Author Topic: XboxOne ~News/Rumor/Speculation~ Biggest Console Released This Gen!!  (Read 637489 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BlackNMild2k1

  • Animal Crossing Hustler
  • Score: 405
    • View Profile
It's just a rumor at this point (AFAIK), but we all know how bad MS(& Sony) are at keeping secrets.... secrets.

http://www.kitguru.net/software/gaming/jules/microsoft-chooses-amd-fusion-ii-for-xbox-720/
Quote
Microsoft chooses AMD Fusion II for XBox 720

OK, the chances of the next XBox being called 720 are 50:50 at best but, for now, at least you all know what we’re talking about. While the name and final design for the box and packaging might still be up in the air, the internals appear to have been locked down. KitGuru investigates.
[...]
Initial AMD Fusion designs will work, but the full potential won’t be realised until the end of next year. Based on comments by people like Chekib Akrout, of all the likely designs to be targeted at the XBox 720 product, we think there’s a good chance that it will be the AMD Krishna product. This will be produced on Global Foundries’ 28nm ‘high-k gate first’ process (originally introduced in 2007 by co-inventors IBM, Toshiba and, ironically, Sony). The only real technical challenge for the first XBox 360 consoles was heat/noise, for which the AMD Krishna product could be the answer.

If it is AMD’s Krishna product, then that brings another tantalising possibility to the table. More on that later.

Given how slowly things move in the world of console gaming, we’d expect a new XBox 720 product (assuming no major issues with Global Foundries) to be launched in 2012.

So what do all of think?
Too soon for 2012 or is 2 years enough for Kinect assuming it even last that long?

« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 10:12:22 AM by BlackNMild2k1 »

Offline Adrock

  • Still likes posting on NWR *sees tumbleweed*
  • Score: 123
    • View Profile
Kinect is apparently doing pretty well. I'm still not convinced it'll be more than a novelty. I do expect 2012 to be when both Microsoft and Sony launch new consoles.

A quick Google search shows AMD rolling out the Fusion series next year with newer models coming in 2012 so I suppose this is a possibility. The rumor just seems a little over-reaching. Would something like this really leak 2 years before Microsoft plans on launching their next console? Doubt it.

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
I think the long-term viability of Kinect depends on the games that come out for it and so far it looks like third parties are doing the same **** they did on the Wii so MS has to offer a lot if they want to keep Kinect going.

Offline MaryJane

  • Ain't got nothing on Felica Hardy
  • Score: -13
    • View Profile
I really don't think how long the Kinect has been on the market will affect anything, especially if the NeXBoX is compatible or more likely integrated with a Kinect.

Also, the Kinect has sold well, and beyond that, is an evolution in not only gaming, but also in computer interfacing. The next version (or even next major update) of Windows will likely include some sort of Kinect support, and that is where Kinect's real potential lies. Google Kinect hacks if you don't believe me. There are amateurs doing some really cool things with the device, including controlling a computer.

As for the NeXBoX launching in 2012, that seems reasonable since the 360 was first to launch this gen. I imagine it will be even more PC-like with a full Windows OS, cloud-based gaming/saves/other services and have full 3D games that cost $80.
Silly monkeys; give them thumbs they make a club and beat their brother down. How they survive so misguided is a mystery. Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability to lift an a eye to heaven conscious of his fleeting time here.

Offline ymeegod

  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
$80 games :(  I really doubt this, it will kill the demand if pricing gets that crazy.  Yeah, games in other countries sell for that amount but it would pretty much kill the US market.  Publishers will more likely keep prices down but release "collector's edition and DLC" to make up the difference.

I don't think MS will launch in 2012.  Yes there's enough hardware available to make a more powerful system but can MS assemble it together for a price people can afford?  $400 should be the base price for next generation of consoles, if they market it over that, you'll end up like Sony PS3 early years.

Offline TJ Spyke

  • Ass
  • Score: -1350
    • View Profile
    • Spyke Shop
Game publishers have started saying that $60 is too much to charge and is just hurting game sales (I know I hate them, I have only bought 2 games for that price and one wasn't worth it). $80 would guarantee that game sales would sharply drop.

I do not want cloud-based services to be the standard. Make it an option, but do NOT have it be the only choice. What happens if my Internet service goes down? I would be screwed and not able to access my saves and other stuff.

