PDA

View Full Version : CNN REVIEW: Xbox 360: Good, but not great


RobertoOrtiz
11-21-2005, 04:42 PM
Quote:
"For gaming's most enthusiastic fans, the question of whether to get an Xbox 360 was answered long ago. It would be the first entry in the next generation and a status symbol amongst their friends. But is there a reason for the rest of the world - gaming or otherwise - to rush stores?
The short answer: Not on Day One. "

>>LINK<<> (http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/17/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm)

-R

Reepoman
11-21-2005, 05:06 PM
While it's true that most of the Launch titles are not what you would call 'next gen' there are some that will turn heads, like our game ;) 'PGR3'. When playing the in car view on a HD TV with a good surround system it really is amazing. When you compare PGR 2 with PGR 3 you easily see the Next Gen leap.
Microsoft’s rush to get the 360 out before Sony's PS3 has had a massive effect on the quality of the launch titles, (hmm, cough, excluding ours.. heh heh)
The second generation of games for the 360 will be much better; having more time with to play with the technology naturally brings better results.
The 360 is going to be great.

gunslingerblack
11-21-2005, 05:12 PM
i played the 360, call of duty 2 was on there,

while the graphics had improved, it was still no better than what ive seen already on amped up pcs. basically i felt as if i was playing an fps online with a good computer.

in short, i'll be waiting to see what the ps3 can do.

Shaderhacker
11-21-2005, 05:17 PM
While it's true that most of the Launch titles are not what you would call 'next gen' there are some that will turn heads, like our game ;) 'PGR3'. When playing the in car view on a HD TV with a good surround system it really is amazing. When you compare PGR 2 with PGR 3 you easily see the Next Gen leap.
Microsoft’s rush to get the 360 out before Sony's PS3 has had a massive effect on the quality of the launch titles, (hmm, cough, excluding ours.. heh heh)
The second generation of games for the 360 will be much better; having more time with to play with the technology naturally brings better results.
The 360 is going to be great.

Yea, your game does indeed look good - it's too bad that we have SpikeTV nominating Resident Evil 4 to be "Game with the Best Graphics of 2005" (which is weak, IMO).

In any case, I hope you guys harness the abilities of the next-gen video cards (7800GTX) on the PC as well. They are just as (if not more) powerful as the famed graphics chip in the 360/PS3.

-M

Shaderhacker
11-21-2005, 05:18 PM
i played the 360, call of duty 2 was on there,

while the graphics had improved, it was still no better than what ive seen already on amped up pcs. basically i felt as if i was playing an fps online with a good computer.

in short, i'll be waiting to see what the ps3 can do.

Yep. Same here.. but I doubt it'll beat my next computer purchase come early next year.

-M

SheepFactory
11-21-2005, 05:20 PM
There is not a single 360 launch title that i want to play. I'll wait till next year when sony releases ps3 and MS drops the 360 price to 199$ or so.

Factotum
11-21-2005, 05:34 PM
It will be interesting council war after all, Xbox 360 may actually have what it takes to be a contender this time around. The more intense the competition, the healthier the industry.
In all of the reviews so far, most are positive with a hint of tentativeness-- so it's really heard to make any speculations whatsoever.
Though funny quirks like the oversized power cable (http://ghostbusters360.ytmnd.com/), could seem endearing...:rolleyes:
Project Gotham Racing 3 does look awesome...

sebek27
11-21-2005, 05:43 PM
while the graphics had improved, it was still no better than what ive seen already on amped up pcs. basically i felt as if i was playing an fps online with a good computer.

in short, i'll be waiting to see what the ps3 can do.

hmm, have you looked at the sports games ? even if you have a $4000 PC, the new FIFA, Madden, NBA LIVE look way way better on the 360 than the current PC versions... and i'm not even getting an xbox since I really do feel the PS3 will have better titles as does the PS2 compared to Xbox IMO.

Shaderhacker
11-21-2005, 06:50 PM
hmm, have you looked at the sports games ? even if you have a $4000 PC, the new FIFA, Madden, NBA LIVE look way way better on the 360 than the current PC versions... and i'm not even getting an xbox since I really do feel the PS3 will have better titles as does the PS2 compared to Xbox IMO.

That's an artistic decision. They created higher res textures for the 360 version. It's not that the PC can't do it. It's just that they tried to make it more exclusive for the 360. But it's going to end up biting them in the a$$ in Madden 06's case as I hear a LOT of good features didn't make it into the game.

