Topic: Next Generation steps not leaps. My take on next generation graphical horsepower

[GoldenPhoenix]

I’ve been thinking a lot about gamers’ obsession with horsepower, especially when it pertains this generation and I would like to give my two cents to the discussion. Perhaps I am mistaken but it appears to me that this next generation games, with Xbox 360 being the focus, is not that much better looking than the previous generation. Unlike generations before, you can not say with a straight face that there is a drastic improvement over what was previous. With the PS2 generation we seen a huge leap from N64 and PSX (I would consider DC to be apart of the current generation of systems). Before that we had SNES to PSX and N64, once again there was a big leap. Heck even between SNES and NES there was a relatively large leap. This last leap doesn’t even appear visually to be what I would consider “two times the graphical capabilities”.

That leap is not nearly as profound as it was in previous generation, the improvements appears to be marginal at best. Yes we may have better physics or more detail, but besides that there is not a whole lot to distinguish between the generations. For example, I was recently playing Forza for Xbox, and then popped in Project Gotham Racing 3, both games are visually attracting and I would not say Project Gotham is a big leap over Forza. You also have games like the Madden series, or the Fight Night series where the visual difference is once again limited; there is nothing that makes you go “Wow what a jump”. Some may argue that this next generation will bring us better AI, and that may be the case, but there also has been tremendous AI with this last generation (Half Life 2, and Halo being good examples). AI is determined more by how much work the programmer puts in it, more so than the power they have to work with.

Another goofy example that I hear is that this next generation you can have more characters on the screen. Well I hate to break any hearts, but Dynasty Warriors already did that and with similar AI as well! So that can’t be a good distinction, since it is possible on this current generation. If a developer truly wants to do something on an Xbox, GC or PS2 chances are they can do it, especially when it comes to multiple enemies and smart AI.

Now you all are probably wondering what my point to all this is, and is none other than Wii. I’ve heard whining and complaining about the lack of power, and even if IGN’s rumored specs turn out to be true I am willing to bet it will not matter. When we are only seeing a marginal difference in graphics, then what is the fuss about? If a developer wants to put in tremendous AI in a Wii game I’m sure they can do it, or if they want to make a mindless hack and slash game where hordes of enemies attack you, they probably can do that as well.

So for all your hardware nuts out there, the Wii will have more than enough power to do some great stuff if a developer is willing to try it. If you take away the HD capabilities of Xbox 360 and PS3 (which I think is overrated, HD is nice but not what I would call a big difference) Wii will be more than capable of holding its own, heck the Xbox is holding its own. Really this generation feels more like the leap from the Dreamcast to the Xbox, there is a difference but not one of huge importance. Things are going to fine, even with the supposed low specs of Wii, I am willing to bet that the Wii will have some really neat looking games by the time the system has finished its run. Will a few games be comparable to Xbox 360 or PS3? I’m not sure but when the difference appears so minute, I wouldn’t count out the possibility. The trick is getting past the specs and seeing what is on screen, specs mean nothing, it is what you see and how you play that is truly a testament to the graphics of the system.

In conclusion, is ridiculous when I hear individuals say the Wii will look ugly when that is not the case with Xbox, GC or PS2. There have been some visual stunning games for all systems that can even rival some of the games on Xbox 360, so to say that the Wii will be ugly in comparison seems to be a ludicrous statement. Maybe you should fire up RE4, Splinter Cell, Madden and a host of other games, then tell me how ugly they look even in comparison to this new generation of games. I am beginning to understand why Nintendo decided to not focus on the hardware, because frankly this next generation is going to have to rely more on game play than any other generation before it. The leaps from one generation to the next have gotten much smaller, and so gameplay must start taking over. It seems Nintendo understands that, now if only the competition and some closed minded gamers could understand it too!
 

[Dasmos]

Wow, you're only the billionth person to write something like this, but hey, at least you did it in a less convincing manner.

[Ceric]

Quote
In conclusion, is ridiculous when I hear individuals say the Wii will look ugly when that is not the case with Xbox, GC or PS2.

You're right.  That small form factor.  Shiny white exterior.  Blue glowing light in the disc tray.  It's a pretty console.  

