-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sega Private Show (new Arcade games)
- Thread starter Kunai
- Start date
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
This is the only game that excites me
I am a sucker for light gun games. Bring it on Sega, we are still waiting for Virtua Cop :-/
I am a sucker for light gun games. Bring it on Sega, we are still waiting for Virtua Cop :-/
Funky Papa said:This is the only game that excites me
I am a sucker for light gun games. Bring it on Sega, we are still waiting for Virtua Cop :-/
Now there's a light gun to love - it's a freaking machine gun. No more stunner or pistol. Me happy.
Still, Gunblade NY and LA Machineguns will never be topped.
sf2fanatic
Member
Did they make another derby owners club type game yet?...Because that game is addicting...
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Fight for Freeform said:
So basically your saying every game on GC looks horrible.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Fight for Freeform said:You said it, I didn't.
Never blame the devs, and FZeroAX is visually amazing.
F-Zero looks ok (ie. not horrible), but you have to admit if it were on the Chihiro hardware it would have looked much better.
The difference would be like night and day.
Night:
Day:
I think all of their games should move to this hardware. The next Initial D game should jump from Naomi 2 to this hardware...it would look at least 5 times better. I understand the reason for not doing so as of yet. With Naomi 2, you just change the GD-ROM for newer versions of games, so the arcade operator doesn't have to buy new hardware. I just think that SEGA should be more forward thinking and adopt new technologies faster.
The difference would be like night and day.
Night:
Day:
I think all of their games should move to this hardware. The next Initial D game should jump from Naomi 2 to this hardware...it would look at least 5 times better. I understand the reason for not doing so as of yet. With Naomi 2, you just change the GD-ROM for newer versions of games, so the arcade operator doesn't have to buy new hardware. I just think that SEGA should be more forward thinking and adopt new technologies faster.
Hardware specs, and more importantly, software available on them.
In fact, if I were to describe the difference to someone who doesn't know anything about hardware, I'd basically say that the Chihiro is like and Xbox, while the Triforce is like a GameCube.
We digress from the main point, because as far as the hardware goes, one is clearly superior over the other, you can't argue the numbers.
I was thinking that someone would disagree with me concerning SEGA adopting newer hardware faster. Regardless of looking pretty dated, Initial D is doing very well for SEGA. It seems the franchise itself means more to gamers than the butt-ugly graphics
. I guess what I said about SEGA adopting new hardware faster could be debated.OG_Original Gamer
Member
Fight for Freeform said:F-Zero looks ok (ie. not horrible), but you have to admit if it were on the Chihiro hardware it would have looked much better.
The difference would be like night and day.
Night:
Day:
I think all of their games should move to this hardware. The next Initial D game should jump from Naomi 2 to this hardware...it would look at least 5 times better. I understand the reason for not doing so as of yet. With Naomi 2, you just change the GD-ROM for newer versions of games, so the arcade operator doesn't have to buy new hardware. I just think that SEGA should be more forward thinking and adopt new technologies faster.
NFL2K5 graphics is a product of devs are american, most Japanese devs don't even use bump mapping which is used in NFL2K5. Like I said before its the devs not the hardware.
I doubt you know anything about these Arcade boards that I dont, so why dont you go ahead any try to prove this to me?Fight for Freeform said:Hardware specs, and more importantly, software available on them.
In fact, if I were to describe the difference to someone who doesn't know anything about hardware, I'd basically say that the Chihiro is like and Xbox, while the Triforce is like a GameCube.
We digress from the main point, because as far as the hardware goes, one is clearly superior over the other, you can't argue the numbers.
I was thinking that someone would disagree with me concerning SEGA adopting newer hardware faster. Regardless of looking pretty dated, Initial D is doing very well for SEGA. It seems the franchise itself means more to gamers than the butt-ugly graphics
Oh, I agree that the devs are a big part of the reason. I thought you said "Never blame the devs"...but I'm guessing now that's a typo.
You could also say that VC is quite familiar with Xbox hardware, but the same is true of Amusement Vision and the Triforce/GC hardware.
But despite the dev's 'ineptness' as far as taking advantage of hardware goes, I think they should adopt the latest technologies, their games will automatically look better as a result.
You could also say that VC is quite familiar with Xbox hardware, but the same is true of Amusement Vision and the Triforce/GC hardware.
But despite the dev's 'ineptness' as far as taking advantage of hardware goes, I think they should adopt the latest technologies, their games will automatically look better as a result.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Fight for Freeform said:
Hardware has nthing to do with it, if that was true KOTOR would have looked better than it did. It doesn't matter which arcade board its developed on, devs have to take the time out no matter what to increase the quality of the textures that are displayed in a game.