-M

switchblade327
11-21-2005, 07:56 PM
i played the 360, call of duty 2 was on there,

while the graphics had improved, it was still no better than what ive seen already on amped up pcs. basically i felt as if i was playing an fps online with a good computer.

in short, i'll be waiting to see what the ps3 can do.

Does anyone remember when the ps2 first came out? I was still in school for 3d and a guy in my class had got one early from Japan. We played "Dead or Alive 2" and it looked WORSE then the Dreamcast version. Most (most meaning NOT ALL :P) early ps2 games looked similarly crap for the first year or so while developers sussed out the new and unusual tech. Developers need time and experience to maximize the effeciency of a console's unique hardware. the original Xbox looked good out of the gate because it was basically pc tech.

Why would xbox360 with its funky 3 processor setup be any different? And especially, why would ps3 with it's "what the hell is cell processor?" be immune to these same growing pains?

As The Flux said, we havent seen anywhere near the potential of the 360 yet, nor will we see the full potential of the ps3 until a year or two after it's release.

SheepFactory
11-21-2005, 08:03 PM
As The Flux said, we havent seen anywhere near the potential of the 360 yet, nor will we see the full potential of the ps3 until a year or two after it's release.

True , but in the case of PS3 you will see some games that look way better then what you have seen so far , even with the first gen games. With 360 i dont see anything that makes me go wow. I know the potential is there , its just not realized on the launch.

GaryHaus
11-21-2005, 08:47 PM
I think the PS3 is gonna rock! The 360 WILL rock. But how can you say the PS3 games are gonna look way better than anything we have seen so far, it hasn't been released yet. I will reserve judgement until I see(really see, not hype from either camp) until the PS3 is released. Whoever gets the 360 now, I hope it rocks!

Gary

CiaránMurphy
11-21-2005, 08:54 PM
The PS3 is undoubtidly more more powerful in raw terms. But that does not mean that it will necessarily have many games that are head and shoulders above the competiton.

1. Agree with all posters who said that it will take about a year to see what the hardware is capable of - for both platforms. Media reports that judge the harware rather than the software at this stage are irresponsible in the extreme.

2. The current xbox is undoubtidly more powerful than the PS2. But the number of games that were written specifically to use this extra power was very small. Much of the code and resources are common between platforms... only API interfacing code is platform specific. So that means that this time round that all things being equal there may be a few PS3 titles that are specific to it... but the vast majority as now will be common.

3. Anti Sony feeling. Sony haven't been doing themselves any favours in the music industry recently. And if the reports about Sony locking a game onto the console it was first played on are correct then they are going down the same anti customer route in games. Its proposed that as soon as you put a disc into a PS3 for the first time it will write a hardware id onto it and then it will only play on that console... utter madness!

4. Sony and developers. Until now Sony, Microsoft and all other players have got their cut from the sales of the games, they charge the publisher for each copy sold but leave the developers alone. At a time when costs are skyrocketing for developers you might think that a clever company would be encouraging developers to make content. In Microsofts case this is true... they don't charge developers anything much... just the cost of XNA afaik. Sony on the other hand is going to charge developers $17.6 million before they even start... just for the privelidge! This will cut out all but the biggest and most loyal Sony based developers. Goodbye variety and say hello to lots more 'variant' of a framework games.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26945

5. Cost. I'm praying that sony is getting greedy not for the sake of its shareholders but to subsidise the hardware - how many people will want to fork over the $500 that is being qouted for the base version... that's $200 more expensive!

Overall I'd love to see both do well. I'd hate to see Microsoft dominate but Sony are making so many bad decisions recently... I just hope they don't mess this one up!

Frank Lake
11-21-2005, 08:57 PM
As The Flux said, we havent seen anywhere near the potential of the 360 yet, nor will we see the full potential of the ps3 until a year or two after it's release.
Yeah but it's the GAMES themselves that sell the system. Always has been. The 360 is currently being bought up because of what it had before not the promise of what could be. Basically the same thing happened with the PS2. VERY VERY few people have bought it for it's potentially great games, because alot of the people want to play in the here and now. Besides quite abit of the audience won't be able to take advantage of the systems options.

They had a demo running in the local Best Buys. Looked like crap and it was on a 36inch HDTV. Looks like "The Geek Squad" didn't set it up right. :hmm:

Tonedef
11-21-2005, 09:10 PM
Why the hell would I take CNN's word on video games?!?! They suck at everything else and there is nothing worse then a bunch of 'stick up the ass' people telling me what is good or not...it is like taking a critics review on a movie...99.99% of the time they are WRONG (in terms of sales and such)!!

