Author Topic: xbox plays half-life and doom3 (Read 9562 times)

ThePerm · « **on:** October 02, 2005, 07:30:18 AM »

xbox plays half-life and doom3, resident evil 4 looks better

about a year ago or so these were the graphical peaks of the pc world, yet on the much lower speced consoles they pretty much did straight ports..not perfect ones...but very pretty games.

I'v seen a few games that were leaps above that on the new systems, but not by much. I wonder if by all indications that rev wont be as powerful as the next systems, yet still somewhere in the ball park we probaly couldnt see the difference visually. However one thing i worry about is the numbers game.....

i am incredibly impressed by dead rising...it doesnt have the best graphics...but its got soo many zombies...and i love zombies.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #1 on:** October 02, 2005, 07:49:03 AM »

Um, what are you trying to say?

Karl Castaneda #2 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 02, 2005, 07:58:52 AM »

I think he's trying to say that just because the Revolution won't have the hardware bang of its competitors doesn't mean we'll see games that are less pleasing to the eye.

Stimutacs Addict · « **Reply #3 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:15:38 AM »

... but the thought of massive worlds and scores of enemies is pretty appealing, and i hope rev. has it

Artimus · « **Reply #4 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:27:18 AM »

I expect if anything Nintendo will have lower visuals and higher other stuff before vice-versa. And part of their reason for going standard-def is they can focus less on pure graphics and get away with it.

mjbd · « **Reply #5 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:34:27 AM »

I dont think the HD support is going to play a huge role. Most people are still on standard televisions, and those who have HD tv's will still enjoy progressive scan mode. I think people forget what four times as powerful really means. Thats a 2ghz cpu, 600mhz gpu, 168MB of ram, and more importantly games that look twice as detailed as RE4. I dont know about you, but I wouldnt mind playing a Resident Evil game on Rev that looks twice as good as RE4, but has all the benefeits of the controller. RE4 would play awsome with Revs controller, things could be even more crazy, cause you would be able to quickly change your shooting direction. Nintendo is right, games are already have great visuals, its time for a leap in gameplay control.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #6 on:** October 02, 2005, 02:49:35 PM »

Massive worlds and scores of enemies means Dynasty Warriors is taking over.

BUT

I welcome next-gen Pikmins and Battallion Wars.

31 Flavas · « **Reply #7 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:06:23 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm

I'v seen a few games that were leaps above that on the new systems, but not by much. I wonder if by all indications that rev wont be as powerful as the next systems, yet still somewhere in the ball park we probaly couldnt see the difference visually. However one thing i worry about is the numbers game.....

I find it amazing that "everyone" is worried about graphical performace, when the PS2 (or GameBoy or DS) prove that graphical prowess is not exclusivly what sells systems. Edit: or Games for that matter.

ThePerm · « **Reply #8 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:08:12 PM »

i want the upgrade in the system to be worth the price of the system...if we werent upgrading the graphics we would just have the same games on a different system

ShyGuy · « **Reply #9 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:27:31 PM »

Um, that's what the NRC wand is for. Not the same games

31 Flavas · « **Reply #10 on:** October 02, 2005, 09:10:58 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm

i want the upgrade in the system to be worth the price of the system...if we werent upgrading the graphics we would just have the same games on a different system

Uhm... but, we *are* going to end up with the same games. Thats not a matter debate, it's a matter of fact. Halo, GTA, Madden are all going to be the same just prettier. The NFL and their exclusive license to EA has, at the very least, forced one change. Who before now would have ever thought of producing a Football game without NFL teams? Who would have purchased one without the NFL teams? This discussion is entirely seperate and not what I was pointing out though. Although it is somewhat related.

My point was that PS2, GameBoy, DS, all out sell their competion for different reasons, but not because they have ultimate graphics. In the case of Gameboy and DS the graphics aren't even competitive. Back in the day, with GameBoy, it was black on GREEN, versus Full Color and GameBoy still crushed the competion. So my point is, why is all this importance is put on graphics when ultimately graphics are not what sells the most systems or copies of a game.

ThePerm · « **Reply #11 on:** October 03, 2005, 10:03:03 AM »

the idea is that the next system has to have better graphics otherwise they might as well just introduce the new controll style...otherwise were buying another cube. get it? Theres no reason to upgrade if we dont get better graphics.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #12 on:** October 03, 2005, 10:22:28 AM »

cept for the wireless, the 512 flash drive, and the dvd support...

ThePerm · « **Reply #13 on:** October 03, 2005, 10:28:08 AM »

wireless isnt new, 512 is a nice new thing, we should have had dvd sized disk last generation.

if you dont understand what i mean. I loved cubivore even though it had n64 graphics...what was important was the gameplay, but it got panned cus it looked real bad by critics. I can enjoy crappy looking games..its just that if im going to pay for a new better system, it better be a real upgrade..otherwise its worth just as much as that $50 cube at game crazy.

I didn't have a super nintendo. I played my nes as my main system for 2 generations. Sure the super nintendo has prettier graphics..but overall the gameplay isnt too different. If they released a controller with 6 buttons like snes for nes....the graphics really wouldnt be as important.

blackfootsteps · « **Reply #14 on:** October 03, 2005, 03:03:22 PM »

Try playing Mario Kart or Star Fox on your NES.

