Gaming Difficult to program?

[RicoTranzrig]

I didn't really understand what the game developers meant when they said the PS2 is hard to program for compared to the GCN and X-Box...what do they mean?

Speed bottlenecks ? Programming language restrictions ?

[James]

[color=indigo]There are a few issues here, and since I'm not a technical genius, I won't be able to go into great depth about it, but I think I can help to explain.

There are a few reasons why PlayStation 2 is considered hard to develop for.

One of those reasons is actually linked to the Sega Saturn and why it too was difficult to work with.

The Sega Saturn had two CPUs. However, they could not work independantly of each other, so basically, processor A would have to wait until processor B has finished its calculation in order to continue. The two processors were tied together and this made things extremely annoying, as developers had to go to a great deal of trouble to get the two CPUs operating in tandem.

The PS2 is a little similar, as it uses two central processors, called "VU0" and "VU1" (I [i]think[/i] that's what they're called, I could have forgotten).

The dual processor setup is essentially a nightmare for developers, because they need to constantly balance the game's code between the two units.

In addition, the PlayStation 2's "Emotion Engine" (graphics chip) doesn't support a lot of effects on the hardware, like anti-aliasing for example. Something like anti-aliasing (an effect that makes the edges of 3D objects smooth rather than sharp) has to be written into the game itself. This slows development time and it means that developers have to write out a lot of code that they don't have to with GameCube and Xbox.

This is why early PS2 games suffered from "jaggies", or edges that had a stepping effect, and were not smooth. However, most developers are now getting the hang of it.

Also, the PS2 has a very limited amount of graphics RAM. I think it's something like 4MB for textures...I forget. However, many developers complain that the RAM available for textures in PS2 is incredibly small.

So basically, you have what is essentially an incredibly powerful game console with a very small amount of RAM.

It's like trying to push an elephant through a hoola hoop. You have a large amount of information trying to get through a small, tight space.

The same is not true for GameCube and Xbox. The GameCube has huge reserves of video RAM, which means that it can churn out large, high resolution textures with ease.

Also, the GameCube hardware supports a lot of effects without the need for software code. So, rather than having to program anti-aliasing code into the game itself, the developer can simply tell the GameCube to "switch the feature on".

In addition, the GameCube features S3 Texture Compression. This means that huge, detailed textures are compressed to save RAM. They are then uncompressed as they are displayed on your TV screen.

By making sure that the GameCube supports all of these effects on its graphics chip, Nintendo has ensured that the CPU has less weight on its shoulders, so that huge effects can be produced and the CPU can still handle complex AI and collision detection for example.

With PS2, developers are often using the CPU for graphics functions, which severely limits the graphic ability of the game.

With GameCube, developers can do everything on the graphics chip alone, so the CPU is left free to perform other tasks.

The Xbox uses the equivalent of the nVidia GeForce 3 graphics chip, as found in high end PCs.

The nVidia chip is unique because it doesn't have a set lineup of graphic effects. Instead, developers can manipulate the chip to perform whatever effects they like.

So the Xbox's graphics chip is probably the most advanced. However, as we've seen so far, the GameCube games are looking significantly nicer. I'm not sure exactly why this is, it's probably due to the GameCube's high bandwith as well as its focus on superior texturing and special effects.

PS2 has a focus on polygons, which don't actually produce beautiful graphics. GameCube has a focus on textures, with less polygons. Textures are the core of beautiful 3D graphics, so this is why we're getting better results with 'cube at the moment.

Phew.

I hope that answers your question. :)

Anyone else is free to add whatever they want to what I've already said.[/color]

[Sephiroth]

darn that was long, james, I was going to write a reply but you have it covered....

[Kuja]

[SIZE=3][FONT=century gothic][COLOR=crimson]just think... james did all that in one post... firemac or some of the other spamers... woulda taken 10 for that... go james!!! [/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

[Treble]

Yeah that was long whew eh guess that was the best way to explain it.

[RicoTranzrig]

Great explanation:D

I'm starting to wonder if PS2 is going to pay the price for not putting in "Built-In" features. Like the N64 paied in sound quality when it left out a sound processor. But the PSone seemed to manage with only 2Megs of Main ram and 1 Meg of VRAM@~35MhZ? (I forgot the core processor speed but it was a double digit number...)

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by RicoTranzrig [/i]
[B]Great explanation:D

I'm starting to wonder if PS2 is going to pay the price for not putting in "Built-In" features. Like the N64 paied in sound quality when it left out a sound processor. But the PSone seemed to manage with only 2Megs of Main ram and 1 Meg of VRAM@~35MhZ? (I forgot the core processor speed but it was a double digit number...) [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, yeah. Sony sent a memo to developers specifically encouraging them to "spend more time on nice graphics and make shorter games" in order to compete with the likes of Nintendo and Microsoft.

tsk tsk.

Obviously, like with PSOne, developers will learn more and will learn ways of exploiting the technology to their advantage. It will mean that PS2 games will continually look nicer and will rival GCN and Xbox software.

However, it's unlikely that PS2 games, in the end, will ever look as good as they could on GCN or Xbox. The technical limitations are just too strong in that regard.

[Sephiroth]

graphics would be nice and all, but give me gameplay over graphics anytime....

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sephiroth [/i]
[B]graphics would be nice and all, but give me gameplay over graphics anytime.... [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree. I thought Sony had learnt its lesson with its ridiculous "3D only" policy of 1996.

It looks like they didn't. They should be promoting fresh, new ideas rather than nice visuals and short games.

[Sephiroth]

true, but nowadays everything released on the ps/ps2 seem to be nothing but sequels, and there's only so far that sony can go with that, a series like final fantasy can be understood, because each game is different to the other, but when you take into consideration games like tomb raider, then it just starts to get ridiculous....

sony shouldn't care about graphics, most people want to play good games which will last them a while, not games with good graphics which can be completed on the same day, sony really should listen to what the public wants, and not what they [I]think[/I] the public wants....

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sephiroth [/i]
[B]true, but nowadays everything released on the ps/ps2 seem to be nothing but sequels, and there's only so far that sony can go with that, a series like final fantasy can be understood, because each game is different to the other, but when you take into consideration games like tomb raider, then it just starts to get ridiculous....

sony shouldn't care about graphics, most people want to play good games which will last them a while, not games with good graphics which can be completed on the same day, sony really should listen to what the public wants, and not what they [I]think[/I] the public wants.... [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree 100%. But in some cases (such as Twisted Metal Black or MGS2), sequels aren't so bad. As long as they present new elements of gameplay and at least some advancement over the previous game.

Games like Ico and Jax and Dexter are the games which are really pushing the innovation on PS2; that's what we need to see more of.

[Sephiroth]

I thought black was not going to be very good, since 3 and 4 were very poor, but I was surprised, as it is a marvelous game, and that is what we all want to see more of....

if sony continue to release excellent games, then they will become the number one name in consoles in the future....

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sephiroth [/i]
[B]I thought black was not going to be very good, since 3 and 4 were very poor, but I was surprised, as it is a marvelous game, and that is what we all want to see more of....

if sony continue to release excellent games, then they will become the number one name in consoles in the future.... [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, because TM: Black was developed by Incognito Studios, the company who made the first two games.

The only thing is, these games aren't released by Sony itself. So essentially, they aren't Sony's franchises. They could go anywhere anytime.

The only way Sony can be the number one force in gaming is to have its own first party development studios churning out good stuff like TM: Black.