I could see the Xbox 3 coming out in 2012, although they may want to hold out and wait until the PlayStation 4 is announced.
Help out a poor college student, buy video games and Blu-ray Discs at: http://astore.amazon.com/spyke-20

Offline BlackNMild2k1

  • Animal Crossing Hustler
  • Score: 405
    • View Profile
I really don't think how long the Kinect has been on the market will affect anything, especially if the NeXBoX is compatible or more likely integrated with a Kinect.

Also, the Kinect has sold well, and beyond that, is an evolution in not only gaming, but also in computer interfacing. The next version (or even next major update) of Windows will likely include some sort of Kinect support, and that is where Kinect's real potential lies. Google Kinect hacks if you don't believe me. There are amateurs doing some really cool things with the device, including controlling a computer.

As for the NeXBoX launching in 2012, that seems reasonable since the 360 was first to launch this gen. I imagine it will be even more PC-like with a full Windows OS, cloud-based gaming/saves/other services and have full 3D games that cost $80.

Forward Compatibility might be a major reason that MS kept the processor inside of Kinect since if Kinect was dependent on the 3core PowerPC architecture that the 360 uses, then switching to whatever the AMD Fusion II is (x86?) might mess that up. Especially if they manage to emulate BC since that would use up almost every ounce of power the processor has, leaving nothing to process Kinect with..

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: -50
    • View Profile
If MS releases this in 2012, what does Nintendo do?  Couldn't you just imagine Nintendo releasing something about on par with the Xbox 360 in 2011 only to get leapfrogged but the Xbox 720 in 2012?  And then it's the same thing with Nintendo a generation behind getting nothing from third parties.  I've realized I don't want Sony or MS to go next gen any time soon because I do not trust Nintendo to keep up.  Nintendo needs two generations in the same span that the competition has one.

But what do they do with the Xbox 720?  Where do you go from here?  We're online, we're in HD, we've got motion control.  How do you top today's graphics and still release a game that can make a profit?  If you don't provide a noticable jump, why would anyone want to upgrade?  Now I know that graphics can be better but how do make a real product with something photo realistic?  We're not even at a point where we have a bunch of games that can't be done on current hardware.  In the past there was always arcade or PC games that the consoles couldn't do that gave us an idea of what the next gen would be like.  Arcades are dead and most PC games are console multiplatform releases anyway.  Consoles are now cutting edge.  There is no future standard we can point to.

This current gen the consoles were too expensive to start with (especially the PS3) and devs are having problems with games having huge budgets and not making a profit.  You go further with that and things will get worse.  You can't charge $80.  No one will buy your game.  You can't nickle and dime us on microtransactions or multiplayer licences.  This is the perfect time to just let things ride as they are.  The PS3 is affordable, devs have gotten used to making HD games.  We cannot afford another jump.

Plus I honestly think that we're at the natural plateau of obvious videogame hardware enhancements.  Our graphics are at a point where things look like they should.  We don't see a bunch of pixelization.  We don't have art in the manual that look way better than the in-game graphics.  We don't have blocky polygons.  It's smooth and it looks great.  The limitation is now in the art design.  The sound is great.  We can have big open areas and lots of characters on screen at once.  We've got hard drives.  We've got online working like one would expect.  We've got downloadable games and DLC.

I think the sheer fact that companies are coming up with motion control or 3D visuals as the justification for new hardware shows how we have peaked.  Those are forced gimmicks.  They're desperate attempts to come up with new hardware because no natural or obvious progression exists.  When you have to come up with some creative outside-the-box idea to be the selling feature of your new hardware, it's over.  We've plateaued.

I fear that the future is either a gimmicks arms race where everyone comes up with silly kooky ideas that interest casuals but lack substance or companies try to push the "more power" idea even further and price their hardware and games out of the market.  Nintendo needs to support modern TVs and have a non-retarded online model and some decent storage space but then we're set.  We don't need to go any further for a long time and Sony and MS have good standards going.  There is always doomsday predictions about another crash but I think the key to that is going for another gen when it is not needed - regardless of whether the justification is lame gimmicks or hardware power overkill.  Any crash will be caused by console makers trying to force products no one wants down our throats.

There is one place where I think things can go further and that is in portables.  I think the logical progression is that eventually portables and consoles are one in the same.  The console technology becomes cheap and small enough to become portable.  It doesn't mean that we only have portables, there is a desire to have your console hook up to your TV and play in your living room.  No, I just see that both consoles and portables co-exist but play the exact same games.  The portable is really just a portable version of the console which has the controller, speakers and screen built in and you, the consumer, get the model that better suits you.

