The real irony here is that with the floating point ridiculousness the PS3 claims to offer, the engine renders are problably as good as any cutscene short of the highest-budget production.
I somehow doubt that it will be delivered to us as it is marketed/promised. As I recall, this type of stuff was promised to us last console generation, though not at 1080p.
If the XBox360 were truely as fucked as you want us to believe, then there wouldn't be people that have XBox360's that are working without problems.[/B]
These units have a pathetic >90< day warrantee. I would say that the ones which received DOA models are the lucky ones.
You're never going to see a release title the is able to leverage the full power of a gaming console. Give it 1-1.5 years before games start to utilize all of the power that the XBox360. [/B]
I'm not asking for launch titles to take full advantage of the console. I'm asking that games launched with a "Next Generation" to look better than games currently available on the GameCube. That is not the case with the majority of titles launched with the 360.
Again, what is the point of the advantage of first to market, if you are just going to deliver a sub-par playing experience?
The real irony here is that with the floating point ridiculousness the PS3 claims to offer, the engine renders are problably as good as any cutscene short of the highest-budget production.
Well, there are the specialized things. Complex models like moving water, explosions and collapsing buildings can still look somewhat better in a video. The physics could be pre-calculated, and the zillion polygons left for the game engine to render, but most game engines are specialized for certain assumptions and just aren't going to be very good at this job. It's easier and cleaner just to render the video, keeping the "normal" elements of the picture consistent with the game's looks to preserve immersion (don't shift from a cartoon cell-animated game to a real video in cutscene ) and using the added power mostly for the special effects.
It's true that this material will in all likelyhood fill only a minuscule part of a next-generation optical disk even on the games that use out-of-engine cutscenes, and dual layer DVD would suffice for the games.
These units have a pathetic >90< day warrantee. I would say that the ones which received DOA models are the lucky ones.
Not much consumer electronics comes with more than a 90 day warranty anymore, unfortunately. Hopefully the Playstation 3 and the Nintendo Revolution end up with 1 year warranties. Though if you bought your XBox360 from Best Buy, Circuit City, or whatever other consumer electronic stores are selling them, I'm sure they would be more than willing to sell you their store insurance policy. Sure it's extra money, but if you are worried that your system may fail after the manufacturer's warranty, then it could be worth the investment.
It's a vicious circle. Take Tiger for example. I was pretty surprised how flaky the 10.4.0 release was. But on the other hand, people where putting of buying Apple hardware, because they wanted Tiger pre-installed. What options does Apple have?
I'm not asking for launch titles to take full advantage of the console. I'm asking that games launched with a "Next Generation" to look better than games currently available on the GameCube. That is not the case with the majority of titles launched with the 360.
Again, what is the point of the advantage of first to market, if you are just going to deliver a sub-par playing experience?
They are hoping to lure in the early adopters, basically. With the price of the console and the lack of a good supply right now, the XBox360 isn't going to be bought by a lot of parents. My parents never would have bought a game console that was that expensive (just for the console, not even for the games) for me for Christmas (I grew up in the NES/SNES era and had to buy my own N64 in highschool because my parents wouldn't buy me a new console as a gift). It will mostly be early adopters/older gamers that will be buying this. Microsoft wants to get sizable user-base before the Playstation 3 comes out. That's it, plain and simple. If the console is too buggy and the games are lackluster, this strategy might be doomed to failure (doesn't mean that the console will fail as long as they fix things before the Playstation 3 release, though their image might be stained by it).
It's true that this material will in all likelyhood fill only a minuscule part of a next-generation optical disk even on the games that use out-of-engine cutscenes, and dual layer DVD would suffice for the games.
If the game designer isn't going to use the in-game engine to render the cutscenes, then the 1080i video that they will need could fill up more then a DVD9 can hold. Granted, this probably won't be a large amount of games. It's not like Sly Cooper or Jak & Daxter are cutting edge graphically. The first Sly Cooper game was around 1GB maybe. But these aren't the type of games being talked about. It'll mostly be Japanese RPGs that make heavy use of cutscenes. And those Japanese RPGs can have hours of cutscenes. There is also the story-driven 3D action game that emerged in the last console round. Games like Metal Gear Solid (though, the first was on PSX), and Devil May Cry. I only played the first Devil May Cry game, but the cutscenes there weren't in-game. (Though, IIRC, Metal Gear Solid games use in-game rendered cutscenes)
We can debate this point back and forth, I'm afraid. It's really up to the game developers and how they make their decisions in the end.
