Topic: Gamecubes Graphics

[blueman]

How are the Graphics on the Gamecube? because i know that the xbox Graphics are very Good!   just wondering as to how Good the Graphics on the Gamecube/Gamecube games are?


well Thanks everybody bye

[Zeth]

they are not as good as xbox's.

[jmoe316]

For Graphics:

X-Box > GameCube > PS2

[Grey Ninja]

GameCube = PS2 = Xbox.

It's really that simple.  I am sure that you really won't believe me as Xbox has higher numbers, and PS2 has the lowest numbers when you look at a spec sheet, but I really don't care.  This whole argument is just retarded.  Each system will perform about as well as the others if properly coded.  In the real world, this manifests itself in playable form all the time.  I can easily show games on each system that look as good as the best available on others.

END OF STORY.  

[Infernal Monkey]

*Agrees with Grey*

Every system can basically produce the same if effort is put in. Just take a look at Gran Turismo 3 on PS2. Just look at it! I'm yet to see an Xbox game compete with it. And Xbox is meant to be three times better -_-

[aoi tsuki]

Project Gotham Racer 2 comepetes with it quite well actually. There's a difference in styles; GT4 pushing photorealism envelope and PGR2 pushing the CG realism (or whatever you call "supershiny cars that could never exist in real life" envelope, but it's right up there with GT4.

PS2 could debatably push more polygons than the GC, but the GC can texture them much better. Xbox can use shaders and effects like bump mapping much easier than the other two, although it's a bit wasteful in graphics processing, whereas the GC's components are harmoniously matched. Add in things like surround sound, and the gap between the system widens. i forget the specifics as i've shyed away from specs, but i think when it comes to in-game graphical performance, there's a definite system hierarchy.  

[DRJ]

XBox is technically more powerful than Gamecube, and PS2 is technically the worst of then all. But it just depends on the game. XBox could produce the best games, but that doesnt mean that they do. Just look at the graphics for Metroid Prime for Gamecube, which is comparable to the best XBox games (i.e. Halo and umm...) Ok well then just best XBox game.

[BlkPaladin]

They are pretty much the same. But it not because of hardware. It how much time a devloper is willing to cox things out of the systems.

[KDR_11k]

I'm not sure, but I think both the XB and GC are based on OGL1.x GPUs. The GF3/4 can only go up to OGL1.3, while ATI's r200 can do OGL1.4 (I think those are the PC equivalents of the XB's and GC's GPUs). Although I've heard the opposite I'm quite confident the GC can do pixel shaders (up to PS1.4), as the water in Super Mario Sunshine seems to use refraction shaders (looks a lot like the corresponding benchmark in 3DMark 2001). The XBox has slightly more RAM, which could equal more texture detail. Still not enough for the likes of UT2003, though.

[ReallyScrued]

you people are taking this wayyyy out of where it is supposed to be. There are two ways to look at this. First With hardware.  PS2 has the most powerful processor, then gamecube with is based on power pc by IBM and then the XBox with the p3.  Video card concerning, it goes xbox with a slightly modified g3, then the flipper in the gamecube, then ps2.  Now what really matters SOFTWARE gamecube is based on opengl, xbox uses DirectX, and ps2 uses custom assembly. xbox graphix are the easiest to make look good, because it just uses what computers use, and computers by far have the best graphix out of all these, Apple line up comps to be more specific. ps2 graphix are very hard to program because it has its own standard which is why the GTA's look like super nintendo graphix in 3d. Nintendo went with the flipper which uses opengl, also a computer API but harder to program than directX but if programmed correctly, it can top DirectX, to put this in perspective, what looks better? quake 3 or UT? quake 3 of course, it uses openGL, UT uses directX. gamecube has the potential to look much better than halo 2 screens, but its wayyy to hard to program, and even with S3 texure compression, they cannont fit it into a disc. xbox isnt going to look much better than halo2. that is the end of the line, that is as far as directX goes, but metroid prime is no where near what gamecube can render. ps2 would top all of them off, like gran turismo, but hey, its just about dead guyz. no one is spending the time to make things look as good as they can, but gcn would top alll of them off. end of story.  

