Epic: 360 Has Yet To Reach Its Limits

[scotth266]

QFT - I would reduce it, but I think it all bares repeating.

Killzone 2 - FPS, what does it improve on beyond graphics? And yeah, you can make that argument about every FPS, but if people are going to harp on about it, I want to know. As for the plot, space nazi's vs space marines.

Gears of War - FPS, only adds an interesting but not that great a cover system. As for the plot, underground dirty space nazi's vs ground based space marines (with homoerotic undertones).

Anywho, it seems to me that they are purely based on improving graphics each, in an ultimate attempt to wield the biggest graphical penis in there little shuffle as the Wii increasingly becomes Nintendo's mint.

Deus Ex had ok graphics, but was one of the few games that could really grip me, even when I bought it years after release. It had scope, it had scale, it had alot of flexibly - hell, you could kill nearly anyone you meet, and the game will respond to it.

Anachronox, poor graphics, even for its day, and yet its hilarous and fun, even though its probably classed as a JRPG in terms of gameplay. And the plot:

Spoiler

a hard boiled detective in space who ends up fighting inter dimensional creatures trying to implode the universe to kill off there ancient enemy from the universe after ours.

Doop! What does QFT mean? Wikipedia says there are two meanings to it, so I have no idea which one you're using.

You're forgetting other awesomeness like Grim Fandango and Myst, but that's a good list to start off with. I'm thinking of grabbing Ex myself off Steam.

Not everybody has forgotten the Wii: I know the sales superiority it has, and olivera8 does as well. I'm just getting tired of trying to get people to realize that it has crushed the other two in this generation's console wars. I think their determination to ignore it is mostly to do with the Wii's billing as a system for everybody, instead of being a gamer's console, but that's a topic for another thread.

 

[Doug]

QFT - I would reduce it, but I think it all bares repeating.

Killzone 2 - FPS, what does it improve on beyond graphics? And yeah, you can make that argument about every FPS, but if people are going to harp on about it, I want to know. As for the plot, space nazi's vs space marines.

Gears of War - FPS, only adds an interesting but not that great a cover system. As for the plot, underground dirty space nazi's vs ground based space marines (with homoerotic undertones).

Anywho, it seems to me that they are purely based on improving graphics each, in an ultimate attempt to wield the biggest graphical penis in there little shuffle as the Wii increasingly becomes Nintendo's mint.

Deus Ex had ok graphics, but was one of the few games that could really grip me, even when I bought it years after release. It had scope, it had scale, it had alot of flexibly - hell, you could kill nearly anyone you meet, and the game will respond to it.

Anachronox, poor graphics, even for its day, and yet its hilarous and fun, even though its probably classed as a JRPG in terms of gameplay. And the plot:

Spoiler

a hard boiled detective in space who ends up fighting inter dimensional creatures trying to implode the universe to kill off there ancient enemy from the universe after ours.

Doop! What does QFT mean? Wikipedia says there are two meanings to it, so I have no idea which one you're using.

You're forgetting other awesomeness like Grim Fandango and Myst, but that's a good list to start off with. I'm thinking of grabbing Ex myself off Steam.

Not everybody has forgotten the Wii: I know the sales superiority it has, and olivera8 does as well. I'm just getting tired of trying to get people to realize that it has crushed the other two in this generation's console wars. I think their determination to ignore it is mostly to do with the Wii's billing as a system for everybody, instead of being a gamer's console, but that's a topic for another thread.

QFT = Quote For Truth

And as for Grim Fandango, I sadly missed the boat on that one, and LucasArts are retardly not offering to sell it via digital downloads in favour of milking the corpse of the starwars cash cow.

Myst, I never actually played, so can't comment .

As for the Wii, indeed, and Nintendo haven't entered into a pointless dick waving contest with the other consoles. That said, they don't have much in the way of 'deep' games, although I am tempted to try and get one to play Mario and Link again properly, heh.

 

[Doug]

Yes maybe the Xbox 360 has strong proccessing power, who knows the PS3 might have even more but for me this all boils down to one simple question:

WHO THE HELL CARES?!!!!

Why do the graphics in games have to be such a big deal? Why does the look of the game make such an impact on people's purchasing choice? Why do people go online and research console's for processing power before they will commit to one?
WHY?

How else with the Sony Defence Force and the Microsoft Commandos fight their remote dick waving contest otherwise?

That said, I do agree completely.

 

[scotth266]

Yes maybe the Xbox 360 has strong proccessing power, who knows the PS3 might have even more but for me this all boils down to one simple question:

WHO THE HELL CARES?!!!!

Why do the graphics in games have to be such a big deal? Why does the look of the game make such an impact on people's purchasing choice? Why do people go online and research console's for processing power before they will commit to one?
WHY?