Offline BlackNMild2k1

  • Animal Crossing Hustler
  • Score: 405
    • View Profile
Quote from: Ian Sane
We're not even at a point where we have a bunch of games that can't be done on current hardware.  In the past there was always arcade or PC games that the consoles couldn't do that gave us an idea of what the next gen would be like.  Arcades are dead and most PC games are console multiplatform releases anyway.  Consoles are now cutting edge.  There is no future standard we can point to.

That just isn't true. PC games can be far ahead of anything that the consoles are doing, but the real money is in console gaming so most PC projects are scaled to fit the Consoles and not tailored for High End PC's.

Crysis 2 probably won't be the benchmark for Highest of the High End PC like Crysis had been for years after it's release since it's being developed with PS360 in mind.

PC 'a generation ahead' of PS3 and 360, but being held back - Crytek
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=277729
Quote from: Crytek
"As long as the current console generation exists and as long as we keep pushing the PC as well, the more difficult it will be to really get the benefit of both," Yerli told the latest issue of Edge.

"PC is easily a generation ahead right now. With 360 and PS3, we believe the quality of the games beyond Crysis 2 and other CryEngine developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expressions is, what the content is. You won't be able to squeeze more juice from these rocks."

"I generally think it's still developers' mentality [that is to blame]," he added. "A lot nowadays don't consider PC a big issue any more; their [sales] expectations are nowhere near what they are for the console versions. Until the PC market creates comparable revenues, companies are not going to spend enough on the PC SKU of a game."

Offline Morari

  • 46 DC EA D3 17 FE 45 D8 09 23 EB 97 E4 95 64 10 D4 CD B2 C2
  • Score: -7237
    • View Profile
Shouldn't be be getting new consoles about RIGHT NOW? I mean, these things we have in the store currently are ancient. They're holding games back! :P
"This post has been censored for your protection."

                                --Bureau of Internet Morality

Offline BranDonk Kong

  • Eat your f'ing cat!
  • Score: 10131
    • View Profile
I *highly* doubt they would ever call it Xbox 720 - if *anything*, I think they would go with Xbox 1080, for obvious reasons.

Offline Chozo Ghost

  • I do want the Wii U to fail.
  • Score: -431
    • View Profile
They can call it "Xbox 720", "Xbox 1080", "Xbox 3", or even "Xbox Sally" for all I care. But whatever they call it, if they're going to continue the Xbox family tradition of charging people to play online then I'm not interested. Period.
is your sanity...

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: -50
    • View Profile
Quote
That just isn't true. PC games can be far ahead of anything that the consoles are doing, but the real money is in console gaming so most PC projects are scaled to fit the Consoles and not tailored for High End PC's.

I guess the question is why is PC gaming not as big as it once was.  Maybe it's because of the focus on consoles so the PC has less exclusives.  But I think a big part of it is because for most people the improvement isn't so obvious.  In the past you saw a game like Doom and you compared it to the SNES and it was damn obvious that the PC was way ahead.
 
But now?  Crysis may not be capable of being ported to the Xbox 360 but it doesn't really look it in screenshots.  It's not WAY better like we had before.  In the past a new console generation was such an obvious leap that one could immediately identify the generation the game was from.  I think the PC market has shrunk because only a small portion of diehards now notice the difference.  Diehards are all interested in poly counts and shading and lighting and framerates.  For most of the world this is just a little bit of polish at best.  What you need are graphics that make the current graphics look ugly and dated.  A new console will be a hard sell if it just makes today's games look slightly less good.
 
And then the alternative is to go with the Wii approach where you have some nifty feature the old system didn't have.  I think Kinect and Move have killed the ability to offer that.  If they were just peripherals why can't Feature X just be the same thing?  Yeah, there may be a good technical reason why and we all know that peripherals don't have the market penetration that a standard feature has.  But most of the world doesn't know that.  If MS releases an Xbox 720 and the graphics are just a little bit better and it has a slightly more responsive Kinect included with it I don't think it will appear to be significant enough to come across as a legitimate upgrade.  It might be a big boost from a technophile's point of view but might still look rinky dink to everyone else.