Digital vs Analog won't be that much different. It has to do with the underlying technology. Digital just makes it so that the signal through the wire is less affected by interference. You can have full HD video through analog, but the content companies can't add a 'broadcast flag' or other DRM to that. I seriously don't think that digital vs analog will be the defining argument in the XBox360 vs PS3 debate.
Then how do you explain the *huge* difference in analog and digital video quality wrt computers and computer monitors?
Cable interference is not the issue. The issue is D/A conversion in the source unit, and then A/D conversion inside the LCD monitor. If you have any kind of TV other than CRT, digital video will make a huge quality difference.
Then how do you explain the *huge* difference in analog and digital video quality wrt computers and computer monitors?
Cable interference is not the issue. The issue is D/A conversion in the source unit, and then A/D conversion inside the LCD monitor. If you have any kind of TV other than CRT, digital video will make a huge quality difference.
I never noticed a huge difference in quality on my Dell 2005FPW when switching between SUB-D and DVI-D to my PC. I've never done a side-by-side comparison, but when I've used one or the other I've never said, "Whoa! I know Kung Fu!"
I'm not asking for launch titles to take full advantage of the console. I'm asking that games launched with a "Next Generation" to look better than games currently available on the GameCube. That is not the case with the majority of titles launched with the 360.
Again, what is the point of the advantage of first to market, if you are just going to deliver a sub-par playing experience?
i dont know what you are talking about. do you own an xbox 360?
have you played the new madden? have you played Condemned?
those games look really damn good to me.
gamecube? are you serious? have you played project gotham ? lol
my god man.
i know launch titles are usually not the greatest but geesh what do you want? a pixar film?
I never noticed a huge difference in quality on my Dell 2005FPW when switching between SUB-D and DVI-D to my PC. I've never done a side-by-side comparison, but when I've used one or the other I've never said, "Whoa! I know Kung Fu!"
What is sub-d? Is it the same as vga?
Anyway, with a mac mini and a Dell 24" LCD monitor, the difference is very large.
I have. Of course, my only contribution to the thread was to ask a couple of questions and say I'm too cheap to get a 360 so you probably weren't talking to me.
Anyway, with a mac mini and a Dell 24" LCD monitor, the difference is very large.
Yea. When you are switching video inputs, SUB-D is displayed on the screen when you switch to the VGA adapter (DVI-D when you switch to DVI, etc). I'm sure that it's probably closer to the technical term for it, because I have heard VGA referred to as subd on at least one other occasion. I would assume it's the same on your 24" Dell as well.
The topic of the post was 'XBox 360: Who's getting one?' but (as usual) it's all slid downhill into 'You idiot ? my daddy's tougher than your daddy'.
I'd like to think that my posts, at least, haven't come off that way. I'm in no way a fan-boy of any of the consoles, though I'll probably at least end up with a Revolution for the Nintendo 1st party titles. It's unfortunate that people tend to think that a discussion on game consoles means it's time to play "King of the Hill" and try to out-do the 'next guy' to prove that their console of choice is the best.
I agree that this has gone off-topic, but I don't think that a conversation on consoles is a bad thing, as long as people can behave themselves. There has been some very rational discourse here about the consoles that has been off-topic, but it's the people that insist that this thread is somehow a descendent of The Highlander and "There can be only one" that ruin it.
I really think the console wars amounts to comparing apples to oranges. The XBox 360 and PS3 are similar, yes, but each has their own features.
Let's consider them both like SUVs. Both do about the same stuff, but one may have other features than the other. Personal taste is what it comes down to. If you want dual 1080p screens, go PS3. If you want a tightly integrated online experience, go 360.
The Nintendo line of products seems to be more of the tiny sports car of gaming consoles. They don't necessarily go for the brute force and/or horsepower, but instead give you a more "fun" experience. Halo is great on XBox, but MarioKart is also great on Game Cube.
I couldn't see Halo on Game Cube or MarioKart on XBox. It doesn't fit each console's "M.O." If you want realistic gaming with great graphics and realistic environments, get an XBox or Playstation. If you want a more "cartoony" game that's just fun, yet not at all realistic, get a Nintendo.
