By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Can a PS2 handle all the games that are / can be developed on a Wii?

Daddo Splat on 24 March 2008
sc94597 said:
Daddo Splat said:
sc94597 said:
Zucas said:
sc94597 said:
Daddo Splat said:
Louie said:
There are games already: Resident Evil 4 Wii Edition is a direct port of the Gamecube version which had to be downgraded to work on the Playstation 2.

Games like Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3 and Super Smash Bros. Brawl are also graphically too advanced to work on a Playstation 2.

Remember, we are talking about a console that is roughly 2 times as powerful as a Gamecube, which was more powerful than the Playstation 2.

the gamecube could handle 20 million triangles persecond the PS2 66 million and the original xbox 125 million with that said! the ati chip with aa made the RE4 version look better then the ps2 version! so if you mean downgraded because aa was turned off! fine! But the ps2 was way more powerful then thr GC fact not fiction!

With that said image quality on the wii is better then on the PS2 because of HDR and other effects that the wii chip has that PS2 emotion chip doenst! the games would still run on both systems!

Put it this way the PS2 is way closer to the wii hardware wise then the Wii is to the 360 and PS3!

Links????? To where you got this information on the polygon count. You also forgot how much better shaders , and textures are done by the gamecube despite having very little ram. The gc is about 1.5 times more powerful than the ps2.

 

 


Well he is simply talking about peak performance. But on realistic performances such as at 30FPS and 60FPS the GC outdid the PS2.

I would also like to add this. "The polygon count basically equates to the power of the graphics. The polygon count per second for the GameCube is 12million, compared to PS2’s 66 and X-Box’s 116. However the figures need to be put into context. While the X-Box and PS2’s figures are correct for raw data they don’t show the polygon count for the character animations, lighting and backgrounds among other things while the game is running, this is something the GameCube figure shows. If this was shown across the board all consoles would be around the 10-12million count." I found this when reading an article.

It means that the gamecubes polygon count is based off of an ingame senario while the xbox and ps2 don't compesate for that. So daddo splat GC> PS2 in everything. Don't get me wrong I loved the ps2 the most , but graphics weren't what it was good at.

 


frames per second Interlace =30fps output on a tv progressive scan equals 60 fps thats outputted to the monitor!

I did agree the gamecube graphics looked better that would be the same for the 360 over the PS3 because Ati had better on board features shaders ect. over the PS2 the 360 has on board HDR! PS3 does it thru software!

But on the raw polygon count everyone here ask's me for where I get my info from I dont want to be a dick but a link to the in game real world ploygon count comparison would be neat to see!

And I am wondering will the Wii someday become the most powerful system this generation also!

Like I said Resident evil looked better in GC I understood that to be the Gc did 4x aa and so did the xbox but the ps2 didnt hence jaggies!

Also Im not a PS2 whore if proven wrong will gladly admit it to me it doesnt matter! I just dont believe a company who can advertise a higher polygon count and doesnt and also produce's the cheapest system saying overall power doesnt matter! when in fact they do have the second most powerful machine out is bad marketing! no wonder it only sold 20 million units! WW.


 First of all if you read any of the post you would know that the GC would have a polygon count on par or higher than the ps2. Next you are ignoring textures, shaders, and framerate. The maximum graphical performance isn't based all of of polygon count. The GC produced better graphics, with less jaggies, at a higher framerate, with faster load times. So I don't know where you get the idea that the Ps2 is more powerful than the Gamecube. 

Now if we look at this at a technical way such as the performance of their processors.  You would come up with the conclusion that both the GCs gpu , and cpu is far more efficients. It's ram has more bandwidth, and there is more of it, helping with textures lighting and shading. So please look at the overall performance on both before wrongfully making a statement. 

 

tell me your not 14 and you have built at least 20 computers from scratch????? Please

 



Around the Network
fazz on 25 March 2008
Daddo Splat said:
sc94597 said:
Daddo Splat said:
sc94597 said:
Zucas said:
sc94597 said:
Daddo Splat said:
Louie said:
There are games already: Resident Evil 4 Wii Edition is a direct port of the Gamecube version which had to be downgraded to work on the Playstation 2.

Games like Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3 and Super Smash Bros. Brawl are also graphically too advanced to work on a Playstation 2.

Remember, we are talking about a console that is roughly 2 times as powerful as a Gamecube, which was more powerful than the Playstation 2.

the gamecube could handle 20 million triangles persecond the PS2 66 million and the original xbox 125 million with that said! the ati chip with aa made the RE4 version look better then the ps2 version! so if you mean downgraded because aa was turned off! fine! But the ps2 was way more powerful then thr GC fact not fiction!

With that said image quality on the wii is better then on the PS2 because of HDR and other effects that the wii chip has that PS2 emotion chip doenst! the games would still run on both systems!

Put it this way the PS2 is way closer to the wii hardware wise then the Wii is to the 360 and PS3!

Links????? To where you got this information on the polygon count. You also forgot how much better shaders , and textures are done by the gamecube despite having very little ram. The gc is about 1.5 times more powerful than the ps2.