Seriously enough though.  We've talked about this a lot.  If we had a better search system I link all the discussions.  Suffice it to say it will look fine.

[BigJim]

I look at HD the same way I looked at 2D and 3D graphics... they all took time to mature. Just as Nintendo's controller is not going to be perfect for every game out of the box either.

The graphical benefits of the other platforms aren't completely apparent yet, but I think they'll start to as 2nd generation titles creep in, particularly for PS3. But since 2 of the platforms aren't out yet, it's hard to place judgement. Horsepower won't matter as much until more HDTVs are adopted and HD games mature, anyway. That's not to say standard TVs won't see any benefit from the horsepower, because they will to some extent. But the early games as of yet aren't a great demonstration of power. I definitely agree there.

I've never been sold on the, "Wii won't look as good, but gosh darnit it'll be more fun!" because that is entirely subjective and dependent on the developer. The controller is different. Beyond that, nothing is fact. Nintendo's always had a gameplay focus, so the song and dance isn't much different now than before, IMO.

For the hardware itself, they're targetting different markets and they're doing what's best for their markets. They can only be compared directly in such that a $15K Ford Ranger might be compared to a $40K Mark LT. They're pickup trucks, there is bleed over, but they're clearly distinct enough in price and features to be going for different people.

I think we sometimes think too hard about Nintendo's direction and come up with reasons that support our feelings, rather than looking at simpler facts. Nintendo's predominant demographics are kids and mid-to-late 20-somethings that grew up with Nintendo. This is according to some comment someone at Nintendo made. So knowing this, they're not going to abandon kids and build something too expensive, or abandon the IPs that are strong with the 20-somethings. Their actions are deliberate for their audience, just as Sony's and MS's are.

If HD were cheap, we'd see it in Wii regardless of whether there were diminishing returns or not. Afterall, even though wireless routers have less penetration than HDTVs, wireless connectivity is built-in. Why? It's cheap. They're conscious about the cost of ownership and cost of entry, because the demos dictate the product.

Anyway, I guess my point is that discussions like this easily bend towards the "emotional" defense rather than the simpler answer. There are benefits to HD that aren't yet realized because HD games, IMO, haven't matured yet. But they'll get there eventually. In the meantime, the Wii should be just fine for who they target. For everybody else, they're looking at the competition anyway. So what's to defend? Our image as teh kidd!e fanbois, L0LL3rz?  

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Dasmos
Wow, you're only the billionth person to write something like this, but hey, at least you did it in a less convincing manner.

Thanks for contributing so much to the discussion. You would fit right in with the individuals at gamefaqs where they feel the need to insult someone who in no way attacked or was rude in any way. Like I said in a previous post, I realize there have been other topics on this, but I felt like I would give my opinion on it, didn't think there was anything wrong with that. If there is some constructive critisism or disagreement with what I said, I am fine with that, but I do not appreciated condescending and smart alik comments.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
I look at HD the same way I looked at 2D and 3D graphics... they all took time to mature. Just as Nintendo's controller is not going to be perfect for every game out of the box either.

The graphical benefits of the other platforms aren't completely apparent yet, but I think they'll start to as 2nd generation titles creep in, particularly for PS3. But since 2 of the platforms aren't out yet, it's hard to place judgement. Horsepower won't matter as much until more HDTVs are adopted and HD games mature, anyway. That's not to say standard TVs won't see any benefit from the horsepower, because they will to some extent. But the early games as of yet aren't a great demonstration of power. I definitely agree there.

I've never been sold on the, "Wii won't look as good, but gosh darnit it'll be more fun!" because that is entirely subjective and dependent on the developer. The controller is different. Beyond that, nothing is fact. Nintendo's always had a gameplay focus, so the song and dance isn't much different now than before, IMO.

For the hardware itself, they're targetting different markets and they're doing what's best for their markets. They can only be compared directly in such that a $15K Ford Ranger might be compared to a $40K Mark LT. They're pickup trucks, there is bleed over, but they're clearly distinct enough in price and features to be going for different people.