People always complaining about how the 360 looks no better than any 'top of the line souped up computer'. 1st...in the large scheme of things, most Xbox players either don't play PC or do not have anything near top of the line. On top of that the 360 is giving you those graphics for a fraction of the price. But you also have to remember that launch titles never EVER show off the full potential of a system for many reasons. Such as developers are not used to the hard/software (especially with the 360) and it is a conscious move to make sure that customers have a reason to keep buying games as the look better gradually. I mean just look at Halo 1 vs Halo 2 or any release title for the Xbox with current releases.

SkyZero
11-21-2005, 09:16 PM
They had a demo running in the local Best Buys. Looked like crap and it was on a 36inch HDTV. Looks like "The Geek Squad" didn't set it up right. :hmm:

Just wanted to chime in that Geek Squad is not responsible for setting up systems, displays, or demos. Totally different department altogether...:D

I did hear that a majority of the demos on display at all kinds of stores were setup wrong when they were first received. Something about not selecing the correct HD setting or something along those lines.

On the discussion about consoles, I agree that we won't see the true power of the console for another year or so. Reason I'm getting one now is because my wife and I have been looking for a progressive scan DVD player and I was looking for a media center extender kind of deal so to get those two functionalities as well as a game system in one box seems like a good deal to me. That and I am a gamer as well...:thumbsup:

Nathan
11-21-2005, 09:34 PM
True , but in the case of PS3 you will see some games that look way better then what you have seen so far , even with the first gen games. With 360 i dont see anything that makes me go wow. I know the potential is there , its just not realized on the launch.

and you know this how?

I'm sorry but the only thing anyone knows for sure is what is out, and that is 360 games. we haven't seen anything for ps3 games so far. it's easy to assume that the games will look better, but we won't know for sure until the games are shipping. period.

f97ao
11-21-2005, 09:38 PM
Eh, what are you guys talking about?
The 360 looks very good. The current games and the games "soon" comming like Oblivion etc looks just amazing.
Ok, sure a super beefed up pc can do close to as well, but well I payed $2500 for getting a pc with similar power as the Xbox so, comparison isn't that good.

/Andreas

switchblade327
11-21-2005, 09:41 PM
Yeah but it's the GAMES themselves that sell the system. Always has been.

Well yeah, you're completely right but that's not what we're talking about. I don't brag about how cool my TV is because I watch good movies on it :)

It's being said that the ps3, which is yet-to-exist other then in alpha kits (are those even out yet?) and tech demos (remember the ps2's "we can run toy story in real time!" tech demo? Ha!) will have better technical capabilities then the xbox360 which DOES exist. And while true on paper but we won't know til we see them both in our living rooms in a couple of years. Not being a programmer, I dont know how much harder it will be to fully exploit 8-9 cell processors instead of 3 dual cores. It may be cake, it may be hell. But until then we're comparing apples to the easter bunny.

And tonedef is right. 360 looks like a hot computer (on day one!) but it costs less as a complete unit then a single high-end PC graphics card with that kind of horsepower.

3. Anti Sony feeling. Sony haven't been doing themselves any favours in the music industry recently. And if the reports about Sony locking a game onto the console it was first played on are correct then they are going down the same anti customer route in games. Its proposed that as soon as you put a disc into a PS3 for the first time it will write a hardware id onto it and then it will only play on that console... utter madness!

Good points but this one grabs me in particular. As much as I hate Sony's DRM BS, this part I kind of like; selling games as a liscense. Everyone talks about where money for next-gen development is going to come from and complaining about the influx of ads in games while renting new games and buying used ones, which is making a lot of people who don't actually make the games very rich. But that's another topic altogether...

I don't know. I hope xbox gets a bigger market share this time around and nintendo too. As soon as the games biz stops getting competive (like when EA buys us all), the people who lose will be the consumer.

mikecarry
11-22-2005, 04:23 AM
Yeah, I guess some pc games look better....if you're willing to pay thousands for one. The newer graphic cards alone cost as much as the Xbox360.

Shaderhacker
11-22-2005, 07:10 AM
Eh, what are you guys talking about?
The 360 looks very good. The current games and the games "soon" comming like Oblivion etc looks just amazing.
Ok, sure a super beefed up pc can do close to as well, but well I payed $2500 for getting a pc with similar power as the Xbox so, comparison isn't that good.

/Andreas

This is literally the weakest comparison you can make. The Xbox 360 != High end PC. You're not just getting a gaming machine with a PC.

Truth be told, both PC, PS3, and Xbox 360 aren't really being taken advantage of yet. It'll be another 2 years before we really start to see the benefits of multi-threaded games/applications. By then, the PC will surely have a better graphics chipset out.