The Triforce has 48MB of main memory compared to the GC and their more than likely using 16bit textures when they should be using 24bit. Which is obvious compared to other games that have been developed for the GC and FzeroAX on Triforce.
I can't find the tech spec that shows the fillrate for the Triforce, but it's lower than the Chihiro's. I did find a nice quote:
Taken from: http://www.n-sider.com/articleview.php?articleid=58
I'm trying to get you actual links, but from what I remember the Triforce can do 30 mil polys, while the Chihiro can do 100 mil (according to http://www.system16.com it can do 125 mil ???).
Taken from: http://www.n-sider.com/articleview.php?articleid=58
I'm trying to get you actual links, but from what I remember the Triforce can do 30 mil polys, while the Chihiro can do 100 mil (according to http://www.system16.com it can do 125 mil ???).
OG_Original Gamer
Member
The texture quality is far more superior to what the devs of Virtua Strike has done. Oh and tech specs and numbers are not going to prove your point.
Xbox fillrate: 932 million pixels/sec - 1864 million texels/sec
Chihiro fillrate: 932 million pixels/sec - 1864 million texels/sec
Xbox memory: 64 MB
Chihiro memory 128 MB
GameCube fillrate: 648 million pixels/sec - 648 million texels/sec
TriForce fillrate: 648 million pixels/sec - 648 million texels/sec
GameCube main memory 24 MB
TriForce main memory 48 MB
TriForce can do as many polygons as GameCube. the Chihiro can do as many polygons as Xbox. I don't think the TriForce is any more powerful than GameCube except in the amount of main system memory. the Chihiro is no more powerful than the Xbox except in main memory. TriForce and Chihiro have twice the main memory as GameCube and Xbox respectively.
in some areas GameCube & TriForce are superior to the Xbox & Chihiro, in other areas, the Xbox & Chihiro are superior to the GameCube & TriForce.
GameCube has lower latency memory ( and embedded memory in Flipper. Xbox has higher latency memory with more bandwidth, but no embedded memory so lower overall graphics bandwidth. these advantages/disadvantages translate over to the arcade boards.
Xbox has more raw processing power within its GPU, has higher raw fillrate and can do more textures per clock cycle than Gamecube because NV2A has 2 texture units per pipe whereas Gamecube's Flipper has the equivalent of 1 texture unit per pipe (the TEV unit).
I would be surprised to find out that TriForce can do more polygons than GameCube. as far as I know, TriForce does whatever GameCube can do. GameCube can do about 30 million polygons raw or with minimal texture/effects. the Xbox can do about 116 million raw or with minimal textures/effects.
F-ZERO AX on TriForce doesnt seem to be pushing more polygons than F-ZERO GX on GameCube.
Xbox OutRun 2 looks the same as the Chihiro OutRun2.
Chihiro fillrate: 932 million pixels/sec - 1864 million texels/sec
Xbox memory: 64 MB
Chihiro memory 128 MB
GameCube fillrate: 648 million pixels/sec - 648 million texels/sec
TriForce fillrate: 648 million pixels/sec - 648 million texels/sec
GameCube main memory 24 MB
TriForce main memory 48 MB
TriForce can do as many polygons as GameCube. the Chihiro can do as many polygons as Xbox. I don't think the TriForce is any more powerful than GameCube except in the amount of main system memory. the Chihiro is no more powerful than the Xbox except in main memory. TriForce and Chihiro have twice the main memory as GameCube and Xbox respectively.
in some areas GameCube & TriForce are superior to the Xbox & Chihiro, in other areas, the Xbox & Chihiro are superior to the GameCube & TriForce.
GameCube has lower latency memory ( and embedded memory in Flipper. Xbox has higher latency memory with more bandwidth, but no embedded memory so lower overall graphics bandwidth. these advantages/disadvantages translate over to the arcade boards.
Xbox has more raw processing power within its GPU, has higher raw fillrate and can do more textures per clock cycle than Gamecube because NV2A has 2 texture units per pipe whereas Gamecube's Flipper has the equivalent of 1 texture unit per pipe (the TEV unit).
I would be surprised to find out that TriForce can do more polygons than GameCube. as far as I know, TriForce does whatever GameCube can do. GameCube can do about 30 million polygons raw or with minimal texture/effects. the Xbox can do about 116 million raw or with minimal textures/effects.
F-ZERO AX on TriForce doesnt seem to be pushing more polygons than F-ZERO GX on GameCube.
Xbox OutRun 2 looks the same as the Chihiro OutRun2.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Fight for Freeform said:
System16 only know about the 48MBs of memory that I posted in this thread, they even acknowledge the fact that they don't know the numbers because they haven't been released.
