The new consoles are the same

[second]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ive been looking at pictures of the games coming to ps3 and xbox 360 and to thell the truth the graphics are the same when it comes to quality. I really think no one can say one as better graphics coz everythign ive seen so far looks realistic

[drunkymonkey]

No they aren't.
The Ps3 is twice as powerful as the Xbox360, ad there have been very few screenshots.

[spuit*11]

HAHAHA This thread makes a man laugh. That game for the Xbox 360 with the cars with guns on em. Well, whenever one of those cars drives through a flowerbed you get massive slowdowns. Plus the graphic quality is higher on te PS3. Just look at Perfect Dark Zero... it looks like crap. I mean it could have been made on the cryengine a year or so ago and look exactly the same as it does now.

[drunkymonkey]

HAHAHA This thread makes a man laugh. That game for the Xbox 360 with the cars with guns on em. Well, whenever one of those cars drives through a flowerbed you get massive slowdowns. Plus the graphic quality is higher on te PS3. Just look at Perfect Dark Zero... it looks like crap. I mean it could have been made on the cryengine a year or so ago and look exactly the same as it does now.

Exactly.
Second hasn't been doing his homework and has just been making bad assumptions.

[Stanhead]

HAHAHA This thread makes a man laugh.It also makes Spuit laugh. :smoke:

What a n00b.

[Steve Harcum]

quit flaming...360 will kick ass...ps3 does not exist as of right now...as soon as they have a playable build with games and honest reviewers with controllers in their hands we can have this discussion...

[spuit*11]

This has nothing to do with putting controllers in reviewers hands. This is all about this guy saying the xBox 360 and the PS3 have the same graphical strength, which is obviously not the case.

Oh and who was flaming? :confused:

[noobman]

What he said was that the graphics from both systems look the same.

Well, the "graphics" of a system depends primarily on the game developers, and how they choose to use the hardware built by the manufacturers. First, you have to remember that these games we're seeing barely scratch the surface when it comes to the potential that these systems contain. Remember your first PS2 or Xbox game? Now look at your most recent one. Difference? Almost certainly yes.

On paper, the PS3 has more graphical power, and it'll show, especially later on in the life of the consoles... much like how multiplatormers are now for the Xbox, the PS3 will have a sharper, cleaner look with higher-resolution textures and better lighting and such... not to mention a more stable framerate.

Right now it's almost impossible to compare. And secondly, since it's DEVELOPERS and the GAME ITSELF setting the quality of graphics, the only fair thing to do is to compare a game that's on both the PS3 AND Xbox360... and judge the graphics on the differences there.



I won't make a judgement just yet though... all we've really seen from PS3 is tech-demos, and pre-rendered work (for the most part). Whereas with the X360, most of the stuff we've seen is footage from games that are near their completion.

[TheTaxidermist]

Here is a sad truth that everybody here needs to realize. Graphis don't mean jack. Sure you can make something out to be good looking. It's like a super model. Good to look out on the outside, maybe fun for a one nighter. But when it comes down to commitment it's a no-show. There has to be more involved than just looks. Yes, I'm talking about gameplay.

[Steve Harcum]

not trying to be a dick....just avoiding the never ending fanboy flame war that has plagued so many forums...:)

[noobman]

Here is a sad truth that everybody here needs to realize. Graphis don't mean jack. Sure you can make something out to be good looking. It's like a super model. Good to look out on the outside, maybe fun for a one nighter. But when it comes down to commitment it's a no-show. There has to be more involved than just looks. Yes, I'm talking about gameplay.
I don't know about you... but if I find two games where one is maybe a little better in gameplay, but has worse graphics.. I'd usually take the one with better graphics, since I'm going to enjoy the game more (prime example: 2k's NHL games vs EA's NHL games). 2k's got better gameplay, sure, but the graphics are horrendus. On the other hand, EA's gamplay isn't quite as good (still competitive and ultimately fun, but not at the 2k level) but it's the best looking hockey game ever released.

Now, if the graphics are friggin amazing but the game plays like utter crap, then of course graphics don't matter. But some good polish and outstanding visuals can make up for a few gameplay errors here and there, provided that they're not major. But then again, that's just me.