Edit: And yeah, I'm ready to justify my purchase on my new high-end PC that I just made today for $3,600. ;)

-M

gunslingerblack
11-22-2005, 07:38 AM
nono u misunderstand me, i said the xbox looked just about as good as a pc, meaning

xbox 360 < pc

XP

samartin
11-22-2005, 09:03 AM
I played a demo of Call of Duty in store the other day on HDTV and while it looks nice it still has slow down issues, that is a serious no no for me. Totally put me off the system, with these next gen consoles there should be no slow down!!!

Xenon gonna rock ya! - heehee

Tonedef
11-22-2005, 09:18 AM
Having a dual core makes the demand for clean and perfect coding a must. Most developers are not used to that kind of preasure. Very easily the reason that early games on the 360 will not perform well is because the code is not a perfect as it should have been due to time restraints of the dealine for release.

Wabit
11-22-2005, 09:19 AM
why is it always about the technical jibberish.... "this looks great" or "this looks poor" -- its about 'game play' guys... your not gonna buy a new platform if all the games play badly. The graphics will come along for sure, but its next generation gaming that i want!

switchblade327
11-22-2005, 09:54 AM
why is it always about the technical jibberish.... "this looks great" or "this looks poor" -- its about 'game play' guys... your not gonna buy a new platform if all the games play badly. The graphics will come along for sure, but its next generation gaming that i want!

Well, this is a forum for graphics professionals; not gameplay ones. The game developers who frequent this place are the ones who make the eye candy so it's only natural for our interests to lie there.

Sonk
11-22-2005, 09:57 AM
and you know this how?

I'm sorry but the only thing anyone knows for sure is what is out, and that is 360 games. we haven't seen anything for ps3 games so far. it's easy to assume that the games will look better, but we won't know for sure until the games are shipping. period.

Metal Gear Solid 4, its not out as a game for the PS3 obviously, but thats a weak argument, since Kojima has a track record for delivering the goods. Plus the MGS4 demo was running, off a PS3 development kit, that didnt have the RSX and a very PCI-Express bus. The final product should look as good as the demo, if not better(once they get the final development kit). MGS4 is the best looking next gen for any console, that i have seen IMO.

In MGS4, you can create combination of 200 variations for a gun. They are also going to implement some very very cool things, that well make anyone scream.."NOW thats next gen!"

http://www.blog.konami.jp/gs/hideoblog_e/

Kion
11-22-2005, 10:13 AM
Most of the 360 launch title's except for pgr are running on 1 core, the xbox 360 has 3, we have only seen the tip of the iceberg.

And ps3 will be awesome too. The only thing hurting both systems and will always be the case is system memory. But ps3 has already won me over becuase of blue ray. I needs it. I'll get a 360 when gears of war comes out and there is no pc currently available that can run that game

switchblade327
11-22-2005, 10:26 AM
Metal Gear Solid 4, its not out as a game for the PS3 obviously, but thats a weak argument, since Kojima has a track record for delivering the goods. Plus the MGS4 demo was running, off a PS3 development kit, that didnt have the RSX and a very PCI-Express bus. The final product should look as good as the demo, if not better(once they get the final development kit). MGS4 is the best looking next gen for any console, that i have seen IMO.

In MGS4, you can create combination of 200 variations for a gun. They are also going to implement some very very cool things, that well make anyone scream.."NOW thats next gen!"

http://www.blog.konami.jp/gs/hideoblog_e/

No no no... a real time demo and a real time GAME are a million miles apart. You can bet that while the MGS4 demo may have been using the game's real time assets, it wasn't computing AI on the fly or any of system resource intensive processes that make games look so much worse then tech demos.

I have no doubt that MGS4 will be a sick game, but having 'delivered the goods' before doesn't necessarily mean the whole game will look as good as it does in trailer form. Things can change in a game up until nearly the last minute.

Everything that's been said and shown on MGS4 is a campaign promise at this stage. I'm not saying they *won't* deliver. I just saying it's not a legitimate example to compare to anything until they *have* delivered.

Sonk
11-22-2005, 10:32 AM
No no no... a real time demo and a real time GAME are a million miles apart. You can bet that while the MGS4 demo may have been using the game's real time assets, it wasn't computing AI on the fly or any of system resource intensive processes that make games look so much worse then tech demos.

I have no doubt that MGS4 will be a sick game, but having 'delivered the goods' before doesn't necessarily mean the whole game will look as good as it does in trailer form. Things can change in a game up until nearly the last minute.

Everything that's been said and shown on MGS4 is a campaign promise at this stage. I'm not saying they *won't* deliver. I just saying it's not a legitimate example to compare to anything until they *have* delivered.

