Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Razor on September 10, 2002, 11:22:14 am
-
Now call me crazy but (with no offence to the game no it's fans) but the graphics of this game on console just SUCK!
Take a look. Here is one from XBOX (I think):
(http://www.lucasarts.com/products/outcast/images/screens_xbox/8.jpg)
And here is one taken from a PC:
(http://www.lucasarts.com/products/outcast/images/screens/86.jpg)
Notice any differences? I do! :D
By the way. Do you guys think that there's gonna be a sequel for this game?
-
Ahh, Kyle Katarn: The Man With The Most Well-Known Back In The Galaxy™. ;)
-
i'd rather be skywalker ;7
-
Pfft. Xbox. :p
-
Pff. Consoles. :p
Well, it isn't that much worse on the x-box, but it's odd, usually x-box games look better... but that's a conversion. Edit: Actually it's not that much worse, but it's because it's for TV and the gamma and brightness are odd, as is the resolution. Edit2: The PC version would probably look much more better, if it'd be running on like Radeon 9700, 1600x1200, 6xAA, 16xAF. :p And of course at acceptable framerates (The R9700 can do that). :D
Anyway, not the graphics (well yes also those), but the controls...
Originally posted by Razor
By the way. Do you guys think that there's gonna be a sequel for this game?
I hope so.
-
Look at the jaggedy edges on it though, ugly as hell. Thank god for the PC version.
-
My point's exactly Thunder. Lok at the saber hilt on the XBOX and compare it with the one on PC. The one on PC has more detail, the graphics are (as we graphic newbs would say) sharper.
Second, look at the Kyle model and you can see that it is much better detailed almost like they filmed the man, not like it was made on a computer. PC version OWNS any console version.
By the way. Skywalker is a wimp. He fights like one. He just does some crouching attacks and such. Once I made him fight Desann, he didn't live longer than 15 seconds. In my first fight against Desann, I fought for about 1,5 minutes before I was so bruttaly suffercated.
-
By the way, Thunder, on which video options are you running the game? Do you have those annoying karate(sp) chops while playing?
-
I've got everything on full at 1280x1024 but I do get chops, at some stage I need to tone things down a tad and try and sort that out as it makes lightsaber combat impossible.
-
*Zeronet points to Halo 2's Graphics*
-
So why couldn't they make JK2 look like that then, hmm? :)
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
*Zeronet points to Halo 2's Graphics*
*Redfang points to Doom III graphics*
-
Originally posted by Thunder
I've got everything on full at 1280x1024 but I do get chops, at some stage I need to tone things down a tad and try and sort that out as it makes lightsaber combat impossible.
Impossible? You don't know what is impossible. Come here and play the game on my 450, 128 on fastest video settings and see if you won't blow up your top when playing the Artus topside mission. Now that's impossible, so be happy that you are not in my skin.
-
Originally posted by Razor
Impossible? You don't know what is impossible. Come here and play the game on my 450, 128 on fastest video settings and see if you won't blow up your top when playing the Artus topside mission. Now that's impossible, so be happy that you are not in my skin.
Bah. On my friend's PIII 600MHz, 8MB integrated graphics, the JKII multiplayer against bots ran at about 10-20fps, at all on lowest details, 640x480x16. Unplayable, though some maps ran a bit better, at 30fps probably. :doubt:
And, on my 466MHz it'd run worse (most likely), as I have the same graphics.
-
Originally posted by Thunder
So why couldn't they make JK2 look like that then, hmm? :)
A: They arent Bungie
B: Its a converstion
C: Im sure they have multiple reasons, like A and B.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
A: They arent Bungie
B: Its a converstion
C: Im sure they have multiple reasons, like A and B.
D: TV's a big limitation with 640x480 and not so good image quality anyway.
-
I always thought TV could output at 800x600... I seem to recall mine can. That said I agree that there'll be a quality hit, but it should still look better than that... ah well.
-
Originally posted by Thunder
I always thought TV could output at 800x600... I seem to recall mine can. That said I agree that there'll be a quality hit, but it should still look better than that... ah well.
Well, yes, that could be... I don't know about TV's. But I think console games have resolution of 640x480, at least most do. If not all.
-
Ha taht means taht my PC is even better than any console today. Wooho! Now I can give my old PC to my mom and get me that beast I wanted.
-
What the heck are you guys talking about? AFAIK, TV maxes out at like 460x320 or so - 640x480 would be a dream!