Offline MaryJane

  • Ain't got nothing on Felica Hardy
  • Score: -13
    • View Profile

I was just joking about $80 games, it was a stretch to go to $60, and I imagine they'll stay at that price for awhile.

But what if the NeXBox only slightly bumps its graphical capabilities, while offering more functionality? Instead of trying to double or triple the graphical power, they offer more reasons to buy an Xbox system?

Giving it a Blu-Ray player, a more capable 3D GPU, and basically making it a PC that connects to a T.V is a good place to start. They could even make PC games and Xbox games one and the same. If developers are focusing more on consoles, but like the freedom of PC, why not make them one system, and who better to do it than the company who makes Windows, the most developed for PC OS. Part of the PC's appeal is to push the graphics, but that is dying out as mentioned by others, and they could make games with the NeXBoX in mind and have its specs as the minimum requirement for their games.

Beyond that, what if MS can bring WoW other MMORPG's, and other PC games together with XBL, and other web services (Facebook, Twitter, other popular Internet TV apps)? Developers could make one game and along with having it playable on two systems, have Facebook and Twitter leader boards? This could even be good for 'casual' games made for Kinect, along with browser based games, and Facebook games. What if MS can join all types of PC gaming together with Xbox gaming? And do it because the next system is powerful enough to do it all.

They could include a wireless mouse and keyboard in the console package alongside their normal controller, and even do like Nintendo does, when showing what controller set-up the person who keeps winning is using to beat you. I know hardcore PC gamers don't like wireless equipment because of ping times, but they're getting better, and would satisfy most people.

MS could also throw full Kinect support for controlling 'smart' appliances around the home (thermostat, coffee maker etc.), syncing with Ford Sync cars, their Hohm energy saving software (it's for your entire home), and other things making the system even more attractive. MS is in heavy talks to bring subscription T.V in through the Xbox console itself, and if they can get a deal done in two years time, the NeXBoX could be the one box to rule them all.
Silly monkeys; give them thumbs they make a club and beat their brother down. How they survive so misguided is a mystery. Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability to lift an a eye to heaven conscious of his fleeting time here.

Offline Morari

  • 46 DC EA D3 17 FE 45 D8 09 23 EB 97 E4 95 64 10 D4 CD B2 C2
  • Score: -7237
    • View Profile
Part of the PC's appeal is to push the graphics, but that is dying out [...]

The difference in graphics is has only become less noticeable because developers cater to the lowest common denominator; consoles.

That's not the main appeal of PC gaming though. The main appeal is freedom. I can make the game look how I want through tweaking the settings or installing custom texture packs and player models. I can adjust every single little nuanced way my controls handle and use any input device I want (including the Wiimote!). I can prolong the life of a game by years with the help of a healthy modding community, and don't have to pay to download simple map packs. That's the appeal, and always has been. PC gaming is limitless.

I've traditionally owned Sega and, to a lesser extend, Nintendo consoles because they've always had self-produced titles that couldn't be found elsewhere. Good titles that play to the strengths of the their systems. That's not the case with Sony or Microsoft however. They have very little to offer in exchange for the locked down environment they sell. Microsoft has already tried to merge PC gaming into their Xbox fold. Games for Windows Live failed miserably because the PC crowd is more intelligent than that. We don't need to pay for online services... and we certainly don't need the weakened challenge of playing against people with gamepads. :P

PC gaming is doing just fine. Much better than consoles, in fact. You forget that digital distribution isn't included in sales charts. No one takes into account all of those silly flash games either... everything from Bejeweled to Farmville. Everyone owns a computer, and everyone plays games on it to some extent. Why spend hundreds of dollars on an outdated console, that will only play the games that the companies ALLOW you to play, when you could take that money and buy a computer... which will play any game you want, and do thousands of things more? The choice has never been difficult, it's just not marketed well.
"This post has been censored for your protection."

                                --Bureau of Internet Morality

Offline MaryJane

  • Ain't got nothing on Felica Hardy
  • Score: -13
    • View Profile
Um.... I said 'part' of the appeal is in the graphics in what you quoted, and earlier I mentioned developers wanting the 'freedom' of developing on the PC which you elaborated on, and then I made the case for MS making a console that not only allowed you to play their games, but all kinds of PC games as well; flash and otherwise.
Silly monkeys; give them thumbs they make a club and beat their brother down. How they survive so misguided is a mystery. Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability to lift an a eye to heaven conscious of his fleeting time here.