I think we sometimes think too hard about Nintendo's direction and come up with reasons that support our feelings, rather than looking at simpler facts. Nintendo's predominant demographics are kids and mid-to-late 20-somethings that grew up with Nintendo. This is according to some comment someone at Nintendo made. So knowing this, they're not going to abandon kids and build something too expensive, or abandon the IPs that are strong with the 20-somethings. Their actions are deliberate for their audience, just as Sony's and MS's are.

If HD were cheap, we'd see it in Wii regardless of whether there were diminishing returns or not. Afterall, even though wireless routers have less penetration than HDTVs, wireless connectivity is built-in. Why? It's cheap. They're conscious about the cost of ownership and cost of entry, because the demos dictate the product.

Anyway, I guess my point is that discussions like this easily bend towards the "emotional" defense rather than the simpler answer. There are benefits to HD that aren't yet realized because HD games, IMO, haven't matured yet. But they'll get there eventually. In the meantime, the Wii should be just fine for who they target. For everybody else, they're looking at the competition anyway. So what's to defend? Our image as teh kidd!e fanbois, L0LL3rz?

I don't doubt HD has some benefits, then again I've been playing PC games for years where high resolution is the standard and frankly I have no trouble going back to standard TV. Even for my Xbox 360 I usually play it at 420p in order to get a smoother framerate.  Regardless my main point is that these first generation games on Xbox 360 are not that big of a change from the previous generation, while other generations there were significant visual leaps even in the first generation.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric

Quote
In conclusion, is ridiculous when I hear individuals say the Wii will look ugly when that is not the case with Xbox, GC or PS2.

You're right.  That small form factor.  Shiny white exterior.  Blue glowing light in the disc tray.  It's a pretty console.  

Seriously enough though.  We've talked about this a lot.  If we had a better search system I link all the discussions.  Suffice it to say it will look fine.

Lol, what is sad is that the Wii will probaly be about the same size as Xbox 360's power block . About previous discussions about the graphics, I don't doubt there have been, but I felt like giving my take on it (in fact I probaly have read some of them).  

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution

Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
I look at HD the same way I looked at 2D and 3D graphics... they all took time to mature. Just as Nintendo's controller is not going to be perfect for every game out of the box either.

The graphical benefits of the other platforms aren't completely apparent yet, but I think they'll start to as 2nd generation titles creep in, particularly for PS3. But since 2 of the platforms aren't out yet, it's hard to place judgement. Horsepower won't matter as much until more HDTVs are adopted and HD games mature, anyway. That's not to say standard TVs won't see any benefit from the horsepower, because they will to some extent. But the early games as of yet aren't a great demonstration of power. I definitely agree there.

I've never been sold on the, "Wii won't look as good, but gosh darnit it'll be more fun!" because that is entirely subjective and dependent on the developer. The controller is different. Beyond that, nothing is fact. Nintendo's always had a gameplay focus, so the song and dance isn't much different now than before, IMO.

For the hardware itself, they're targetting different markets and they're doing what's best for their markets. They can only be compared directly in such that a $15K Ford Ranger might be compared to a $40K Mark LT. They're pickup trucks, there is bleed over, but they're clearly distinct enough in price and features to be going for different people.

I think we sometimes think too hard about Nintendo's direction and come up with reasons that support our feelings, rather than looking at simpler facts. Nintendo's predominant demographics are kids and mid-to-late 20-somethings that grew up with Nintendo. This is according to some comment someone at Nintendo made. So knowing this, they're not going to abandon kids and build something too expensive, or abandon the IPs that are strong with the 20-somethings. Their actions are deliberate for their audience, just as Sony's and MS's are.

If HD were cheap, we'd see it in Wii regardless of whether there were diminishing returns or not. Afterall, even though wireless routers have less penetration than HDTVs, wireless connectivity is built-in. Why? It's cheap. They're conscious about the cost of ownership and cost of entry, because the demos dictate the product.

Anyway, I guess my point is that discussions like this easily bend towards the "emotional" defense rather than the simpler answer. There are benefits to HD that aren't yet realized because HD games, IMO, haven't matured yet. But they'll get there eventually. In the meantime, the Wii should be just fine for who they target. For everybody else, they're looking at the competition anyway. So what's to defend? Our image as teh kidd!e fanbois, L0LL3rz?