 

 


Well he is simply talking about peak performance. But on realistic performances such as at 30FPS and 60FPS the GC outdid the PS2.

I would also like to add this. "The polygon count basically equates to the power of the graphics. The polygon count per second for the GameCube is 12million, compared to PS2’s 66 and X-Box’s 116. However the figures need to be put into context. While the X-Box and PS2’s figures are correct for raw data they don’t show the polygon count for the character animations, lighting and backgrounds among other things while the game is running, this is something the GameCube figure shows. If this was shown across the board all consoles would be around the 10-12million count." I found this when reading an article.

It means that the gamecubes polygon count is based off of an ingame senario while the xbox and ps2 don't compesate for that. So daddo splat GC> PS2 in everything. Don't get me wrong I loved the ps2 the most , but graphics weren't what it was good at.

 


frames per second Interlace =30fps output on a tv progressive scan equals 60 fps thats outputted to the monitor!

I did agree the gamecube graphics looked better that would be the same for the 360 over the PS3 because Ati had better on board features shaders ect. over the PS2 the 360 has on board HDR! PS3 does it thru software!

But on the raw polygon count everyone here ask's me for where I get my info from I dont want to be a dick but a link to the in game real world ploygon count comparison would be neat to see!

And I am wondering will the Wii someday become the most powerful system this generation also!

Like I said Resident evil looked better in GC I understood that to be the Gc did 4x aa and so did the xbox but the ps2 didnt hence jaggies!

Also Im not a PS2 whore if proven wrong will gladly admit it to me it doesnt matter! I just dont believe a company who can advertise a higher polygon count and doesnt and also produce's the cheapest system saying overall power doesnt matter! when in fact they do have the second most powerful machine out is bad marketing! no wonder it only sold 20 million units! WW.


First of all if you read any of the post you would know that the GC would have a polygon count on par or higher than the ps2. Next you are ignoring textures, shaders, and framerate. The maximum graphical performance isn't based all of of polygon count. The GC produced better graphics, with less jaggies, at a higher framerate, with faster load times. So I don't know where you get the idea that the Ps2 is more powerful than the Gamecube.

Now if we look at this at a technical way such as the performance of their processors. You would come up with the conclusion that both the GCs gpu , and cpu is far more efficients. It's ram has more bandwidth, and there is more of it, helping with textures lighting and shading. So please look at the overall performance on both before wrongfully making a statement.

 

tell me your not 14 and you have built at least 20 computers from scratch????? Please

 


I can't answer for him, but let me say that I'm 20, been built over 40 PCs from scratch and I'll tell you that he is right about everything. You are wrong on your statements.



Daddo Splat on 25 March 2008

Ok Iam wrong!

http://www.tomshardware.com/2001/12/04/the_battle_of_the_consoles/page4.html



Daddo Splat on 25 March 2008
fazz said:
Daddo Splat said:
sc94597 said:
Daddo Splat said:
sc94597 said:
Zucas said:
sc94597 said:
Daddo Splat said:
Louie said:
There are games already: Resident Evil 4 Wii Edition is a direct port of the Gamecube version which had to be downgraded to work on the Playstation 2.

Games like Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3 and Super Smash Bros. Brawl are also graphically too advanced to work on a Playstation 2.

Remember, we are talking about a console that is roughly 2 times as powerful as a Gamecube, which was more powerful than the Playstation 2.

the gamecube could handle 20 million triangles persecond the PS2 66 million and the original xbox 125 million with that said! the ati chip with aa made the RE4 version look better then the ps2 version! so if you mean downgraded because aa was turned off! fine! But the ps2 was way more powerful then thr GC fact not fiction!

With that said image quality on the wii is better then on the PS2 because of HDR and other effects that the wii chip has that PS2 emotion chip doenst! the games would still run on both systems!

Put it this way the PS2 is way closer to the wii hardware wise then the Wii is to the 360 and PS3!

Links????? To where you got this information on the polygon count. You also forgot how much better shaders , and textures are done by the gamecube despite having very little ram. The gc is about 1.5 times more powerful than the ps2.

 

 


Well he is simply talking about peak performance. But on realistic performances such as at 30FPS and 60FPS the GC outdid the PS2.

I would also like to add this. "The polygon count basically equates to the power of the graphics. The polygon count per second for the GameCube is 12million, compared to PS2’s 66 and X-Box’s 116. However the figures need to be put into context. While the X-Box and PS2’s figures are correct for raw data they don’t show the polygon count for the character animations, lighting and backgrounds among other things while the game is running, this is something the GameCube figure shows. If this was shown across the board all consoles would be around the 10-12million count." I found this when reading an article.

It means that the gamecubes polygon count is based off of an ingame senario while the xbox and ps2 don't compesate for that. So daddo splat GC> PS2 in everything. Don't get me wrong I loved the ps2 the most , but graphics weren't what it was good at.

 


frames per second Interlace =30fps output on a tv progressive scan equals 60 fps thats outputted to the monitor!

