly bandwidth related). Also, the PS2 sucks for applying any kind of bump-mapping/shader effects so the games don't look very pretty. Finally, the PS2 outputs in a weird resolution that makes it look all jagged. Anti-aliasing would help this, but woe is Sony, the PS2 has to use software-based AA.

The thing you have to remember about consoles, is that they're only as good as their peripherals.

You can have all the graphics and sound hardware you want inside your console, but if it's plugged in to an old POS 14" TV,.. you ain't gonna notice it much.

To make the most out of high res on consoles, surround sound etc... you require some serious audio/visual hardware.........

Which people really should, but rarely do factor into the cost of their console.

Its an interesting point about the style of games the market supports for the two formats. PC games are, I've noticed, extremely derivative. Games like Black & White are wierd and cool, but the day of the kooky PC game seem to have died with the 90's. Now the shelves are full of FPS's and RTS's, and...
Consoles, OTOH, have alot of titles that *seem* to be more interesting. I'll never enjoy a console FPS unless they make Perfect Dark with updated graphics, but Streets of LA and stuff look interesting. There doesn't seem to be any such development for PC. And I hate racing games on pc... they're just a crowd-round-the-widescreen kinda thing

Question - why can't you buy a decent controller for PC? Even the ones based on console controllers have awful response and sensitivity problems.

Stark wrote:Question - why can't you buy a decent controller for PC? Even the ones based on console controllers have awful response and sensitivity problems.

Funny, the two gamepad controllers I bought from Saitek work beautifully, and my Cyborg joystick has wonderful control. I've also gotten good results from Microsoft Sidewinder Joysticks.

However, Force Feedback Joysticks tend to have worse deadzones in my experience, and are fairly loose. Better to go straight with a non-FF Joystick. Force Feedback doesn't really add that much to the game anyway, so it's hardly a huge loss.

Let's look at the total costs awaiting console gamers who want full compatability (i.e. all systems, marked at release prices).

You will need the following...
1 HDTV (34" or up) = $1,000-$4,000
1 X-Box ($300 + extras) = $333
1 PS2 ($300 + extras) = $333
1 Gamecube ($300 + extras) = $333
1 GBA + 1 GBA SP ~= $300

Low end (assuming you get a great deal on that HDTV), you've got a price tag of $2,300 before you buy any games. That's enough for a pretty beefy (2+ Ghz, 1 GIG RAM, 120GB HDD, 19"-21" monitor, etc) computer system. High end ($5,300) means you can get a kickass computer system with all the bells and whistles and still have cash left over to buy a dozen games or so, get broadband, whatever. Let's not forget that you can make a living with a computer.

Darth Wong wrote: A fucking $200 game which comes with its own dedicated controller in order to address the X-Box's shitty control scheme? If that's the wave of the future, you're fucked. The last thing you need is a shitload of ridiculously expensive games which come with their own dedicated controllers.

Whoa, I just saw the controller for SB...and I must say, FUCKING WOW...
if more games support that, then I would definitely seriously get it...



Call me a sucker for immersion, but I'd probably find that kind of control
much more realistic than the PC keyboard and joystick....then Again, I
always wanted to go to that Battlemech place in Chicago where they had
full sized cockpits with buttons that all worked

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: A fucking $200 game which comes with its own dedicated controller in order to address the X-Box's shitty control scheme? If that's the wave of the future, you're fucked. The last thing you need is a shitload of ridiculously expensive games which come with their own dedicated controllers.

Whoa, I just saw the controller for SB...and I must say, FUCKING WOW...
if more games support that, then I would definitely seriously get it...

<snip image>

Call me a sucker for immersion, but I'd probably find that kind of control
much more realistic than the PC keyboard and joystick....then Again, I
always wanted to go to that Battlemech place in Chicago where they had
full sized cockpits with buttons that all worked

The Battletech thing was cool, but in general could've been more.

The problem I had with SB is that while yes, nice for persay the thought of immerision, I've seen set ups for Flight sims that easily rival it and there are fanatics who complain that SB's controller needs more.

That and the game loses it on more that once you've beaten it...that's it...

The Kernel wrote: The biggest issue I see is that the PS3 will likely be even harder to develop for because it places massive emphasis on parralelism through its sixteen core CPU.

Right. You're assuming that Sony won't learn from PS2 experience.

Compare Saturn with it's 3 CPUs to the next generation from Sega, Dreamcast, which was fucking ridiculously simple to program for.

MKSheppard wrote:Whoa, I just saw the controller for SB...and I must say, FUCKING WOW...
if more games support that, then I would definitely seriously get it...

http://www.capcom.com/SB/images/index_12.jpg

Call me a sucker for immersion, but I'd probably find that kind of control
much more realistic than the PC keyboard and joystick....then Again, I
always wanted to go to that Battlemech place in Chicago where they had
full sized cockpits with buttons that all worked

HOTAS HOTAS HOTAS.

Jesus Shep, the Tesla Pods for BTech are just HOTAS and pedals with a half-dozen readout screens with buttons. You can get almost the same effect with a Saitek X45 combo, rudder pedals, and some other niche controllers with MW3/4, which you can then use for any other game that can take advantage of a flight sim controller like that...like, I dunno, flight sims and space sims.

Right now, Steel Battallion's controller is only useful for two games: Steel Battallion and Steel Battallion 2 (which has XBox LIVE support, and thus online multiplayer, which is pretty damn cool, I'll admit).

A comment on early discussions about innovation in console vs PC games: since when does art design constitute innovation in a game? PC games always push the boundaries, and still do. The most recent innovation was massively multiplayer games. Art design is not innovation, any more than a really cool paint job on a car represents an improvement in automotive technology.

Darth Wong wrote:A comment on early discussions about innovation in console vs PC games: since when does art design constitute innovation in a game? PC games always push the boundaries, and still do. The most recent innovation was massively multiplayer games. Art design is not innovation, any more than a really cool paint job on a car represents an improvement in automotive technology.

It doesn't...and never should given the amount of shit on the current system that look pretty but have the game mechanics of a brain dead chinchilla.

I mean saying art=innovation would mean that the few anime like FPS's are superior to say Half Life because Half Life isn't as pretty. It's piss poor blanket statement saying "Look we're shinier=better!!!"

Art is nice but at the end of the day it's still just candy for the eyes...and does shit for a game other then look good(and there are plenty of game that look fanatstic but suck in every department that matter)

Darth Wong wrote:A comment on early discussions about innovation in console vs PC games: since when does art design constitute innovation in a game? PC games always push the boundaries, and still do. The most recent innovation was massively multiplayer games. Art design is not innovation, any more than a really cool paint job on a car represents an improvement in automotive technology.

I'm sorry that the post is long, but you should really READ the enitre thing. I wasn't comparing innovation to art design, I was simply responding to your assertions that graphics in console games suck. I was trying to contrast that there is more to graphics than sheer polygon counts, nothing more.