I don't doubt HD has some benefits, then again I've been playing PC games for years where high resolution is the standard and frankly I have no trouble going back to standard TV. Even for my Xbox 360 I usually play it at 420p on my HD in order to get a smoother framerate.  Regardless my main point is that these first generation games on Xbox 360 are not that big of a change from the previous generation, while other generations there were significant visual leaps even in the first generation. I'm fairly certain the same will apply to PS3, since I have gotten the impression that PS3 really is not that much more powerful, if any, than the 360 just different architecture. The main thing jacking the PS3 price up is the blu-ray player.

[Ceric]

I meant no offence VGRevolution.  It's just those other post took hours of my time and I can't really duplicate them.  Ironically enought though I summed them all up pretty much with the last sentence.  With that being said I will say the difference between going from RCA to Component (or is it Composite I always get those confused) is like night and day.  It's more of a leap then I've seen between some of the different HD and non-HD titles.  It's amazing the difference a better connection can bring.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
I meant no offence VGRevolution.  It's just those other post took hours of my time and I can't really duplicate them.  Ironically enought though I summed them all up pretty much with the last sentence.  With that being said I will say the difference between going from RCA to Component (or is it Composite I always get those confused) is like night and day.  It's more of a leap then I've seen between some of the different HD and non-HD titles.  It's amazing the difference a better connection can bring.

I think it is component, btw I took no offense in what you said, the only one I had a problem with was Dasmos because I felt his statement was unnecessary and rude. Could you possibly direct me to your posts? I've always had a respect for your views on different things so I would love to read your posts. My main reason for posting this is because I recently repurchased an Xbox 360 and what struck me was the lack of much of a leap between a game like Forza and one like Project Gotham Racing 3 while other generations showed drastic improvements, even in the first generation titles. Before I wasn't that concerned by the hardware issue, but still had SOME doubts which were mostly erased when thinking about it the other day since I was able to better analyze the 360 vs this current generation. I apologize if my little analysis was "overkill" but I figured it wouldn't hurt to give my view on it since I am better able to compare.

[AnyoneEB]

Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim

If HD were cheap, we'd see it in Wii regardless of whether there were diminishing returns or not. Afterall, even though wireless routers have less penetration than HDTVs, wireless connectivity is built-in. Why? It's cheap. They're conscious about the cost of ownership and cost of entry, because the demos dictate the product.

I do not have any input on the HD front, but I have a very different experience on wireless routers. Maybe they are just a lot more common around here, but I know one person who has an HDTV setup (two if you include my computer monitor with component-in), and three people who don't have wireless routers (all three have dial-up internet). On top of that, on college campuses, wireless access is very common.

BTW, 1 plug = composite (all mixed to together) and 3 plugs = component (separated into components). I hope that helps someone remember. Both starting with "comp" certainly does not make it easier to remember.

[BranDonk Kong]

Xbox 360, when running in HD graphically wipes the floor with all of the current systems. If you take for instance a close-up to the main character in Dead Rising or one of the boxers in Fight Night Round 3, there's absolutely nothing on a "current-gen" system that even comes close. The next best looking title is probably Doom 3 or Chronic(wha?)les of Riddick on Xbox, and they aren't even in the same ballpark. Sure it's not like going from N64 to Gamecube or PS2, becuse there was nothing on the N64 or PSX that looked even remotely realistic.

[BranDonk Kong]

I just noticed you mentioned Fight Night for XBox 360 and said nothing makes you say wow, and for that, I call you a liar. The game is absolutely stunning.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Fight Night was a nice looking game, but so were the previous generation versions. When it comes to racing, or sports games it takes alot to make me say "wow" because what they require visually is minimal compared to more complex games.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
Xbox 360, when running in HD graphically wipes the floor with all of the current systems. If you take for instance a close-up to the main character in Dead Rising or one of the boxers in Fight Night Round 3, there's absolutely nothing on a "current-gen" system that even comes close. The next best looking title is probably Doom 3 or Chronic(wha?)les of Riddick on Xbox, and they aren't even in the same ballpark. Sure it's not like going from N64 to Gamecube or PS2, becuse there was nothing on the N64 or PSX that looked even remotely realistic.