[Sam Raven]

Here is a sad truth that everybody here needs to realize. Graphis don't mean jack. Sure you can make something out to be good looking. It's like a super model. Good to look out on the outside, maybe fun for a one nighter. But when it comes down to commitment it's a no-show. There has to be more involved than just looks. Yes, I'm talking about gameplay.Well ever wondered why gameplay went down when 2D became 3D? Because everyone focused on the graphics. Storyboard construction requires a great deal of thinking. That brain power went into all the physics and the initial excitement of having 3D graphics. As a result gameplay suffered. In the end graphics just requires technical graphic programming know how. Creating a story is no different than what determines a bad novel from a good novel, and creating that ain't easy. My guess is that the game companies hoped that the profits from the initial attraction of the games will override the disappointment of the gameplay since the priority here is how fast the game can fly off the shelves.

And once we gamers get tired of it, the game company churns out another one and the cycle starts again. The game company in the end gets a lot of profits for saving time by focusing more on graphics, which are less time consuming in some ways compared to the story, and we gamers have been ripped off, spending our money on more games that are impressive in looks but content is trash.

[noobman]

Well ever wondered why gameplay went down when 2D became 3D? Because everyone focused on the graphics. Storyboard construction requires a great deal of thinking. That brain power went into all the physics and the initial excitement of having 3D graphics. As a result gameplay suffered. In the end graphics just requires technical graphic programming know how. Creating a story is no different than what determines a bad novel from a good novel, and creating that ain't easy. My guess is that the game companies hoped that the profits from the initial attraction of the games will override the disappointment of the gameplay since the priority here is how fast the game can fly off the shelves.

And once we gamers get tired of it, the game company churns out another one and the cycle starts again. The game company in the end gets a lot of profits for saving time by focusing more on graphics, which are less time consuming in some ways compared to the story, and we gamers have been ripped off, spending our money on more games that are impressive in looks but content is trash.
I'm going to have to stop you right there. The major problem with the transition from 2d to 3d was system power. 2D games were considered more difficult to play and were said to have "better gameplay" because you could just pack a ton of enemies in a room. And in those days, the graphics relied entirely on the creativity and skill of the artists who drew the sprites. You drew up your characters, shoved them in the engine and let the programmer put the game together.

The move to 3d made some huge changes. All of a sudden, there was this concept of lighting to deal with. Now instead of just gluing together a bunch of sprites and artwork (for lack of a better term) you had design THREE DIMENSIONAL charactes, all properly proportioned and modelled with 3d design software. You had to build a much more involved 3d environment for them to work with, and increase their level of interaction. Hit detection also became infinitly more difficult to do. Programmers had almost twice as much to do than before, and the artists were probably pulling their hairs out.

Fast foward to 2005. Now they've made major changes... you've got to deal with crap like texture mapping, programmable shaders, dynamic lighting, stencil shadowing, occlusion mapping, and whatever the hell else these guys do. Games look better than ever, but the amount of time and work that goes into making all of this is insane. The addition of physics, and upcoming multi-core processors only makes the task more difficult. The time it takes to develop a game hasn't changed.... but the amount of work that has to go into the design process is just insane. As a result, game developers have had to take time away from working on the story and creating long games to put into creating a platform.

It's a transition period. With the Source engine already out, and the Unreal 3 engine coming soon... developers might be able to shift more time into developing the gameplay.

What's got me excited is that the Unreal 2 engine was the most commonly used engine in it's time. If this trend continues into the future... most games will be using the Unreal 3 engine. And you've all seen how beautiful that looks (what made the Unreal engine so popular was it's flexibility and compatively easy-to-use development tools).

http://interactive.usc.edu/members/jchen/unreal3.jpg

Just think about it... games like Splinter Cell, Theif, Deus EX, Americas Army, Rainbow Six? What do they call have in common? Great games that were fun to play, with solid gameplay, and great single player story campaigns. They all ran off the Unreal 2 engine. Instead of having to spend time developing their own tools for artists to use, and creating their own engines... they just modified the powerful Unreal 2 engine to suit their needs. This allowed them to allocate more time to actual game development, as opposed to game design.

I think I may have drifted a bit, but my point is this: Games take more time and effort to develop more now than ever. Publishers are also pretty strict, forcing developers to meet certain street dates on their games. What the industry has lacked for a while is a powerful, yet easy to use game engine to use as the platform for game development. I think the Unreal 3 engine can fix this problem.

Games are gonna get a whole lot better. Oh, and they'll look pretty darn nice too :)

[drunkymonkey]

They aren't going to be as original though.

