On 4/1/2011 11:22, nemesis wrote:
> hmm, there's DOF in Assassin's Creed whenever you target someone. Is there
> none in 360?

One of the neat effects in the XBox version of the Batman game is when 
you're choking the crap out of someone, everything not close goes all 
blurry.  So, yeah, they're managing it somehow.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <"egnebts <-inverted"@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/1/2011 11:22 AM, nemesis wrote:
> >
> > Shadow maps are another incredible effect, allowing for much shadowing
> > on characters and even self-shadowing. They are lowrez after all, but
> > still impressive.
> >
>
> Have you ever played Splinter Cell for the 1st Xbox? Shadow maps really
> gave that game justice.

yeah, the original XBox was definitely ahead of both PS2 and GC.

> > It's amazing how we've gone from blocky characters with almost no
> > texturing besides goraud shading and circular ground shadows in the
> > first generation of 3D hardware,
>
> Super Mario 64 was great...

it indeed was.  Magical at the time.

> > in the second
> > generation to fully detailed models with fine details provided by
> > normal/spec maps and self-shadowing and environment shadows casted upon
> > them nowadays. It's a marvel to behold.
>
> It must be. I don't know whether to get a handhold emulator or the next
> best Xbox... (or a Wii, because Mario games /rock/)

the Wii is a GC under different plastic box.  It's got none of the hardware
prowess of 360 and PS3 whatsoever.  You'll be playing games with same graphics
of past 10 years.  Mario Galaxy is awesome, but I can't have my gaming fix on
just Mario and Link alone.  Even Samus Aran should have ended her career in
Super Metroid or the first Metroid Prime...

Post a reply to this message

On 4/2/2011 9:54 PM, nemesis wrote:
> stbenge<"egnebts<-inverted"@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 4/1/2011 11:22 AM, nemesis wrote:
>>> in the second
>>> generation to fully detailed models with fine details provided by
>>> normal/spec maps and self-shadowing and environment shadows casted upon
>>> them nowadays. It's a marvel to behold.
>>
>> It must be. I don't know whether to get a handhold emulator or the next
>> best Xbox... (or a Wii, because Mario games /rock/)
>
> the Wii is a GC under different plastic box.  It's got none of the hardware
> prowess of 360 and PS3 whatsoever.  You'll be playing games with same graphics
> of past 10 years.

Gah! Nintendo might as well be selling exercise videos :(

> Mario Galaxy is awesome,

I'd love to play that one. Just 48 hours of caffeine-fueled 
uninterrupted game time...

> but I can't have my gaming fix on
> just Mario and Link alone.

What is up with those guys anyway? Always having to save the princess. 
Peach breaks a nail, "help me Mario!" Zelda sees a pig, "the Moblins are 
attacking the castle!" Get a grip, Zelda! Or better yet, pick up a power 
glove once in a while, sheesh!

> Even Samus Aran should have ended her career in
> Super Metroid or the first Metroid Prime...

Aw, c'mon! Another (2D) Metroid game made well would be great! I thought 
of a great prequel entitled, "The Last Chozo," where of course, you'd 
play as a Chozo. There would be some storyline about how you were the 
last one, Metroids along with space pirates invaded your home world, 
blah, blah, blah... the Metroid games were more about action anyway ;)

Post a reply to this message

>    Which is exactly where more RAM helps a lot: You can have more detailed
> models and higher-resolution textures (and other types of bitmaps) for
> larger visiblity distances, and overall have a larger "buffer" for the
> scenery, allowing for less visible changes in LOD levels.

If you need to send data to the GPU faster than a hard disc can supply 
then you're going to have far more serious problems with your game 
design.  And even if you do manage somehow to get good performance with 
loading that much data, your CPU RAM is going to run out in a matter of 
seconds (unless you have some carefully constructed repeated pattern of 
textures/meshes that are swapped in and out every second or so).  I 
can't think of a realistic situation where it is absolutely necessary to 
have a large amount of CPU RAM to achieve some effect.

> The counterargument makes it sound like
> one doesn't need RAM at all to draw a 3D scene in real-time.

Just to clarify we're talking about CPU RAM here, not RAM in general. 
It's completely possible to write a program on a PC that fills the GPU 
RAM with complex meshes and textures, then releases nearly all CPU RAM 
(apart from needed pointers and space for the CPU code itself).  It will 
still work and be able to draw the scene in real-time, CPU RAM usage 
will be minimal.

Post a reply to this message

stbenge escreveu:
>> but I can't have my gaming fix on
>> just Mario and Link alone.
> 
> What is up with those guys anyway? Always having to save the princess. 
> Peach breaks a nail, "help me Mario!" Zelda sees a pig, "the Moblins are 
> attacking the castle!" Get a grip, Zelda! Or better yet, pick up a power 
> glove once in a while, sheesh!

I'll probably still get Zelda: Skyward Sword by end of the year for Wii. 
  Wii's swann's song, no doubt.  And perhaps even happens like TP: 
launched for both GC and Wii.

Motion control games so far have only been used for simplistic sports 
mini-games collections, fun for a while but ultimately too shallow and 
repetitive.  Z:SS OTOH will deliver 1:1 sword playing, shield defensing, 
arch&bow, canoeing and more all in one top adventure game.  The Wii was 
built for games like this, but hardly delivered...