Wipes the floor is a bit of an exagerration, yes the visuals may look more detailed close up but that is not what I would call wiping the floor with the last generation of games when you have to look at things closely to see a "big" difference. I've played Dead Rising on HD, and the visuals are nice, but they are not a big leap from previous Xbox games, even Half Life 2 looked great on the original Xbox.  Graphical power is to the point where gameplay is going to have take presidence since graphics are less of an issue now than they were back in the N64/PSX era. Once you get over the shinier bump mapping or trees swaying in the wind (which does not take long. especially if framerate takes a hit) you will be stuck right back where you started, gameplay.

[IceCold]

Quote
Afterall, even though wireless routers have less penetration than HDTVs, wireless connectivity is built-in. Why?

Then someone had better tell Microsoft not to charge $130 CDN just for a WiFi adapter..

[Nephilim]

"Wipes the floor is a bit of an exagerration, yes the visuals may look more detailed close up but that is not what I would call wiping the floor with the last generation of games when you have to look at things closely to see a "big" difference. I've played Dead Rising on HD, and the visuals are nice, but they are not a big leap from previous Xbox games, even Half Life 2 looked great on the original Xbox. Graphical power is to the point where gameplay is going to have take presidence since graphics are less of an issue now than they were back in the N64/PSX era. Once you get over the shinier bump mapping or trees swaying in the wind (which does not take long. especially if framerate takes a hit) you will be stuck right back where you started, gameplay. "

you cant be serious

half-life 2 xbox: http://www.playfeed.com/blogimages/halflife2.jpg
a 5200 (10bucks 2nd hand), from 3years ago has better graphics then that, its a HUGE step
let alone a 360 & Ps3 gpu

[Athrun Zala]

Quote
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
you cant be serious

half-life 2 xbox: http://www.playfeed.com/blogimages/halflife2.jpg
a 5200 (10bucks 2nd hand), from 3years ago has better graphics then that, its a HUGE step
let alone a 360 & Ps3 gpu

YOU can't be serious

the difference isn't all that noticeable (at least to me, I can barely tell the difference)
and the 5200 is utter crap, so that wasn't a good comparsion.....

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Athrun Zala

Quote
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
you cant be serious

half-life 2 xbox: http://www.playfeed.com/blogimages/halflife2.jpg
a 5200 (10bucks 2nd hand), from 3years ago has better graphics then that, its a HUGE step
let alone a 360 & Ps3 gpu

YOU can't be serious

the difference isn't all that noticeable (at least to me, I can barely tell the difference)
and the 5200 is utter crap, so that wasn't a good comparsion.....

Yeah I was going to say the same thing, Half-Life 2 for both Xbox and PC are still good looking games (I really do not like people posting screenshots, especially when they pick some of the worse looking ones!). Like I said before I am not saying PS3 and Xbox 360 aren't better visually, but the gap between them and the current generation isn't what you would call astounding, or even large (at least not yet). To see any significant difference you have focus more on the little details (some of which can only be noticed close up) or added physics here and there (like PGR3's swaying trees, which you don't even notice after a bit). Gameplay probaly matters the most this coming generation than any before it, since developers no longer have the luxury of wowing with graphics as much. Not to mention the extreme costs it now takes to develop those shiny objects people love in a game. At least Microsoft appears to be trying to balance gameplay with visuals, PS3 on the other hand is something we'll have to wait on.

Perhaps I am of the minority, but I really did not purchase a 360 for its great visuals, but instead purchased it for some fun games (Dead Rising is amazing). Believe it or not back when Xbox 360 launched I made multiple posts in the Nintendo forumns DEFENDING Xbox 360 as a true next generation system visually. I realize now that I was pretty much in denial, because there still has yet to be a game I would place a next generation crown on for visuals. The closest game to come to that was Ghost Recon, which I admit is nice looking visually.