[mouse_clicker]

It's useless debating specs- it's all up to the developer, some of which are better than others. Most people will tell you that the PS2 is the weakest, but look at games like Ico- incredibly good graphics. A lot of people will also tell you the XBox has the best graphics, and while it has the best specs, that doesn't mean all of it's games look better than all of the Gamecube or PS2's games. Basically, some games look REALLY good and some games look REALLY bad- it's up to the people making the game as to which of those categories one specific game will fall under- it has very little to do with which console it's on.

[evilnate]

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
It's useless debating specs- it's all up to the developer, some of which are better than others. Most people will tell you that the PS2 is the weakest, but look at games like Ico- incredibly good graphics. A lot of people will also tell you the XBox has the best graphics, and while it has the best specs, that doesn't mean all of it's games look better than all of the Gamecube or PS2's games. Basically, some games look REALLY good and some games look REALLY bad- it's up to the people making the game as to which of those categories one specific game will fall under- it has very little to do with which console it's on.

Agreed.  When people talk about which console is more powerful than another, they're talking about "headroom".  It's generally agreed that the X-Box has the most headroom, but that doesn't mean that we'll ever see a game that takes full advantage of what it can do.  Look at the N64.  It wasn't until very late in that systems life cycle that we started to see games that took better advantange of the hardware, such as "Rogue Squadron" and "Jet Force Gemeni".  Even then I'm not sure that we ever saw what the system was fully capable of.  Out of the current systems, I think that the PS2 is getting the most of it's hardware, simply because developers have been working on it for longer.  I think the best way to judge a system is by the last high profile games that are released just before the next system.  The next Zelda, Metroid Prime 2, and Mario 128 should give you a better idea of the 'Cube's full potential, just like Halo 2 and Doom 3 will give you a better idea of the Xbox's.

[ReallyScrued]

isnt that what i said? well if u didnt understand me, thas what i said. but if u want to talk about headroom, ps2 has the most, its custom API allows it to have infinate effects in a game, opengl and directX has its limits but they havent been reached yet and probably never will be.  

[alvinaloy]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
The XBox has slightly more RAM, which could equal more texture detail. Still not enough for the likes of UT2003, though.

Xbox has 64 MB shared RAM, which means this RAM is utilised by the software, games, video, etc. But on the other hand, GC has 48 MB dedicated video RAM.

But ya, discussing specs is pointless. So what if a system has great graphics but not as many great games. Do you buy a system just to look at the gfx? Or to play the game? If you want to have great gfx, stick with a computer.

[mouse_clicker]

"If you want to have great gfx, stick with a computer."

Now that's a pretty careless thing to say- graphics matter more to a good game than many people (well, Nintendo fans) acknowledge. Many games' atmospheres and ambience would be completely lost if the graphics weren't very good, and graphics really are integral to a great game. Graphics are what draw you into the game and immerse you in it's world. I'm not going to say graphics are mare important than gameplay- not by a longshot- but to completely blow them off isn't smart.  

[Hostile Creation]

I have to disagree (though yes, graphics are important to an extent), because I just had an awesome time recently playing Lickle on my NES emulator.  Great game, Lickle.

But yes, games rather like Myst, as well as a few other genres, tend to require the best graphics possible.

[Grey Ninja]

*sigh*  Unless someone can prove to me that GameCube uses OpenGL, I will call you a bloody liar.  (or uninformed)  As far as I know, GameCube uses its own proprietary API, PS2 makes you program your own API, and Xbox gives you DirectX.  I seriously don't know how this OpenGL talk got started, as I have only heard it around here.

Flipper bears little to no resemblance to a Radeon GPU, as ATI didn't buy ArtX until the GPU design was already taped out.  Comparing Flipper to a Radeon is simply erroneous.  However, since ArtX is behind the design of newer Radeons, there is a little bit of Flipper showing through, but it's still not much.  Flipper != Radeon.

GameCube has no shaders, but the CPU is powerful enough to do such effects in software.

Most of the Xbox talk around here right now is correct though, as it's essentially a PC, and it's hard to screw that up.  Comparing GameCube and PS2 to a PC is simply WRONG though.  Don't do that.

Anyone who claims that they know which system is the most powerful and isn't a liscensed developer for all three systems is outright lying.  That includes most people here.

I tend to believe people who make games for all the systems, such as Factor 5, who claimed that all 3 systems were about equal in power when it all came down to it.  I tend to trust Factor 5 more than some guy on a forum with a keyboard and a spec sheet in front of them.

Now can we please quit discussing this?  This very topic just annoys me.