Meh - on second thought, I looked it up. All I have to say is: Holy Crap! (http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidres.htm) Anyone want to translate that stuff into something resembling English for the temporally-challenged? (I don't have the time) ;)
-
Is it complete, though? I'm not sure of the exact specs of the X-box GPU, but I know it's roughyl the equivalent of the Geforce 3/4, but with the advantages of better memory access (like the Gamecube, the X-box data bus - IIRC - runs directly throught the GPU rather than to the CPU),m so it should be able to easily match the performance of a modern day PC.... maybe it's not been fully optimised yet, or they have to twiddle with the pipeline to optimise it still......
-
I think XBOX has a processor runing on 750 MHz or so. And graphics couldn't possibly be like Ge_Force 3-4 It looks more like Ge-Force 2 to me.
-
Originally posted by Razor
I think XBOX has a processor runing on 750 MHz or so. And graphics couldn't possibly be like Ge_Force 3-4 It looks more like Ge-Force 2 to me.
I read it to be Geforce-3 but with some aspects of GF4 tech (pixel shaders etc.)
Personally I thought JK2 wasn't graphically astounding to begin with and the X-box could easily handle it, plus the talk of resolution is quite redundant because T.V's aren't designed to be as sharp as a PC monitor anyway.
I'd much prefer to play something like Dead or Alive 3 on a 32" HD-TV that a 19" monitor though :)
-
X-Box has a CPU of which is like Pentium III, but slower. Don't know how much, but I guess it's a bit faster than Celeron, though. The CPU runs at 733MHz.
The GPU is NV2A, that's a better version of NV20, which is the core of GF3/GF3Ti200/GF3Ti500. It has about the same clock speeds as GF3Ti500, I think it's a bit slower, but has two vertex shaders, while NV20 has one. So that's almost like a GF4 but not as fast and no LMAII and stuff like that I guess...
Originally posted by Sandwich
What the heck are you guys talking about? AFAIK, TV maxes out at like 460x320 or so - 640x480 would be a dream!
Certainly not so. How could console games have resolution of 640x480 then?
Edit: Originally posted by Razor
I think XBOX has a processor runing on 750 MHz or so. And graphics couldn't possibly be like Ge_Force 3-4 It looks more like Ge-Force 2 to me.
The GPU is bit faster than GF3, the TV is the limitation. Also, JKII is a very CPU-intensive game so the 733MHz isn't maybe enough, so they have maybe took out something which taxes CPU too much.
-
Originally posted by Redfang
X-Box has a CPU of which is like Pentium III, but slower. Don't know how much, but I guess it's a bit faster than Celeron, though. The CPU runs at 733MHz.
The GPU is NV2A, that's a better version of NV20, which is the core of GF3/GF3Ti200/GF3Ti500. It has about the same clock speeds as GF3Ti500, I think it's a bit slower, but has two vertex shaders, while NV20 has one. So that's almost like a GF4 but not as fast and no LMAII and stuff like that I guess...
Certainly not so. How could console games have resolution of 640x480 then?
Edit:
The GPU is bit faster than GF3, the TV is the limitation. Also, JKII is a very CPU-intensive game so the 733MHz isn't maybe enough, so they have maybe took out something which taxes CPU too much.
But with regards to the CPU power, you have to remember that consoles don't have to worry about having an O/S running in the background (which makes a helluva difference IMO).
For example the Dreamcast used a version of windows CE. Games that tended to be CE based were as a rule of thumb diabolically slow compared to games pushing more that didn't use the OS.
-
Originally posted by 01010
But with regards to the CPU power, you have to remember that consoles don't have to worry about having an O/S running in the background (which makes a helluva difference IMO).
For example the Dreamcast used a version of windows CE. Games that tended to be CE based were as a rule of thumb diabolically slow compared to games pushing more that didn't use the OS.
Hmm, true, forgot that. :p Well, then the TV has to be the limiting factor, as there is no point in making razor sharp status bars as the TV can't show them like that... I guess. :p
-
Originally posted by Redfang
Hmm, true, forgot that. :p Well, then the TV has to be the limiting factor, as there is no point in making razor sharp status bars as the TV can't show them like that... I guess. :p
I'm not so sure about that. I have an X-box (no fanboi though) and through my experience I've never noticed blurring on sharp edges like status bars with games like Halo and such. But to be fair I've never really paid much attention to minor details (I can live with slightly blurry edges when I get Tri-linear mip-mapping et al :) ).