Maybe my opinion of visuals is different from others because I have a fairly high end computer (4200+ dual core and a Geforce 7900GTX) and it takes alot to impress me since my PC so far looks better than the 360. The thing is that I can play a GC game, and if the gameplay is solid the visuals are enough to keep me hooked (smooth framerate is a must). When I want to go back and play my Nintendo DS, my GC, PS2 or even Xbox instead of multiple Xbox 360 or PC games, that tells me something that visuals no longer detract from the experience like so many generations before. That is why I think people are overreacting with Wii, it will have more than enough power to put out some good games visually coupled with strong AI or even physics.

This is a bit off subject but what really worries me is the astromical costs (sometimes around 20 million) it is taking to develop alot of these next generation games, which could end up causing some of the smaller companies to go bankrupt..  I'm afraid that if things don't start balancing soon, we could see the gaming industry take a large hit, maybe even go into a recession of sorts.    

[Nephilim]

" I can barely tell the difference" you must be blind

"and the 5200 is utter crap, so that wasn't a good comparsion....."

not at all, im hearing guys saying a 2001 video card is as impressive as a 2006, im saying its not even impressive as a 2003-2004
im sorry u cant notice everything in the game has is half resolution compared to normal pc version & its all jaggied

[Deguello]

Quote
Xbox 360, when running in HD graphically wipes the floor with all of the current systems.

How about when it is NOT running in HD?  What then?  Because that is what it will look like on my TV and 95% of the world's TVs.  If that's what it takes for these games to be considered NEXT GEN, the purchase of a new TV that I do not own, then count me out.  It's not worth that kind of money to get EXTREEEEME Close-ups on character faces.

In fact, I'd like to know.  Could somebody take a commonly thrown about HD shot of a game, De-Widescreen it, and put it in 480p or 480i so I can see what I will be geting for my $400 or $600?

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello

Quote
Xbox 360, when running in HD graphically wipes the floor with all of the current systems.

How about when it is NOT running in HD?  What then?  Because that is what it will look like on my TV and 95% of the world's TVs.  If that's what it takes for these games to be considered NEXT GEN, the purchase of a new TV that I do not own, then count me out.  It's not worth that kind of money to get EXTREEEEME Close-ups on character faces.

In fact, I'd like to know.  Could somebody take a commonly thrown about HD shot of a game, De-Widescreen it, and put it in 480p or 480i so I can see what I will be geting for my $400 or $600?

It is kind of funny but I play most of my Xbox 360 games in 480p due to the small text alot of games have. For my specific HD TV it needs to be in widescreen (it is not a widescreen HD TV) for you to get the full benefits which sucks when you are trying to read something with type that is like size 8 font. Even at that there seems to be an exagerration going on about how huge of a leap HD is from 480p or 480i because it isn't. Yes the visuals are smoother, but as you probaly know from the current generation of systems jaggies have not been a big issue (in fact some games are pretty smooth). Also take into account that most people play the games a fair distance from their TV also lessens the impact HD has. I'm at the point in gaming where I focus more on the framerate than visuals.  

[KDR_11k]

5200? What does Atari have to do with this?

[Athrun Zala]

Quote
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
" I can barely tell the difference" you must be blind

well I don't have 20/20 so it might be that.....yeah......or maybe is that I can't simply tell the difference because it isn't so big......or maybe I don't care, who knows....

Quote
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
"and the 5200 is utter crap, so that wasn't a good comparsion....."

not at all, im hearing guys saying a 2001 video card is as impressive as a 2006, im saying its not even impressive as a 2003-2004
im sorry u cant notice everything in the game has is half resolution compared to normal pc version & its all jaggied

well, the XGPU is based on the GeForce3, which despite not supporting DX9, still wipes the floor with the 5200....

[The Omen]

I don't disagree that the Wii will preform fine graphically, albeit less 'fine' than the two power houses.  However, HD looks a lot better than standard res.  Of course, you could just play the "what I don't know won't hurt me" card that many seem to abide by, and that's okay.  But I for one have a very nice hd tv, and have seen HD programming, and HD games, and they are loads better than their standard counterpart.  Necassary?  No.  But neither was 3d, rumble, cd , dual analogs or shoulder triggers.  We shouldn't slag off HD just because Nintendo chose not to include it.  Just as we shouldn't dismiss the Wii because of it's lack of hd.