MAZYORA
Member
Fight for Freeform said:F-Zero looks ok (ie. not horrible), but you have to admit if it were on the Chihiro hardware it would have looked much better.
The difference would be like night and day.
Night:
Day:
I think all of their games should move to this hardware. The next Initial D game should jump from Naomi 2 to this hardware...it would look at least 5 times better. I understand the reason for not doing so as of yet. With Naomi 2, you just change the GD-ROM for newer versions of games, so the arcade operator doesn't have to buy new hardware. I just think that SEGA should be more forward thinking and adopt new technologies faster.
5 times huh? *rolles eyes* Well, not according to AM2:
Q: Shenmue II was AM2's first Xbox project. What do you think of the hardware compared to other high-end hardware like Naomi 2 - which AM2 is working with, and how does the Xbox compare to Naomi 2?
A: They are both high-spec machines. Xbox has a little bit more trouble with transparencies, but overall I think they are comparable technology-wise. Each has their own weaknesses and strengths, but I wouldnt say that overall one has the edge on the other.
-http://www.the-nextlevel.com/features/interviews/am2/
That's an interesting quote. It was made a while ago, and it is talking about the Xbox itself.
But I'm basing my "5 times" figure on my own comparison between a game like Initial D (which I've seen in motion), to screenshots I've seen of Outrun 2. Both games are from AM2. I'm also considering that AM2 would have some experience (with OutRun 2) and will build on that, and are now more comfortable with it.
Of course "5 times" is bad way to describe things, we may disagree on what is 5 times better looking. I think that Gran Turismo 3 looks much much better than Initial D. Now, whether that's 2 times better or 3 times better...it's not worth debating.
What we do know is that you can probably get 5 times the polygon count...actually implement some decent lighting (hehe) and do some fancy effects with the Chihiro hardware.
I think SEGA's 'arcade hardware plan of action' could be something like what Nintendo did with the Ultra 64 technology. We know that 3 new consoles are on the horizon, so perhaps some arcade hardware could be made right now from that technology. Sure, it'd be pricy, but you aren't selling these arcades to homes. This way, for the next 5 years, they are set with hardware that won't look outdated, and hardware that arcade operators won't have to replace for another 5 years. It also provides the arcade hardware provider (whether it's Sony, Nintendo, or MS), some launch software people are looking forward to.
Just imagine if games like F-Zero, Virtua Cop 3, and OutRun 2 were out BEFORE the GC's/Xbox's launch. They'd generate hype for the console...perfect launch apps. Well, I think I explained it enough...I've beat the horse dead enough.
seismologist
Banned
I thought Sega was moving to Naomi 3 hardware?
The Chihiro, Naomi 2, and TriForce arcade boards are comparable enough in performance that the production values of the games are what makes the biggest difference between their graphics.
Chihiro games range from highs like OutRun 2, Virtua Cop 3, and The House of the Dead 3, and lows like Crazy Taxi 3.
Naomi 2 ranges from the nice Virtua Fighter 4 titles to the average Initial D titles.
TriForce ranges from the pretty F-Zero AX to its ordinary Key of Avalon card-collecting games.
Chihiro games range from highs like OutRun 2, Virtua Cop 3, and The House of the Dead 3, and lows like Crazy Taxi 3.
Naomi 2 ranges from the nice Virtua Fighter 4 titles to the average Initial D titles.
TriForce ranges from the pretty F-Zero AX to its ordinary Key of Avalon card-collecting games.
I won't comment much further on the whole Trifore v. Chiriro debate except for saying that a lot this depends on what the developers are putting into the project. I think Beach Spikers (a Naomi 2 conversion) looks better, and I won't even bother to mention the beauty of F-Zero. I just don't see AV taking great pains to make VS look like a knock out when quite a few GC titles make VS look weak, so I wouldn't call the hardware a limiting factor.
edit:Lazy just summed it up quite well.
edit:Lazy just summed it up quite well.
Fight for Freeform:
As said, each machine has their own performance advantages and are considered pretty comparable by SEGA. Chihiro was adapted into arcade form quite nicely and provides a bit better price/performance ratio to SEGA, so they've been targeting many of their bigger projects for it. The one area where the Naomi 2 does prevail, however, is in T&L. It can impressively sustain six complex lights at no performance penalty and push over ten million polygons per second under those conditions. And actually, those lights are more flexible general-type modifiers, so they could also be used for other creative effects.
I agree...I can't disagree there, because I can easily see (using their games as proof) what you mean.
But it still doesn't convince me that Initial D wouldn't look better on Chihiro.