[kennyb27]

Hostile Creation, it depends on what the game was created with.  For example, with games that were made on the NES, SNES, Genesis, etc. the games were designed with the graphic capabilities in mind, the story lines and the environment fit to the graphics of that specific game.  With increasingly complex games and settings, the graphics "need" to improve alongside them.  This is why one cannot say that they enjoyed playing a certain NES or SNES game and simply disregard the graphics, just as one cannot say that graphics are all that matter in the game today.  Simply put, graphics change, as do game's environments, with time; therefore, it is unfair to say the gaming enjoyments of the late 80s/early 90s are the reason graphics are not important.

[Grey Ninja]

kenny, I played Metal Gear Solid, then I played Metal Gear Solid 2.  The graphics in Metal Gear Solid 2 are unquestionably better, but I preferred the first game in almost every way.  Graphics don't mean crap if all it means is a few less jaggies.  I can somehow live with my character not showing every wrinkle on his crotch.  I don't get up and complain about the sucky graphics if a sphere isn't perfectly round.

[Hemmorrhoid]

Oh this is so silly, lets just settle with the fact that, Xbox and GCN are almost the same Xbox albeit a tiny bit superior (to an extent where it doesnt really matter) and the PS2 is close.

You can really base this on developers work, take Starcraft Ghost for example, they said the Xbox version and GCN one will be almost identical, and the PS2 one will be cranked down a notch.  

[Bartman3010]

You know, the PS2 and GC narent even 128 bits =) If I rmeember from specs, which I've heard from some (And I kinda trust them) that only the X Box was like 128 bits or something...or was it PS2?

Beisdes, as its been stated a million times around here, specs mean diddly squat when it comes to getting a console.

[egman]

Quote
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja


GameCube has no shaders, but the CPU is powerful enough to do such effects in software.

I thought the GC's TEV pipeline was essentially a pixel shader under a different name? As for vertex shading, it seems that the GC needs the CPU, though the cost appear to be minimal in games that have gone that route. Luigi's Mansion had a lot of moments where Gekko helped with the lighting, but the game runs consistently smooth (at least for a launch title).

[KDR_11k]

Bartman: XB: 32, GC: 64, PS2: 128.

Grey Ninja: Thanks. Wasn't sure what ATI delivered there.

I'm not sure about the PS2's CPU being superior. In fact I've heard one cannot use vertex interpolation (i.e. skeletal animation only) because the PS2's handling of floating points is incredibly slow and it could not handle that many floating point operations (FLOPs, wasn't it?). To put that into perspective: Most older games (Quake 3 for example) use vertex interpolation exclusively and ran fine on P233 and older CPUs. Also the FPU was one of the aspects why Intel outperformed AMD for such a long time.

The fast shaders might be done by a good integration between GPU and CPU, which is one of the points where the PC(x86) tends to fail. I'm sure it would have a larger impact on an Xbox.

Noone forces you to use an existing API, but it makes things a lot easier. You can always go the low-level route.

[mouse_clicker]

"I played Metal Gear Solid, then I played Metal Gear Solid 2. The graphics in Metal Gear Solid 2 are unquestionably better, but I preferred the first game in almost every way."

No one is saying that JUST because a game has better graphics it's autmatically great- like I said, gameplay is still more important, but to have a truly great game all around good graphics are a necessity. I mean, which would you prefer- MGS with PSX quality graphics or the same exact game with Gamecube quality graphics (aka Twin Snakes). Konami had the gameplay down pat for MGS, and if you couple that with outstanding graphics you have one incredibly immersive game. But if the gameplay is lacking, the whole game is lacking- that's how important gameplay is.

[Round Eye]

Quote
Originally posted by: Bartman3010
You know, the PS2 and GC narent even 128 bits =) If I rmeember from specs, which I've heard from some (And I kinda trust them) that only the X Box was like 128 bits or something...or was it PS2?

Beisdes, as its been stated a million times around here, specs mean diddly squat when it comes to getting a console.

Bits of operation are not as important these days.  Your proccesor achetecture, how fast your memory can be accessed, how quickly your video card card can talk to the main proccessor etc. are more important.  The more operations you can run per second the less it matters how many bits of info per operation.  

Not like the old days where the proccessors where all running at basically the same speed, and if you double the bits then you would double the speed of operations.



Anyways who cares about graphics, its all about the gameplay.