BreakmanX.com

Just came across some screenshots on Gamespy of Splinter Cell for PS2 and Gamecube.. I decided to check out a few random screenshots and opened a couple up:




I looked at these two pics and said to myself, "Danm, these pictures are all blurry and the textues look really low res.. The PS2 makes this game look like ass".. Then after checking a few more shots I realized that I was actaully looking at something from the Gamecube..

Here is the linkage where you can have a look for yourself:
http://www.gamespydaily.com/news/screen ... sp?id=4900

Here is a quick comparison for you...

XBOX

XBOX

PS2
<-- Can hardly tell this isn't Xbox.
PS2

Gamecube

Gamecube

I think the PS2 and Xbox version of Splinter Cell are far sharper/crisper than the Gamecube. I'm sure you'll all disagree and tell me that the PS2 version looks like ass though; even if Gamecube were suddenly found to be causing cancer you guy would still blame the PS2, but thats why I love you guys..
The PS2 (and to a lesser extent the Xbox) suffers from dreaded jaggies. Nintendos version however seems to jaggy free, altough I suspect thats because blurring is the natrual preditor of jaggies and can eat them up very well (note: Blurring does not equal anti-aliasing). Personally, I can live with a few jaggies in the PS2 version, because it appears so much sharper than the Gamecube.

Please comment:

Id have to agree with you on that one. There is a definate contrast between the three console versions, but...after looking at Zelda, im sure that if Ubi Soft would of tried to work with the GCN hardware....it would of been different.

Yeah, well, we all know my opinion on the gamecube. I was able to tell the big difference, especially with the skin techniques in the PS2. That is where the jaggies are more evident then anywhere else. I happen to hate blurriness because it hurts my eyes. It makes me feel like I am going blind and can't focus on the object.

Splinter Cell isn't exactly a treasured game for the gamecube though. Many people who want to play it prolly already have bought it on a PS2 or X-Box. Sure a GC person might pick it up at blockbuster and try it out, but the fact is why push a product through for a system that really doesn't care about adult style games.

It could be that whatever they used to take screenshots of the GC is different from whatever they use for PS2 or Xbox and therefore prints to file differently... <shrug> Or it could be that it just will look a little blurry.

Ru wrote: It could be that whatever they used to take screenshots of the GC is different from whatever they use for PS2 or Xbox and therefore prints to file differently

There is some truth to this.. Gamespot said something about how Microsoft provided them with a tool to take screenshots from the Xbox that were directly from the Video buffer of the Xbox to the PC, but for the Gamecube and PS2 they had to take screen-captures from the s-video outputs. So apparently Xbox screens will always look better than the other consoles.. It might be possible that a similar device has been developed for the PS2 by now.. I dunno..

dreamcubeboy wrote: im sure that if Ubi Soft would of tried to work with the GCN hardware

I believe the real culprit here is actually Epic, the makers of the Unreal Engine which Splinter Cell is built on. I'd suspect the port from PC to Xbox of the engine would be rather straight forward, and for PS2 there are other games using the Unreal engine, so it already been optimized a considerable amount for that system. However, I can't think of any game that uses the Unreal engine on the Gamecube, so that makes this one the first, which means Unreal is a less mature graphical engine on the GC.
Although, Ubi Soft are still to blaim I suppose. As the publisher, they should be saying to developers "The textures are too low res, go back and make them better." But Instead they are saying "it looks good enough, we can't give you more money for development because that will reduce overall profits, so we will just push this out the door, its good enough."

Juan wrote: Splinter Cell isn't exactly a treasured game for the gamecube though

<sarc>If it were, then the Xbox would have no good titles.. </sarcasm>
Hahhaah..

If you notice, the uber-blurry picture is through the lens of a sniper rifle, so have you considered that this might be intentional? (lenses do make things blurry sometimes)

even though the ultra blurry one is from the lens the others still look like ass. Thats really sad the PS2 one looks better. The x-box though is still the best looking...even though the system ass like the cube's cells graphics.

Splinter Cell uses shadow buffers to create all the areas of shadow on screen. Xbox has great support for this technique. My understanding is that the 'Cube does not, forcing all the shadows to be large and blocky when using this technique. Perhaps they blur the image on purpose to help hide this.

If anyone has access to both games, I'd be interested to hear if the shadows do look different on Cube and Xbox.

IGN did a head to head between all four versions of Splinter Cell. As expected, the console it was designed for, the Xbox, was the best. PC came in next, followed by the Cube, and dead last was the Ps2. The Ps2 version suffered from a worse framerate than the cube and worse texturing. Meanwhile the Xbox and the PC, which is a direct port of the Xbox version, looked the best. Really, the lighting seemed to be the kicker.

The GCN and Ps2 versions do have exclusive content, and the Xbox has downloadable content. Meanwhile, the PC has absolutely no exclusive content. And the GCN had GBA connectivity. (I think the connectivity is cool, but it seems most disagree.)

So anyway, Xbox, GCN, and then Ps2.

Personally, I've always gone by the "Good storyline, good game." aspect. There have been very few games that I've run into that have very bad gameplay that interfeared with the story (pure fighters don't really count), so why worry about the graphics when you can enjoy the game?

Now, before you guys start bashing on me for the above, the framerate does count for me, if it doesn't have good frame rate then I usually can't play it, good storyline or no so I have to agree with you all to some extent and to Break for bringing that part up about the PS2's compatibility.

Graphics don't matter that much, unless you are a graphic whore. However, graphics also to help give the emotion of feeling the designer had intened. If FFX would have looked like Pitfall on the Atari the emotions may not be the same. I know that is a stretch, but the point remains the same. Games are a total package of many different elements.

For me, gameplay comes first. Followed by the story, graphics, and sound. But, really, if one of these aspects is really awful, it draws away from the rest of the game.

<nods> Yeah. You got me there, man...

i hate it when people say they didn't like a game because the graphics suck. i see graphics as an enhancement, or a special feature. if they're good, that's great, but i'm not gonna bitch about them unless it effects gameplay. (not to say any of you are bitching) i also try not to look at screenshots to compare graphics, looking at a still image gives you infinite time to critique it when, in gameplay, you'll have something like a 1/50 of a second to see it. i find that screenshots hurt the graphic reputation of a game more than they help most of the time.