How else with the Sony Defence Force and the Microsoft Commandos fight their remote dick waving contest otherwise?

That said, I do agree completely.

A lol is in order. Jenkins, fire the lol cannon!

LOL

But yes, this is pretty much the idea. Thank you companies, for encouraging this sort of childish behavior.

 

[Woe Is You]

well remember the PS2 at its last push of games GOW 2 namely even Shadow of the colossus looked as good as some early 360 games which made us question its power. of course as you figure out ways to push it farther you will get results.. Games i think are at a damn near perfect level of graphics capability. of vourese there is room to grow and the beeter stuff and techniques get the better results you get later on.

Yes, but the Ps2 was the Ps2, and the 360 is the 360. The 360 is nowhere near like the Ps2 in any way. If the Xbox ever managed to do that "major increase in graphics" there would be a tiny amount of validity to what they're claiming, but as it stands, they're bluffing.

Check Azurik or the first Halo on the thing. Then check DOA2 Ultimate. You'll probably agree than Azurik looks positively ghastly compared to DOA2U.

Then go further back in history: Compare Super Mario Bros to Castlevania 3, Super Mario World to Yoshi's Island or Axelay, Toshinden to Vagrant Story, Pokemon to Shantae.

It happens on all consoles. Unless of course you're going to tell me that the NES or the C64 is somehow like the PS2.

 

[Singing Gremlin]

Well, I'd have to agree with him to a degree. Assuming the 360 runs on a similar system to the original xbox, i.e. a relatively easy to utilise one, surely we could apply a similar curve in graphics quality. This isn't cell processing where you need two games before you know what all the bloody buttons do, so I am assuming here that the original was in a similar situation to where the 360 is now.

Halo 2, at the same point we are now (3 years into the console's life).

And then black, one of the last releases, one year later.

The difference isn't huge, but it is that bit nicer - compare the rocket trails, for example. I'm not saying they're going to find another processor hidden away in there, but I think there's some weight in that through software fiddling they could squeeze some more prettyness out.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

As much as I love my xbox360, I grow weary every time I turn it on.

 

[Kevin7557]

"Sir, we're already running at 100% gray capacity!"
"PUSH IT FURTHER."
"Sir!"
"DO IT! WE CAN GO FURTHER. MORE GRAY. MORE BROWN. MORE MUZZLE FLASH!"
"You're a madman!"

"A madman I say!"
"JENKINS! What you fail to understand is: in this world, WE'RE ALL MAD!"

It's an interesting claim. If it bears fruit will be a matter for future threads.

SNIPPITY SNIP

*Grabs a mallet*

Seriously. If you're going to stir up trouble, at least make it worth my time rebutting you by spellchecking yourself. Besides, your argument is invalid: Killzone 2 embraces the same graphical coda as Gears. MORE DIRT AND METAL! NOW! It just looks prettier.

I keep hearing the same tired old arguments that the PS3 will be capable of so much more, but only a rare few games for the thing take advantage of its true power, so 360 games wind up looking just as good as most of the PS3 library. THIS IS DISSAPPOINTING. Get more games out with Killzone 2 graphical-level goodness(without the dirt and metal everywhere), and I might change my mind.

To be honest, this is all corporate penis contesting. Someone from Sony, I recall, said words to this effect about the PS3 too. And an Xbox developer is following suit.

And neither of them even recognize that Graphical Quality != Game Quality. As well as fanboys on both sides.

Glad to see someone else noticed that. Graphics != Good Games, as we all can well attest. Hell, one of the best games on the PS3, LittleBigPlanet, hardly pushes the limits of the system graphically
This is why the PS3 fanboys get me up in a gander. They need to realize that the mechanics of a game should come before the graphical goodness. The companies are just willy-waggling in an attempt to stir up interest.

To sum it up: nobody here is a dev for a company that makes 360 games, thus we have NO IDEA how much further the thing can be pushed. Same goes for the PS3. Thus, the only things that will be able to prove what devs say about their system's limits will be the games that they make for them. In any case, it looks to be a bright future for all console owners, as competition brings forth awesomeness.

QFT - I would reduce it, but I think it all bares repeating.

Killzone 2 - FPS, what does it improve on beyond graphics? And yeah, you can make that argument about every FPS, but if people are going to harp on about it, I want to know. As for the plot, space nazi's vs space marines.

Gears of War - FPS, only adds an interesting but not that great a cover system. As for the plot, underground dirty space nazi's vs ground based space marines (with homoerotic undertones).

Anywho, it seems to me that they are purely based on improving graphics each, in an ultimate attempt to wield the biggest graphical penis in there little shuffle as the Wii increasingly becomes Nintendo's mint.