Even with the same dev team, same artists...I think the different hardware would be put to better use. It's just something I base on what's been done with the hardware. Now I don't know if the same programmers/artists who are involved in ID were involved in OutRun 2...but it's the same developer...they must have some standards.SEGA can make great playing games...but as far as graphics are concerned, it's as if some of the teams don't know what they are doing. Crazy Taxi was excellent on the Naomi hardware...it used it's strengths like volumetric shadows perfectly. On the other hand, hardware far more powerful like the Chihiro gets a game like CT3...which attempts to use some effects but falls flat on it's face. Yeah..I can rant on this forever... :/
OG_Original Gamer
Member
GigaDrive said:
That raw number you have for GC is way off, if what I read is true then GC raw numbers are in the 90mil area. I think I read it on IGNcube site, about benchmarks done EA. 24mil is whats possible with textured and lit polygons. Any number is not accurate right now because Nintendo never released raw numbers.
MAZYORA
Member
GigaDrive said:
I have played them both and the GC version is worse. The sand doesn't deform as much, the shadows are worse, there is some slowdown in replays, textures are worse, and the lighting is way toned down in the GC version. Overall, the average gamer wouldnt be able to tell the difference, and it's a much closer conversion than VF4 on PS2 was. I remember reading an interview with the director for Beach Spikers, and he said he was worried that the GC version didn't look as good as the Naomi 2 version, but the reviewers of famitsu said it was a beautiful game and that made him feel happy. He also said AM2 had trouble converting it becuase of memory constraints. I'll see if I can find the interview, I think it was at Segalife.com if memory serves correct.
MAZYORA
Member
Fight for Freeform said:
Dude, first of all, Initial D was not made by AM2, it was made by Sega Rosso(they created Starwars pod racer arcade, Sega Rally, etc. And some of the team members created Ridge Racer)get your facts straight. Secondly, Chihiro can't push 5 times the poly count as Naomi 2. Going by specs, PS2 should be able to push more polys than naomi 2, but no way in hell it can. Even Yu Suzuki said that VF4 never could be perfectly converted to PS2 becuase the specs of Naomi 2 are too high, yet its only supposed to push 10 million polys. Fact is, at the very least, Naomi 2 is equal to Chihiro. You could pretty much get the same performance out of both, but each system has features the other doesnt; Naomi 2 has much better lighting capabilities, while Chihiro can do shaders that Noami 2 can't.
MAZYORA
Member
Fight for Freeform said:I agree...I can't disagree there, because I can easily see (using their games as proof) what you mean.
But it still doesn't convince me that Initial D wouldn't look better on Chihiro.
SEGA can make great playing games...but as far as graphics are concerned, it's as if some of the teams don't know what they are doing. Crazy Taxi was excellent on the Naomi hardware...it used it's strengths like volumetric shadows perfectly. On the other hand, hardware far more powerful like the Chihiro gets a game like CT3...which attempts to use some effects but falls flat on it's face. Yeah..I can rant on this forever... :/
Dude, Crazy Taxi 3 doesn't push Chihiro because Hitmaker reused the exact same engine as Crazy Taxi 1 for DC/Naomi 1 and then just added a few Xbox special effects. Hitmaker is natorious for reusing their old engines on sequals of games this gen. I remember reading an interview with the pres of hitmaker, and he said that getting games out fast is more important to him than graphics. CT3 was created in 10 months.
Fight for Freeform said:I was thinking that someone would disagree with me concerning SEGA adopting newer hardware faster. Regardless of looking pretty dated, Initial D is doing very well for SEGA. It seems the franchise itself means more to gamers than the butt-ugly graphics
Because the gameplay had nothing to do with it, right?
Boo!
"I remember reading an interview with the director for Beach Spikers, and he said he was worried that the GC version didn't look as good as the Naomi 2 version, but the reviewers of famitsu said it was a beautiful game and that made him feel happy"
Note that the Famitsu reviewers do not know a polygon from a hole in the ground.
Note that the Famitsu reviewers do not know a polygon from a hole in the ground.
Hmmm...I thought ID was made by AM2. Sorry about that. Well, they have horrible artists, I think we can all agree on that.
As far as Chihiro vs. Naomi 2 goes, don't even try comparing the two. Chihiro, as far as raw numbers go, destroys Naomi 2. You can't even compare the fillrate because of the way PowerVR renders stuff. But like it was mentioned, it has some strengths. If I were a Naomi 2 developer I'd use it's volumetric lighting all the time. If you try that on the Chihiro hardware you have to use pixels to do that. The only Naomi 2 game I can think of that's comparable to what the Chihiro is capable of is VF4. I do know that if a new VF game was made from scratch on Chihiro, it would look better. To say that this is not the case, is not having enough faith in the artists and developers to push that hardware.
Yeah, I implied that, read my post again.