Offline Dirk Temporo

  • Score: -1
    • View Profile
Crysis may not be capable of being ported to the Xbox 360 but it doesn't really look it in screenshots.  It's not WAY better like we had before

You're blind.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5579/crysis2007102923551468lo2.jpg

Consoles could barely render anything in this screenshot individually, never mind at the same time. You only get levels like that in completely linear games, and even then you don't have as much stuff in the area, which is why Red Dead Redemption worked on consoles, but a game like Crysis never will. It's also why Crysis 2 is set in a city and not in the jungle.

And that's not even as good as you can MAKE it look through some simple .cfg editing and mods.
"You've had your dream old man. It's time to wake up!"
-Travis Touchdown

Offline Morari

  • 46 DC EA D3 17 FE 45 D8 09 23 EB 97 E4 95 64 10 D4 CD B2 C2
  • Score: -7237
    • View Profile
Um.... I said 'part' of the appeal is in the graphics in what you quoted, and earlier I mentioned developers wanting the 'freedom' of developing on the PC which you elaborated on, and then I made the case for MS making a console that not only allowed you to play their games, but all kinds of PC games as well; flash and otherwise.

I'm aware of that. That's why I only quoted the individual statement. What is sounds like to me however, is that you're advocating an Xbox that simply has a few more features, not a PC with silly social plugins.

Actually, I wish Microsoft weren't so stupid. The basic of idea of something like Games for Windows (not Games for Windows LIVE) could really work. A unified friends list and basic, clearly stated system requirements (like yours Windows Rating) would do a lot to help your average frat-boy migrate away from their console. Of course, do we really want that? I remember ten years ago, you couldn't go anywhere online without hearing about the new mod or map for Quake 3. Nowadays, you're lucky if the developers even give you moderate access tot he SDK, let alone find anyone interested in seriously pursuing the hobby. :(
"This post has been censored for your protection."

                                --Bureau of Internet Morality

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: -50
    • View Profile
Dirk, in the screenshot I see a bunch of jaggy looking trees.  Now it's a lot of trees and I know that amount of stuff requires some beefy hardware but I'm honestly not very impressed with that screenshot.  It looks nice and all but it isn't like when you compare an N64 game to a Gamecube game or an NES game to a Super Nintendo game.  The improvement is subtle.

If MS tried to sell us a brand new console with those graphics being the big hook it would be a hard sell.  Most of the world would not give a **** or even notice the difference.  That's the point.  It has to be night-and-day "HOLY **** LOOK AT THIS" stuff to be seen as a real update.  I honestly think we're at a point where to truly impress the average Joe with graphics it would have to look like Gollum in Lord of the Rings.

Offline MaryJane

  • Ain't got nothing on Felica Hardy
  • Score: -13
    • View Profile
@Morari

So basically, even though you knew it wasn't my argument, you had an agenda and used an irrelevant part of what I said to push it.

Also, I pretty plainly said in the post you quoted last, that I was saying MS should make an open console for their NeXBoX, whose additional features include silly social applications, along with all other types of games you can play on the PC simply because it connects to the internet.

@Ian

The jump between Xbox(1) and 360 wasn't that great. But what it did do was allow for smoother polygons, larger worlds, more interaction, and more things actively happening on screen. Having played Crysis on a laptop that could handle Far Cry 2, it slowed down to the point where I could no longer play it on the very first explosion because of how detailed and realistic it was, and I doubt any concole could have replicated the detail and size of that explosion. From a developers stand point graphical power is about a lot more than pretty pictures, it is the limit to what they can accomplish for the game overall.
Silly monkeys; give them thumbs they make a club and beat their brother down. How they survive so misguided is a mystery. Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability to lift an a eye to heaven conscious of his fleeting time here.

Offline BranDonk Kong

  • Eat your f'ing cat!
  • Score: 10131
    • View Profile
The jump between XBox and 360 is huge. It's not just about graphics, it's about what the systems are capable of. Xbox - 733Mhz Intel Celeron processor, Xbox 360 - triple core 3.2Ghz IBM PowerPC processor.

Offline MaryJane

  • Ain't got nothing on Felica Hardy
  • Score: -13
    • View Profile
It's not just about graphics, it's about what the systems are capable of.


From a developers stand point graphical power is about a lot more than pretty pictures, it is the limit to what they can accomplish for the game overall.