Deus Ex had ok graphics, but was one of the few games that could really grip me, even when I bought it years after release. It had scope, it had scale, it had alot of flexibly - hell, you could kill nearly anyone you meet, and the game will respond to it.

Anachronox, poor graphics, even for its day, and yet its hilarous and fun, even though its probably classed as a JRPG in terms of gameplay. And the plot:

Spoiler

a hard boiled detective in space who ends up fighting inter dimensional creatures trying to implode the universe to kill off there ancient enemy from the universe after ours.

First as to the Killzone plot comment. Wrong. I played the game, paid attention when things were being said and generally know the games history as I picked up the original. In the Killzone universe Helgan the Helgast homeworld was attack I don't know 15 years or so before the first game. The colonies are ruled over by Terra. After this attack which was the first it really peed off the Helgast and Visari came into power. Vecta the planet that attacked Helgan was attacked in the first game which technically in war speek is a retribution attack. Helgast fight for their freedom but somewhere along the line they became way over militarised and became what they are now. Helgast were changed by the conditions of the planet Helgan. Now that doesn't at all sound like Nazis in space nor does it sound like world war 2 in space. Comments of that nature tend to only come from people who ether haven't played the game or have no clue what they are talking about and just want to take a shot at the game.

Now as for being a Playstation fanboy I am not. Though I tend to prefer the playstation I am not a fanboy. My experience with Microsoft and the X-box 360 have not been well good at all. Microsoft is and to quote someone else "The worst thing to happen to gameing" They only care about money and it shows by how they treat their customers (being sued in California for intentionally releasing the 360 knowing about the three red lights of death issue in it, just to get a lead) and by how their consol has generally performed. Quality of the 360 is low and I have had to replace mine twice. Which I think accounts for alot of their sales. I sent it in the first time after having the 3 red lights and it came back with problems it didn't have when it left. I got another one after my new one an elite, started having problems. I then had to redownload the media usage rights for all my stuff. And no you can't do that on mass it has to be individual or I wouldn't be able to view my stuff if my internet wasn't up. The 360 controler accidently fell on the floor once. It was to close to the edge, and it broke. The bottons sticked and it has other issues. My playstation 3 controlers with built in battery pack mind you fall and not once have they broken. Their disign kinda makes them pro falling but their quality far exceeds Microsofts.

That is not to even mention the fact that microsoft seems more interested on ripping off everyone else instead of coming up with new stuff. And before you say avatars isn't a rip off let me precounter that. I have a wii. I enjoy my Wii. It is a side arm consol in my opinion. I have wii miis. I love my Wii Mii. So I was going to give the avatars a chance. Hey I have the x-box magazine it said that they were going to be better so I was pretty exited. They come out and they are not better than the wii miis. I like my wii mii more than I like my avatar. The customisation aspect was limited vs what they were toughting it to be and over all it was just lame. The new menu is from the playstation 3. My brother pointed that out to me. He is right. Microsoft didn't even put effort into its development and yet they tooted their horn and even went so far as to say it was as inovative and revolutionary as color tv. They have their head so far up their arse it isn't even funny.

Games are not about graphics. Typical Fad gamer comment. Games are about fun and enjoying yourselfs. They are about challenge and excitement. They are about gaming. Also if I wanted to flame bait I would have put effort into it. I made a comment which was my opinion and left it at that. Get a better arguement than my spelling sucks.

Killzone 2 is not about improving graphics. Ha. The gameplay was terrific. It took some adjusting too as I am used to a more slow paced shooter. This actually felt like a war. Well more like the small skirmishes in the war but it was an awesome of an experience. The AI was actually smart. Let me repeat that THE AI WAS ACTUALLY SMART. Those little buggers knew how to flank, fight, and most of all not to stand around after I throw a grenade. My partner AI was good and actually was a part of the action vs me carrying his arse through the whole game. The game had a nice variety of enimies and environments to please anyone. To say that Killzone 2 is all about improving graphics shows complete lack of knowledge of the game itself. I hold it in high respects though it has not earned my fanboyism.

Gears had a nice cover system is true though it wasn't the first to do cover based gameplay. I can't say which game has that honor of claiming that but I do know a game that did that 3 years before Gears. That game is called Killswitch for the pc, x-box, and ps2. It did cover based gameplay from cover, to blindfiring. I only knew this because I played the demo. I haven't actually picked the game up itself. Though old school gamers or true gamers know it isn't about who does what first it is about how well you do it and how fun your game is. Lets face it if a game isn't fun there is not reason to play it. If you don't get something out of the experience then it isn't worth playing. If you want to know wether a game is great then think of this. If you played a game and have this one story from when you were playing it that you walk away with than that game was worth the play and money.

