They've actually turned down the graphics also, so they will be able to make it even shinier in the future when the code allows and more players rigs catch up with the current tech, so the future for PS2 graphically is secure.
Don't believe that hype. They said similar about EQ2. That game was apparently the best graphics when it was released, though I will strongly disagree, cause no one could run it on the high settings properly! By the time anyone could run it, other graphic engines (even older ones that were tweaked), were outshining it by leaps and bounds. Basically, the EQ2 engine was just poorly programmed and full of memory leaks. Anyone playing back then will remember that lol. With that said, I doubt PS2 will ever be improved upon (graphic wise).
Originally posted by Niburu i think Tera has the best graphic atm, better than PS2 but PS2 runs nice with hundrets of players around you and bullets flying everywhere
i didnt like tera's engine ^^
"look we have boobies!" yea... seen em before. thx ^^
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Originally posted by Rayshe There is no way PS2 has the best graphics, best example is to look at the face models. they are horrible.
Lightforge engine acualy able to do alot more in the way of graphical capablity however it been toned down for PS2 because its a FPS and framerate/server important so its been toned down. There was a screenshot for EQ next floating round last year that used lightforge engine http://eq2wire.com/2011/07/08/everquest-next-screenshot/. As for PS2 it has exceptional lighting effects and physics imo graphics are adverage but thats expected in an FPS, im intrested to see what they do in EQnext next year since you can usualy go a little more graphic heavy for RPGs without effecting gameplay. Although graphic are nothing if they dont make core gameplay/design well which is what new games are doing wrong atm focusing on graphics but not astertics or gameplay.
Originally posted by korent1991 Regardless of the engine PS2 is using, the graphics are horrible tbh.
Frame per second is important for FPS games, Due to large amount of explosion lighting players and so on in one area at a time they had to tone done useage else where so it doesnt effect Frame rate. So graphic/polygon count been reduced. Highish graphic work alright when u have 16 people and limited vechile or tanks in a game but when u have thousands somthing needs to be reduced and in this case they did the right choice and reduced graphics over gameplay.
You don't need very advanced animations in FPS, it's nice, but it's not a priority in FPS, people hold a gun, run and shoot, and the rest of the time they are in vehicles where you can't see them.
I tend to judge engines on more than just the graphics, for me animation is also realy important, that's why I would put games like Vindictus much higher than some people might, the engine is decent, but the animation in Vindictus is amazing, it's incredibly solid.
I can't judge the animation in PS2, the few frames of animations they use is not great, but then I doubt animation was a priority in PS2. Maybe the animation tools they have in their engine are amazing but weren't used a lot for PS2, I don't know.
I think when EQNext graphics come out and we actually see animations of players and monsters, it might be easier to judge the engine.
Originally posted by grimgryphon PS2 is an MMO? Huh.
Yup. Because there are Massive Multiplayers Online. But it might be an MMOFPS. Still though, why cant the MMORPG's take note of this game and make open world pvp like this? And graphics look amazing too.
Because IT'S NOT an MMORPG...
It's an MMOFPS, so it can't be fit into an RPG genre...
Besides that, the game isn't much and gets boring pretty fast. To me atleast.
And the textures are horrible.
An MMOFPS can still be an RPG too, they're not mutually exclusive. 'FPS' defines the combat, which 'RPG' has nothing to do with.
You don't need very advanced animations in FPS, it's nice, but it's not a priority in FPS, people hold a gun, run and shoot, and the rest of the time they are in vehicles where you can't see them.
I tend to judge engines on more than just the graphics, for me animation is also realy important, that's why I would put games like Vindictus much higher than some people might, the engine is decent, but the animation in Vindictus is amazing, it's incredibly solid.
I can't judge the animation in PS2, the few frames of animations they use is not great, but then I doubt animation was a priority in PS2. Maybe the animation tools they have in their engine are amazing but weren't used a lot for PS2, I don't know.
I think when EQNext graphics come out and we actually see animations of players and monsters, it might be easier to judge the engine.
Well said In FPS there also tuned back to increase Frame rate since thats a vital role in FPS's.
It's using over a gig of GPU VRAM and 2.3GB of system RAM on my system, i wouldn't call that low but around normal. 64bit doesn't really have anything to do with anything, most games are still 32bit.
From what I understand, many games do run a 64 bit client now when able, I know cryengine and unreal engine can both run 64 bit clients if the software detects a 64 bit OS.
Dice said that in 2013 some of their games will require a 64 bit OS to even run, it won't be optional anymore.
Going from 32 bit to 64 bit would open up so much more space for textures, I hope the engine can actually do 64 bit and this was just not used for Planetside, EQNext is stil a long way off, I hope they start using 64 bit compiles by then.
The biggest "flaw" I noticed in the engine when playing (I was purely playing to see the graphics) were the textures. Low resolution textures is something that you notice pretty fast. The blocky rocks and environment you notice too, but it's really the textures that make it look dated.
Gotta say that the PS2 draw distance is nice though, you can watch pretty far, but then in Vanguard the draw distance was huge too and I never noticed any issues with the textures.
Originally posted by grimgryphon PS2 is an MMO? Huh.
Yup. Because there are Massive Multiplayers Online. But it might be an MMOFPS. Still though, why cant the MMORPG's take note of this game and make open world pvp like this? And graphics look amazing too.