[Sam Raven]

I'm going to have to stop you right there. The major problem with the transition from 2d to 3d was system power. 2D games were considered more difficult to play and were said to have "better gameplay" because you could just pack a ton of enemies in a room. And in those days, the graphics relied entirely on the creativity and skill of the artists who drew the sprites. You drew up your characters, shoved them in the engine and let the programmer put the game together.

The move to 3d made some huge changes. All of a sudden, there was this concept of lighting to deal with. Now instead of just gluing together a bunch of sprites and artwork (for lack of a better term) you had design THREE DIMENSIONAL charactes, all properly proportioned and modelled with 3d design software. You had to build a much more involved 3d environment for them to work with, and increase their level of interaction. Hit detection also became infinitly more difficult to do. Programmers had almost twice as much to do than before, and the artists were probably pulling their hairs out.

Fast foward to 2005. Now they've made major changes... you've got to deal with crap like texture mapping, programmable shaders, dynamic lighting, stencil shadowing, occlusion mapping, and whatever the hell else these guys do. Games look better than ever, but the amount of time and work that goes into making all of this is insane. The addition of physics, and upcoming multi-core processors only makes the task more difficult. The time it takes to develop a game hasn't changed.... but the amount of work that has to go into the design process is just insane. As a result, game developers have had to take time away from working on the story and creating long games to put into creating a platform.

It's a transition period. With the Source engine already out, and the Unreal 3 engine coming soon... developers might be able to shift more time into developing the gameplay.

What's got me excited is that the Unreal 2 engine was the most commonly used engine in it's time. If this trend continues into the future... most games will be using the Unreal 3 engine. And you've all seen how beautiful that looks (what made the Unreal engine so popular was it's flexibility and compatively easy-to-use development tools).

http://interactive.usc.edu/members/jchen/unreal3.jpg

Just think about it... games like Splinter Cell, Theif, Deus EX, Americas Army, Rainbow Six? What do they call have in common? Great games that were fun to play, with solid gameplay, and great single player story campaigns. They all ran off the Unreal 2 engine. Instead of having to spend time developing their own tools for artists to use, and creating their own engines... they just modified the powerful Unreal 2 engine to suit their needs. This allowed them to allocate more time to actual game development, as opposed to game design.

I think I may have drifted a bit, but my point is this: Games take more time and effort to develop more now than ever. Publishers are also pretty strict, forcing developers to meet certain street dates on their games. What the industry has lacked for a while is a powerful, yet easy to use game engine to use as the platform for game development. I think the Unreal 3 engine can fix this problem.

Games are gonna get a whole lot better. Oh, and they'll look pretty darn nice too :)
You still proved my point. The graphics content forced the brains in the game company to move away from the story board. Although the bit about how they do it as a selling point was speculation, a little theory of mine how it has been going on, advancement of graphics, be it from 2D to 3D, or the texturing like what is happening now, it affected the amount of energy and effort put into the story.

[EclipseSix]

Graphics don't make the game, and if you need proof, dig out your old N64 and play Mario64. I did, this past week, and I realized this game was revolutionary not only in 3d graphics, but in gameplay, storyline, thoroughness, and fun factor. The developers thought of everything players would like to do as Mario in a 3d world and incorporated it into the game, along with a fantastic storyline, a plentiful amount of content, and plenty of humor. You don't really see this much in recent games anymore. There is always some obvious glaring spot where something is missing that you think the developers should have included, whether it be better interactivity, storyline, dialogue, any aspect of the game.

We played Halo for an hour, got bored,and played Mario64 for 4 hours. I think that says something.

[Sam Raven]

Graphics don't make the game, and if you need proof, dig out your old N64 and play Mario64. I did, this past week, and I realized this game was revolutionary not only in 3d graphics, but in gameplay, storyline, thoroughness, and fun factor. The developers thought of everything players would like to do as Mario in a 3d world and incorporated it into the game, along with a fantastic storyline, a plentiful amount of content, and plenty of humor. You don't really see this much in recent games anymore. There is always some obvious glaring spot where something is missing that you think the developers should have included, whether it be better interactivity, storyline, dialogue, any aspect of the game.

We played Halo for an hour, got bored,and played Mario64 for 4 hours. I think that says something.It sure does. Does the fact I have played HL1 more number of times than HL2 say something similar about this?

[EclipseSix]

^ Exactly.