>> Even Samus Aran should have ended her career in
>> Super Metroid or the first Metroid Prime...
> 
> Aw, c'mon! Another (2D) Metroid game made well would be great! I thought 
> of a great prequel entitled, "The Last Chozo," where of course, you'd 
> play as a Chozo. There would be some storyline about how you were the 
> last one, Metroids along with space pirates invaded your home world, 
> blah, blah, blah... the Metroid games were more about action anyway ;)

There's always the mobile versions, of course.  Fusion on GBA had better 
controls than SM, but still not quite the feeling of SM.  There's also 
Metroid Zero, which is basically Metroid 1 revamped with 16-bit 
graphics.  Many great side-scrollers found much better home in the 
Nintendo handhelds, including the awesome series of Metroidvanias from 
Konami since Castlevania:SotN.

I was talking specifically of Metroid:Other M for Wii.  Not quite so good.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > The counterargument makes it sound like
> > one doesn't need RAM at all to draw a 3D scene in real-time.

> Just to clarify we're talking about CPU RAM here, not RAM in general. 
> It's completely possible to write a program on a PC that fills the GPU 
> RAM with complex meshes and textures, then releases nearly all CPU RAM 
> (apart from needed pointers and space for the CPU code itself).  It will 
> still work and be able to draw the scene in real-time, CPU RAM usage 
> will be minimal.

  I am talking about the Xbox 360 with its shared RAM (the same RAM is used
by the CPU and the GPU), and how 512 MB is a puny amount.

  Consider it in the other direction: Imagine that the amount of RAM would
be 128 MB instead. Would games still look as good as they do? If not, why
not?

  Now consider 2 GB vs 512 MB. Exact same thing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>    Consider it in the other direction: Imagine that the amount of RAM would
> be 128 MB instead. Would games still look as good as they do? If not, why
> not?

I never disagreed that the amount of RAM directly available to the GPU 
affects the graphical performance possible.  I disagree that the amount 
of CPU RAM has any significant influence on the graphics possible.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> I disagree that the amount 
> of CPU RAM has any significant influence on the graphics possible.

  And I explained you why it does: Even if the GPU has its own dedicated RAM,
you can't put the entire scene in it, especially with humongous open sandbox
games. You have to be selective about what you send the GPU to render. The
CPU makes the decision on what to render and with what LOD level. And it
obviously makes this decision based on what it as on its own RAM.

  The more RAM you have, the more and higher-definition scene data you can
have at a time to tell the GPU to render.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> I disagree that the amount
>> of CPU RAM has any significant influence on the graphics possible.
>
>    And I explained you why it does:

Your explanation is making incorrect assumptions (you seem to have 
ignored my explanation), I'll try once more...

 > Even if the GPU has its own dedicated RAM,
> you can't put the entire scene in it, especially with humongous open sandbox
> games. You have to be selective about what you send the GPU to render. The
> CPU makes the decision on what to render and with what LOD level. And it
> obviously makes this decision based on what it as on its own RAM.
>
>    The more RAM you have, the more and higher-definition scene data you can
> have at a time to tell the GPU to render.

You would be correct if data could be transferred between CPU RAM and 
GPU RAM much faster, but this isn't the case.  During a game it would 
take several seconds to replace the GPU RAM completely, and in that time 
you can probably load the data from the HD rather than having to keep it 
in CPU RAM.  In typical games you don't need to replace the entire GPU 
RAM anywhere near as often as that (in fact it would be a really bad 
game engine design to do so), so it's even less of an issue.  That's why 
it's possible for such games to run on a PS3 with a "puny" 256MB of CPU RAM.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>  > Even if the GPU has its own dedicated RAM,
> > you can't put the entire scene in it, especially with humongous open sandbox
> > games. You have to be selective about what you send the GPU to render. The
> > CPU makes the decision on what to render and with what LOD level. And it
> > obviously makes this decision based on what it as on its own RAM.
> >
> >    The more RAM you have, the more and higher-definition scene data you can
> > have at a time to tell the GPU to render.

> You would be correct if data could be transferred between CPU RAM and 
> GPU RAM much faster, but this isn't the case.  During a game it would 
> take several seconds to replace the GPU RAM completely, and in that time 
> you can probably load the data from the HD rather than having to keep it 
> in CPU RAM.  In typical games you don't need to replace the entire GPU 
> RAM anywhere near as often as that (in fact it would be a really bad 
> game engine design to do so), so it's even less of an issue.  That's why 
> it's possible for such games to run on a PS3 with a "puny" 256MB of CPU RAM.

  The majority of the data on the GPU's RAM is textures and other bitmaps
which do not change. You don't "replace the GPU RAM completely". You replace
the scene geometry. The geometry of the scene is being constantly transferred
from the CPU RAM to the GPU (if they don't share RAMs), especially on an open
sandbox game. There may be some geometry that is kept constantly on the GPU
RAM (such as stock objects and character models, if they can be animated
from inside the GPU itself), but the scenery itself has to be updated as
the player moves.

  The reason is rather obvious: The entire world cannot fit into either RAM
at once, but must be dynamically loaded and updated as the player moves.
The CPU makes the decision on what to load and what to display, and obviously
constantly updates the geometry from its own RAM to the GPU.

  You still make it sound like you don't need CPU RAM *at all* to play an
open sandbox game. That's obviously ridiculous.

  And you still haven't answered my question: Why is 512 MB better than
for example 128 MB of CPU RAM for large games? Or 32 MB. Or 1 MB.

  If you think about that question, then think why eg. 2 GB would be better
than 512 MB. Or is 512 MB some kind of magic limit after which any additional
RAM is obsolete? Can you explain why this would be so?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message