Because IT'S NOT an MMORPG...
It's an MMOFPS, so it can't be fit into an RPG genre...
Besides that, the game isn't much and gets boring pretty fast. To me atleast.
And the textures are horrible.
An MMOFPS can still be an RPG too, they're not mutually exclusive. 'FPS' defines the combat, which 'RPG' has nothing to do with.
(im not saying ps2 is an MMORPG)
You are correct here you are still playing a role in this case a soldier in a war. Many people also cant see MMO being added to naythign other than a RPG so they just see PS2 as a FPS instead of a Mass muilti online first person shooter which it is. This is mainly cause it isnt done often.
Originally posted by Kabaal It's using over a gig of GPU VRAM and 2.3GB of system RAM on my system, i wouldn't call that low but around normal. 64bit doesn't really have anything to do with anything, most games are still 32bit.
Battlefield 3, Guild Wars 2 and now Planetside 2 are "Large Address Aware" meaning they can take advantage of 4GB or more ram, it's 64bit coded but essentially still 32bit, not quite sure how to describe it. Why does anyone still use 32bit OS anyways, CPU architecture has been 64bit since 2005 or 2006 and almost everyone has 4GB or more ram which 32bit Windows can't take advantage of, besides 64bit OS usually has 32bit libraries to run 32bit programs with. It's inevitable everything will be 64bit soon, most of the things you find in Linux are in 64bit only now labeled IA64(Intel) or AMD64(AMD).
PS2 used 3.8GB of ram last night, haven't seen a game take up that much since the early days of Battlefield 3 when it had a severe memory leak.
Comments
Don't believe that hype. They said similar about EQ2. That game was apparently the best graphics when it was released, though I will strongly disagree, cause no one could run it on the high settings properly! By the time anyone could run it, other graphic engines (even older ones that were tweaked), were outshining it by leaps and bounds. Basically, the EQ2 engine was just poorly programmed and full of memory leaks. Anyone playing back then will remember that lol. With that said, I doubt PS2 will ever be improved upon (graphic wise).
i didnt like tera's engine ^^
"look we have boobies!" yea... seen em before. thx ^^
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Lightforge engine acualy able to do alot more in the way of graphical capablity however it been toned down for PS2 because its a FPS and framerate/server important so its been toned down. There was a screenshot for EQ next floating round last year that used lightforge engine http://eq2wire.com/2011/07/08/everquest-next-screenshot/. As for PS2 it has exceptional lighting effects and physics imo graphics are adverage but thats expected in an FPS, im intrested to see what they do in EQnext next year since you can usualy go a little more graphic heavy for RPGs without effecting gameplay. Although graphic are nothing if they dont make core gameplay/design well which is what new games are doing wrong atm focusing on graphics but not astertics or gameplay.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
Frame per second is important for FPS games, Due to large amount of explosion lighting players and so on in one area at a time they had to tone done useage else where so it doesnt effect Frame rate. So graphic/polygon count been reduced. Highish graphic work alright when u have 16 people and limited vechile or tanks in a game but when u have thousands somthing needs to be reduced and in this case they did the right choice and reduced graphics over gameplay.
It's hard to judge too because PS2 is an FPS.
You don't need very advanced animations in FPS, it's nice, but it's not a priority in FPS, people hold a gun, run and shoot, and the rest of the time they are in vehicles where you can't see them.
I tend to judge engines on more than just the graphics, for me animation is also realy important, that's why I would put games like Vindictus much higher than some people might, the engine is decent, but the animation in Vindictus is amazing, it's incredibly solid.
I can't judge the animation in PS2, the few frames of animations they use is not great, but then I doubt animation was a priority in PS2. Maybe the animation tools they have in their engine are amazing but weren't used a lot for PS2, I don't know.
I think when EQNext graphics come out and we actually see animations of players and monsters, it might be easier to judge the engine.
An MMOFPS can still be an RPG too, they're not mutually exclusive. 'FPS' defines the combat, which 'RPG' has nothing to do with.
(im not saying ps2 is an MMORPG)
Well said In FPS there also tuned back to increase Frame rate since thats a vital role in FPS's.
From what I understand, many games do run a 64 bit client now when able, I know cryengine and unreal engine can both run 64 bit clients if the software detects a 64 bit OS.
Dice said that in 2013 some of their games will require a 64 bit OS to even run, it won't be optional anymore.
Going from 32 bit to 64 bit would open up so much more space for textures, I hope the engine can actually do 64 bit and this was just not used for Planetside, EQNext is stil a long way off, I hope they start using 64 bit compiles by then.
The biggest "flaw" I noticed in the engine when playing (I was purely playing to see the graphics) were the textures. Low resolution textures is something that you notice pretty fast. The blocky rocks and environment you notice too, but it's really the textures that make it look dated.
Gotta say that the PS2 draw distance is nice though, you can watch pretty far, but then in Vanguard the draw distance was huge too and I never noticed any issues with the textures.
You are correct here you are still playing a role in this case a soldier in a war. Many people also cant see MMO being added to naythign other than a RPG so they just see PS2 as a FPS instead of a Mass muilti online first person shooter which it is. This is mainly cause it isnt done often.
PS2 used 3.8GB of ram last night, haven't seen a game take up that much since the early days of Battlefield 3 when it had a severe memory leak.