I did agree the gamecube graphics looked better that would be the same for the 360 over the PS3 because Ati had better on board features shaders ect. over the PS2 the 360 has on board HDR! PS3 does it thru software!

But on the raw polygon count everyone here ask's me for where I get my info from I dont want to be a dick but a link to the in game real world ploygon count comparison would be neat to see!

And I am wondering will the Wii someday become the most powerful system this generation also!

Like I said Resident evil looked better in GC I understood that to be the Gc did 4x aa and so did the xbox but the ps2 didnt hence jaggies!

Also Im not a PS2 whore if proven wrong will gladly admit it to me it doesnt matter! I just dont believe a company who can advertise a higher polygon count and doesnt and also produce's the cheapest system saying overall power doesnt matter! when in fact they do have the second most powerful machine out is bad marketing! no wonder it only sold 20 million units! WW.


First of all if you read any of the post you would know that the GC would have a polygon count on par or higher than the ps2. Next you are ignoring textures, shaders, and framerate. The maximum graphical performance isn't based all of of polygon count. The GC produced better graphics, with less jaggies, at a higher framerate, with faster load times. So I don't know where you get the idea that the Ps2 is more powerful than the Gamecube.

Now if we look at this at a technical way such as the performance of their processors. You would come up with the conclusion that both the GCs gpu , and cpu is far more efficients. It's ram has more bandwidth, and there is more of it, helping with textures lighting and shading. So please look at the overall performance on both before wrongfully making a statement.

 

tell me your not 14 and you have built at least 20 computers from scratch????? Please

 


I can't answer for him, but let me say that I'm 20, been built over 40 PCs from scratch and I'll tell you that he is right about everything. You are wrong on your statements.

so when I say image quality is better on the gamecube then the PS2 Iam wrong in that statement????

And I've built over 50 so what!

 



fazz on 25 March 2008
Daddo Splat said:
Ok Iam wrong!

http://www.tomshardware.com/2001/12/04/the_battle_of_the_consoles/page4.html


Yes, you are still wrong. Even Tom's Hardware is wrong in that page, because PS2 had HD games on 1080i.

Real world polygon performance of the PS2 was less than 10 million polygon's per second. And the proof of the difference between the PS2 and the Gamecube is out there with Resident Evil 4. Way to ignore FJ-Warez post.

(Upper is GC. PS2 trees have less branches because the lower polygon performance.)

(Left are GC. PS2 version lacks the real-time lighting because it wasn't powerful enough to handle it)

(Left are GC. The PS2 version lacks the lava because it lacks shader support. And again the issue with the lighting)

And the PS3 GPU has hardware High Dynamic Range support too, so you are wrong on that too.



Around the Network
FJ-Warez on 25 March 2008

 

This statement made by you, is plain wrong... and you came with the pc builds topic...

Edit: Fazz beat me... "me la pagaras en el brawl nada mas te pase mi friend code y tengamos un rato libre" 

Daddo Splat said:

so if you mean downgraded because aa was turned off! fine! But the ps2 was way more powerful then thr GC fact not fiction!


so when I say image quality is better on the gamecube then the PS2 Iam wrong in that statement????

And I've built over 50 so what!



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."
totalwar23 on 25 March 2008

Actually, something Daddosplat said got me curious about 480i and 480p. When a TV is displaying 480i, what is 30FPS equivalent to? Is that running at 60 fields per second? And when a game is displaying 480p at 30FPS, well that's obvious but that's not equivalent to displaying 480i at 60FPS, is it? The progressive scan eliminates flickering and makes it look better but something running in 480p/30FPS is not equivalent to 480i/60FPS? I'm not sure. I'm not sure why he brought up progressive scan seeing as it had nothing to do with anything.



sc94597 on 25 March 2008
fazz said:
Daddo Splat said:
 

 

tell me your not 14 and you have built at least 20 computers from scratch????? Please

 


I can't answer for him, but let me say that I'm 20, been built over 40 PCs from scratch and I'll tell you that he is right about everything. You are wrong on your statements.


I've built only 3 major computers , but also added components to older computers, such as new ram,gpus,cpus, heatsinks, even motherboards. I also like to overclock things. I got my pentiumd dual core up to 3.0ghz from 1.6ghz. So yes for my age I know alot about computers.

 

 

Fazz covered everything I was going to say.  



Daddo Splat on 25 March 2008

tomshardware had original PS2 they hadnt come out with a component PS2 yet!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/480p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/480i

Ok PS2 sucks major wang and I got my fps all messed up! OUT FLAME!
in defense I confused fields for frames I wont do that again

On the hdr if its on board for thr PS3 I appolgize I read it was done thru software! based on the 360 superior hdr! if I find that I'll post it but I think I will actually play some games instead!



Viper1 on 25 March 2008

Daddo, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Monitor refresh rates and rendering frame rates are not the same thing. Please do some research.


The reported polygon rates are not directly comparable because Sony/MS reported RAW polygons or wireframes. Nintendo reported a range suggesting full effects in a game game environment.

The GC and Xbox both peaked around 20 million in a real game environment while the PS2 peaked at 12 million.



The rEVOLution is not being televised