Gaming is about enjoyment. Not playing the next best game. Lets break it down mathmatically. In a year there can be only 1 game of the year. In a month there can be only 1 top game. In a decade there will only be 1 best game. The other game will not be the next best thing you play. I look foward to playing the next game I play. If it turns out to be the next best then that is a bonus but not a requirement.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

(first sandpaper my vocal cords)
and...
IT'S A GIANT WORM!!!!!!
THEY'RE SINKING CITIES WITH A GIANT WORM!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jumplion]

Yes maybe the Xbox 360 has strong proccessing power, who knows the PS3 might have even more but for me this all boils down to one simple question:

WHO THE HELL CARES?!!!!

Why do the graphics in games have to be such a big deal? Why does the look of the game make such an impact on people's purchasing choice? Why do people go online and research console's for processing power before they will commit to one?
WHY?

Um, I care.

See, the problem is, maybe they can squeeze something other than more shades of brown and gray, hm?

When people talk about hardware, and squeezing more juice out of the hardware, everyone automatically assumes that it's being used for graphics.

But that's not the only thing that developers can do if they can squeeze more gigahertz out of the console! People are so quick to jump on the "Graphics don't make the game!" argument that they completely forget that there are other things besides the graphics!

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

Vegeta, what's the scouter say about the 360's limits?

IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!

WHAT?! OVER NINE THOUSAND? THERE'S NO WAY THAT CAN BE RIGHT?


I'm sorry, that just had to be done. Moving on, this news intrigues me for several reasons. I was under the impression, from several articles I've read, that the 360 really can't get much better as far as pushing its capabilities is concerned, but I'm pleasantly surprised to learn that's (probably) not the case.

 

[shatnershaman]

Vegeta, what's the scouter say about the 360's limits?

IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!

WHAT?! OVER NINE THOUSAND? THERE'S NO WAY THAT CAN BE RIGHT?

I guess the RROD is just the 360 doing Kaio-ken x4.

I'm pretty sure they can make the games look better because I thought PS2 reached its limit in 2005 with God of War then God of War II came out and blew my mind on what the PS2 could do.

 

[runedeadthA]

Gran Turismo 5 came out five years after the PS2 launched, and that was certainly one of the best looking games of the entire console generation. It was almost photorealistic at times. Other games like God of War and Shadow of the Colossus are similarly impressive. The key to unlocking a system's potential is time. Maybe by the end of the current generation the PS3 and 360 will be able to run Crysis.

A scaled down CryEngine is already in development.

I know about the CryEngine 3. I suspect Crytek will be able to make it run significantly better on consoles by the time it's released.

Meanwhile PC Users will be already playing it...with better graphics. I Love my PC sometimes.


(Consoles are O.K but now I'm never going to get one since I learned the 360 requires a subscription fee to play Multi-player.....)

 

[xLANKYx]

Yes maybe the Xbox 360 has strong proccessing power, who knows the PS3 might have even more but for me this all boils down to one simple question:

WHO THE HELL CARES?!!!!

Why do the graphics in games have to be such a big deal? Why does the look of the game make such an impact on people's purchasing choice? Why do people go online and research console's for processing power before they will commit to one?
WHY?

How else with the Sony Defence Force and the Microsoft Commandos fight their remote dick waving contest otherwise?

That said, I do agree completely.

A lol is in order. Jenkins, fire the lol cannon!

LOL

But yes, this is pretty much the idea. Thank you companies, for encouraging this sort of childish behavior.

well Doug, for you ill use my Bolt action LOL rifle......

LOL (clunk click) LOL (clunk click) LOL (clunk click) LOL (clunk click) LOL.

thats a 5 LOL salute to you sir.

 

[MrGFunk]

Gran Turismo 5 came out five years after the PS2 launched, and that was certainly one of the best looking games of the entire console generation. It was almost photorealistic at times. Other games like God of War and Shadow of the Colossus are similarly impressive. The key to unlocking a system's potential is time. Maybe by the end of the current generation the PS3 and 360 will be able to run Crysis.

I think what is being suggested is the 360 is at the end of it's generation. I think it's a safe bet to say it's not but it's getting there - that's why developers are saying we can still get more out of it.

Doubting something is possible is the only explanation for suggesting something is possible.

This is all speculation without results.

 

[Jumplion]

Meanwhile PC Users will be already playing it...with better graphics. I Love my PC sometimes.

But...weren't we just complaining about how graphics don't make the game?

Make up your minds people! You're being hypocrites!

 

[Woe Is You]

How else with the Sony Defence Force and the Microsoft Commandos fight their remote dick waving contest otherwise?

That said, I do agree completely.

To be fair, if the topic read that the Wii had yet to reach its limits, I'd still think it'd be plausible. None of these things have been out long enough for them to be peaked. The ones thinking the 360 is a magical exception in this are merely being extremely shortsighted and are ignoring over 30 years of gaming history. Simple as that.