Comments
Originally posted by Splinemodel
The real irony here is that with the floating point ridiculousness the PS3 claims to offer, the engine renders are problably as good as any cutscene short of the highest-budget production.
I somehow doubt that it will be delivered to us as it is marketed/promised. As I recall, this type of stuff was promised to us last console generation, though not at 1080p.
Originally posted by pyr3
If the XBox360 were truely as fucked as you want us to believe, then there wouldn't be people that have XBox360's that are working without problems.[/B]
These units have a pathetic >90< day warrantee. I would say that the ones which received DOA models are the lucky ones.
Originally posted by pyr3
You're never going to see a release title the is able to leverage the full power of a gaming console. Give it 1-1.5 years before games start to utilize all of the power that the XBox360. [/B]
I'm not asking for launch titles to take full advantage of the console. I'm asking that games launched with a "Next Generation" to look better than games currently available on the GameCube. That is not the case with the majority of titles launched with the 360.
Again, what is the point of the advantage of first to market, if you are just going to deliver a sub-par playing experience?
Originally posted by Splinemodel
The real irony here is that with the floating point ridiculousness the PS3 claims to offer, the engine renders are problably as good as any cutscene short of the highest-budget production.
Well, there are the specialized things. Complex models like moving water, explosions and collapsing buildings can still look somewhat better in a video. The physics could be pre-calculated, and the zillion polygons left for the game engine to render, but most game engines are specialized for certain assumptions and just aren't going to be very good at this job. It's easier and cleaner just to render the video, keeping the "normal" elements of the picture consistent with the game's looks to preserve immersion (don't shift from a cartoon cell-animated game to a real video in cutscene
It's true that this material will in all likelyhood fill only a minuscule part of a next-generation optical disk even on the games that use out-of-engine cutscenes, and dual layer DVD would suffice for the games.
Originally posted by the cool gut
These units have a pathetic >90< day warrantee. I would say that the ones which received DOA models are the lucky ones.
Not much consumer electronics comes with more than a 90 day warranty anymore, unfortunately. Hopefully the Playstation 3 and the Nintendo Revolution end up with 1 year warranties. Though if you bought your XBox360 from Best Buy, Circuit City, or whatever other consumer electronic stores are selling them, I'm sure they would be more than willing to sell you their store insurance policy. Sure it's extra money, but if you are worried that your system may fail after the manufacturer's warranty, then it could be worth the investment.
Originally posted by the cool gut
I'm not asking for launch titles to take full advantage of the console. I'm asking that games launched with a "Next Generation" to look better than games currently available on the GameCube. That is not the case with the majority of titles launched with the 360.
Again, what is the point of the advantage of first to market, if you are just going to deliver a sub-par playing experience?
They are hoping to lure in the early adopters, basically. With the price of the console and the lack of a good supply right now, the XBox360 isn't going to be bought by a lot of parents. My parents never would have bought a game console that was that expensive (just for the console, not even for the games) for me for Christmas (I grew up in the NES/SNES era and had to buy my own N64 in highschool because my parents wouldn't buy me a new console as a gift). It will mostly be early adopters/older gamers that will be buying this. Microsoft wants to get sizable user-base before the Playstation 3 comes out. That's it, plain and simple. If the console is too buggy and the games are lackluster, this strategy might be doomed to failure (doesn't mean that the console will fail as long as they fix things before the Playstation 3 release, though their image might be stained by it).
Originally posted by Gon
It's true that this material will in all likelyhood fill only a minuscule part of a next-generation optical disk even on the games that use out-of-engine cutscenes, and dual layer DVD would suffice for the games.
If the game designer isn't going to use the in-game engine to render the cutscenes, then the 1080i video that they will need could fill up more then a DVD9 can hold. Granted, this probably won't be a large amount of games. It's not like Sly Cooper or Jak & Daxter are cutting edge graphically. The first Sly Cooper game was around 1GB maybe. But these aren't the type of games being talked about. It'll mostly be Japanese RPGs that make heavy use of cutscenes. And those Japanese RPGs can have hours of cutscenes. There is also the story-driven 3D action game that emerged in the last console round. Games like Metal Gear Solid (though, the first was on PSX), and Devil May Cry. I only played the first Devil May Cry game, but the cutscenes there weren't in-game. (Though, IIRC, Metal Gear Solid games use in-game rendered cutscenes)
We can debate this point back and forth, I'm afraid. It's really up to the game developers and how they make their decisions in the end.