I suppose I should have said the jump between Xboxes wasn't visually that great, but I thought the rest of my post explained that...
Silly monkeys; give them thumbs they make a club and beat their brother down. How they survive so misguided is a mystery. Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability to lift an a eye to heaven conscious of his fleeting time here.

Offline SixthAngel

  • Score: 18
    • View Profile
Ian is right, the difference in graphics has become less noticable.  There is a difference but its just not as big as it used to be.  I don't know how you guys can even argue this since part of the basis of the Wii was the diminishing returns from improved power and they have been proven right.

If MS releases this in 2012, what does Nintendo do?  Couldn't you just imagine Nintendo releasing something about on par with the Xbox 360 in 2011 only to get leapfrogged but the Xbox 720 in 2012?  And then it's the same thing with Nintendo a generation behind getting nothing from third parties.  I've realized I don't want Sony or MS to go next gen any time soon because I do not trust Nintendo to keep up.  Nintendo needs two generations in the same span that the competition has one.

This current gen the consoles were too expensive to start with (especially the PS3) and devs are having problems with games having huge budgets and not making a profit.  You go further with that and things will get worse.

You basically answer your own question.  Nintendo will watch the opposition burn to the ground and then build something affordable on their ashes.

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: -50
    • View Profile
Quote
The jump between Xbox(1) and 360 wasn't that great. But what it did do was allow for smoother polygons, larger worlds, more interaction, and more things actively happening on screen. Having played Crysis on a laptop that could handle Far Cry 2, it slowed down to the point where I could no longer play it on the very first explosion because of how detailed and realistic it was, and I doubt any concole could have replicated the detail and size of that explosion. From a developers stand point graphical power is about a lot more than pretty pictures, it is the limit to what they can accomplish for the game overall.

I am aware of that.  Actually I used such arguments back when the Wii was launched and there was a lot of discussion about the Wii hardware and whether or not it should have been more powerful.  Just the sheer fact that that discussion even existed last gen suggests that most people would not notice a jump to the Xbox 720.  When this gen started the busy topics were that the Xbox 360 and PS3 didn't really offer anything their predecessors couldn't do and that the Wii, despite being a glorified repackaged Gamecube, was a real step up because it offered a new controller.  When the hell did this sort of attitude every exist in videogame history prior to that?  With NES->SNES->N64->Gamecube no sane or intelligent person ever suggested that it wasn't a real step up or that they could not tell the difference.  But it was common at the start of this gen, REALLY common.
 
It's never been about you or me noticing the difference, it's about the general public and this gen the general public bought the refurbished Gamecube.  And even though I can see the obvious difference in hardware, the PS3 doesn't feel that much different to me.  It doesn't stand out like the previous generations did.  I like the PS3 because it has good games developed for it and the games look nice.  But other than that the beefed up hardware isn't improving games in that big of a way (and neither is motion control).  I mean it IS an improvement but not like the big jump we had in previous generations.  It's been very incremental and that makes it a hard sell.  I can think of ideas that would require some really impressive hardware, but those ideas are so ambitious that they also require huge budgets and development time.  Such games cannot be common.  The market just isn't there.
 
This gen was a hard sell, next gen will be even harder.  It's really just that simple.

Offline Morari

  • 46 DC EA D3 17 FE 45 D8 09 23 EB 97 E4 95 64 10 D4 CD B2 C2
  • Score: -7237
    • View Profile
I think that this generation of consoles is noticeably better than last though, even to the general public. It may not obviously be the case with the Gamecube/Wii, but it is with the Xbox/360 and especially the decrepit PS2 and its shiny new PS3 equivalent. Furthermore, I can show you plenty of PC games that are noticeably better than consoles currently are.

I think that a lot of the problem has more to do with art direction than anything. Every game that comes out is striving for the same bland realistic look... that doesn't help people to differentiate them at all. I don't think that this hardware plateau is necessarily at a standstill yet. Consoles have always held on until their graphics simply could not make due any longer. The problem however is that the Wii is already there. Too often I find myself staring at a Wii game and thinking that the GameCube looked better in a lot of ways. If Nintendo wants to continue to create this soft, round, cartoony graphics, then they really need to work on their anti-aliasing and get rid of the jaggies that absolutely plague even flagship titles like Super Mairo Galaxy.

The best graphical improvements aren't always noticeable, after all. ;)
"This post has been censored for your protection."

                                --Bureau of Internet Morality