ThePerm · « **Reply #15 on:** October 03, 2005, 03:32:23 PM »

mario kart could be done on nes.....starfox could too...just would look like crap

Artimus · « **Reply #16 on:** October 03, 2005, 03:38:21 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
mario kart could be done on nes.....starfox could too...just would look like crap

Mode 7.

cubist · « **Reply #17 on:** October 03, 2005, 04:32:53 PM »

The Super Nintendo was historically Nintendo's best system. It helped put gaming to where it is today. How?

(1) Mode 7 scaling at launch with titles like Pilotwings and F-Zero.

(2) The development of the FX Chip (running polygons at higher speeds than Faceball to show what the future of gaming will be like...and Starfox was unbelievable at the time).

(3) ACM graphics that brought new life to 2D sprites with the release of the Donkey Kong Country series (and later Square games)

I know I'm off topic, but I had to respond to that comment.

mjbd · « **Reply #18 on:** October 03, 2005, 05:05:30 PM »

Nintendo has to prove that there system has the best software, and can only be played on their system. I think Nintendo knows that it need to make a jump in the graphics department, but just enough to keep gamers happy. They kind of did it with the DS, they could have released a gameboy advance with the DS features. Graphics will be the smallest selling point for Rev. The idea of playing games like Metroid and Resident Evil on Rev absolutely excites me because of the new controls.

ThePerm · « **Reply #19 on:** October 03, 2005, 05:24:43 PM »

play squares 3d battles of world runner on nes....and who says you cant have a super fx chip inside and nes cartridge?

pudu · « **Reply #20 on:** October 03, 2005, 05:32:34 PM »

Unless this generation is unlike all other generations the next 3 consoles will probably be similar in graphics...or similar enough that most consumers won't notice much difference. I really see the attraction of a leap in graphics when new consoles are released to be less as each generation comes and goes.

One reason is that at some point it will have to look so good that the next noticable "leap" in graphics would take so much more hardware-wise then what it has in the past. At this point it will basically be up to the artists and programmers to make the proper art/fx to make the game look real (or however else they want to make it look). I imagine once hardware becomes less of an issue the talent of the artists and programmers will be what the limiting factor is. So...a few generations down the road we have consoles pushing not 500 million but 500 billion polygons. At this point where do you go? I see tools like those used for procedural vegetation and terrain being more relied upon for good visuals because with all that power a developer could spend their lives pushing it to the max by hand.

Another reason (and one I find having more of an immidiate affect) why consoles graphics will be less of an attraction in coming generations is the fact that the PC is pushing tech so fast. All next-gen consoles are using basically modified PC graphics cards made by one of the big 2 card manufacturors. These cards are basically a generation ahead of the next cards ATI and Nvidia are releasing but I don't see it being very long before the PC has graphics cards equal to or faster then these cards. The main reason the consoles will stay ahead of PC at this point will be the multiple threads the CPUs allow but with Intel and AMD pushing for multicore processors now and with all the games made using multiple threads I can see PC's catching up here not before long.

On a side note, I think the most interesting thing about the next-gen consoles is how they are being used to actually push/steer the direction the tech industry goes. Sony will be pushing Blu-Ray disk format and their new multicore Cell chip. Microsoft will also be pushing a disk format (HD-DVD) and their CPU is also multi core so programers are being forced to get used to programming for multiple threads. And...who knows Nintendo could make a breakthrough with the Rev controller and make similar devices standard in coming years for the PC, consoles (of coarse), and other devices like regular TV remotes.

oohhboy · « **Reply #21 on:** October 04, 2005, 06:31:38 AM »

Argonauts did do some thing similiar to the NES (Star Glider) as what they did for Star Fox. It wasn't pretty but it worked.

The FX chip for the SNES came in two flavors. The original slow one for Star Fox (10.15MHz) and a second version that had 2x the clock speed of the original. The original chip was comparable to a 386. Both RISC.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #22 on:** October 04, 2005, 08:15:54 AM »

"i want the upgrade in the system to be worth the price of the system...if we werent upgrading the graphics we would just have the same games on a different system"

I agree with this. Not just in terms of graphics as superior hardware improves a lot of things like framerate, AI, physics, and how many characters are on screen at once. If the only difference is the new controller and online play then Nintendo would be ripping us off by making us buy new hardware. We might as well just buy a controller. Or they could make it so that you can upgrade your Cube or buy a new Rev. If we have to buy new hardware then there should be a jump.

kirby_killer_dedede · « **Reply #23 on:** October 04, 2005, 09:58:46 AM »

I'm no tech junkie so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think AI relies on the power of a system...doesn't it depend more on the algorithms devlopers are able to come up with? Unless the algorithm is just so intense that Sony needs to stuff 8 processers in there...

KDR_11k · « **Reply #24 on:** October 04, 2005, 10:10:36 AM »

AI has many CPU-limited algorythms involved. Raph Koster said that 40% of the load on the EQ2 servers is just pathfinding.

News:

Author Topic: xbox plays half-life and doom3 (Read 9562 times)