Originally posted by pyr3
Digital vs Analog won't be that much different. It has to do with the underlying technology. Digital just makes it so that the signal through the wire is less affected by interference. You can have full HD video through analog, but the content companies can't add a 'broadcast flag' or other DRM to that. I seriously don't think that digital vs analog will be the defining argument in the XBox360 vs PS3 debate.
Then how do you explain the *huge* difference in analog and digital video quality wrt computers and computer monitors?
Cable interference is not the issue. The issue is D/A conversion in the source unit, and then A/D conversion inside the LCD monitor. If you have any kind of TV other than CRT, digital video will make a huge quality difference.
Originally posted by e1618978
Then how do you explain the *huge* difference in analog and digital video quality wrt computers and computer monitors?
Cable interference is not the issue. The issue is D/A conversion in the source unit, and then A/D conversion inside the LCD monitor. If you have any kind of TV other than CRT, digital video will make a huge quality difference.
I never noticed a huge difference in quality on my Dell 2005FPW when switching between SUB-D and DVI-D to my PC. I've never done a side-by-side comparison, but when I've used one or the other I've never said, "Whoa! I know Kung Fu!"
Originally posted by the cool gut
I'm not asking for launch titles to take full advantage of the console. I'm asking that games launched with a "Next Generation" to look better than games currently available on the GameCube. That is not the case with the majority of titles launched with the 360.
Again, what is the point of the advantage of first to market, if you are just going to deliver a sub-par playing experience?
i dont know what you are talking about. do you own an xbox 360?
have you played the new madden? have you played Condemned?
those games look really damn good to me.
gamecube? are you serious? have you played project gotham ? lol
my god man.
i know launch titles are usually not the greatest but geesh what do you want? a pixar film?
Originally posted by pyr3
I never noticed a huge difference in quality on my Dell 2005FPW when switching between SUB-D and DVI-D to my PC. I've never done a side-by-side comparison, but when I've used one or the other I've never said, "Whoa! I know Kung Fu!"
What is sub-d? Is it the same as vga?
Anyway, with a mac mini and a Dell 24" LCD monitor, the difference is very large.
Originally posted by e1618978
What is sub-d? Is it the same as vga?
Anyway, with a mac mini and a Dell 24" LCD monitor, the difference is very large.
Yea. When you are switching video inputs, SUB-D is displayed on the screen when you switch to the VGA adapter (DVI-D when you switch to DVI, etc). I'm sure that it's probably closer to the technical term for it, because I have heard VGA referred to as subd on at least one other occasion. I would assume it's the same on your 24" Dell as well.
Originally posted by Messiah
The topic of the post was 'XBox 360: Who's getting one?' but (as usual) it's all slid downhill into 'You idiot ? my daddy's tougher than your daddy'.
I'd like to think that my posts, at least, haven't come off that way. I'm in no way a fan-boy of any of the consoles, though I'll probably at least end up with a Revolution for the Nintendo 1st party titles. It's unfortunate that people tend to think that a discussion on game consoles means it's time to play "King of the Hill" and try to out-do the 'next guy' to prove that their console of choice is the best.
I agree that this has gone off-topic, but I don't think that a conversation on consoles is a bad thing, as long as people can behave themselves. There has been some very rational discourse here about the consoles that has been off-topic, but it's the people that insist that this thread is somehow a descendent of The Highlander and "There can be only one" that ruin it.
Let's consider them both like SUVs. Both do about the same stuff, but one may have other features than the other. Personal taste is what it comes down to. If you want dual 1080p screens, go PS3. If you want a tightly integrated online experience, go 360.
The Nintendo line of products seems to be more of the tiny sports car of gaming consoles. They don't necessarily go for the brute force and/or horsepower, but instead give you a more "fun" experience. Halo is great on XBox, but MarioKart is also great on Game Cube.
I couldn't see Halo on Game Cube or MarioKart on XBox. It doesn't fit each console's "M.O." If you want realistic gaming with great graphics and realistic environments, get an XBox or Playstation. If you want a more "cartoony" game that's just fun, yet not at all realistic, get a Nintendo.
Originally posted by Messiah
The topic of the post was 'XBox 360: Who's getting one?' but (as usual) it's all slid downhill into 'You idiot ? my daddy's tougher than your daddy'.
... says someone with a 17-line sig about his "hardware".