I find that argument weak still, do you really think that they used the full potentail of the PS3 alpha development kit? i highly doubt it, so logically they should have room to add all the AI, and other system resource intensive process. Like i said, its going to look as good if not better than whats shown already..i guess i got alot of faith in Kojima and his team and no one is going to change my mind about that.

PhilOsirus
11-22-2005, 02:21 PM
I can't wait for more PS3 videos to be shown so people can stop crying already.

If you say we should wait before we speak about how good the PS3, wait as well before saying it is not so great.

Shaderhacker
11-22-2005, 05:15 PM
I needs it. I'll get a 360 when gears of war comes out and there is no pc currently available that can run that game

This is untrue. Technically, unless you are utilizing all 3 cores for different processes (and even then the P4 EE can simulate 4 procs), I can't see the high-end PCs today not being able to run GoW. They would have to use way more pixel pipelines in that custom ATi card than the current 24 pipelines in the 7800GTX in order to get it look different. Still, I think GoW probably won't be using multi-threaded instructions, which makes it a no-brainer to run on the high-end PCs even if they have to sacrifice a few layered shaders.

-M

Shaderhacker
11-22-2005, 05:20 PM
I find that argument weak still, do you really think that they used the full potentail of the PS3 alpha development kit? i highly doubt it, so logically they should have room to add all the AI, and other system resource intensive process....

This is also a weak argument. How can you assume that they would have put in enough research to leverage all 6 cores in the PS3 by the time MGS4 comes out? I would venture forth that the programmers there aren't geniuses and would probably need more time to try and leverage *all* of what the PS3 can offer. Hell, I'm probably betting 2-3 years before we see optimized use of the main core working in harmony with the 6 sub-cores. The technology behind the PS3 is way before it's time and likely most game developers won't catch on for some years yet.

-M

PhilOsirus
11-22-2005, 05:48 PM
This is also a weak argument. How can you assume that they would have put in enough research to leverage all 6 cores in the PS3 by the time MGS4 comes out? I would venture forth that the programmers there aren't geniuses and would probably need more time to try and leverage *all* of what the PS3 can offer. Hell, I'm probably betting 2-3 years before we see optimized use of the main core working in harmony with the 6 sub-cores. The technology behind the PS3 is way before it's time and likely most game developers won't catch on for some years yet.

-M

MGS4 will be released in late 2007, I think this gives them a good amount of time to work on the game. But either way, Kojima often said that the next MGS is not about graphics but about "sense", or what goes on behind the scene (AI and such).

Tonedef
11-22-2005, 05:54 PM
MGS4 could very easily end up on both consoles for the fact that their PS exclusive contract is up. No doubt in my mind that we will see it on both consoles, so I think that it is no threat to the 360.

switchblade327
11-22-2005, 06:04 PM
I find that argument weak still, do you really think that they used the full potentail of the PS3 alpha development kit? i highly doubt it, so logically they should have room to add all the AI, and other system resource intensive process. Like i said, its going to look as good if not better than whats shown already..i guess i got alot of ***faith*** in Kojima and his team and no one is going to change my mind about that.

"Faith" being the incredibly appropriate word. I never said you were wrong. I said *you just can't know*. Not til it's in the box.

I can't wait for more PS3 videos to be shown so people can stop crying already.

If you say we should wait before we speak about how good the PS3, wait as well before saying it is not so great.

My whole point is that videos prove very little! GAMES IN BOXES prove everything. But who's crying? I've never said the ps3 was going to be *bad*. I think you're mistaking a practical approach to the way console development actually works to fanboy-ism. I love the Metal Gear Solid series and I don't plan on owning 360 anytime soon. I'm with Shaderhacker on the PC games, since as 3d professionals we need pretty burly computers anyway!

But that doesn't change the fact that preview videos of games months away from completion *aren't* facts.

CHRiTTeR
11-22-2005, 06:19 PM
My whole point is that videos prove very little! GAMES IN BOXES prove everything.


Indeed, have you guys ever played a game that has realtime characters in Nalu-quality (or whatever that mermaid was called)? ;)

It was a nice demo and all, but it just didnt give u any idea of how good the games will look.
In games there's much more going on then in a realtime eyecandy-demo!

Shaderhacker
11-22-2005, 07:09 PM
It was a nice demo and all, but it just didnt give u any idea of how good the games will look.
In games there's much more going on then in a realtime eyecandy-demo!

Those demos that the PS3 showed were false advertisements. Most of them were using 2 Cell processors (only 1 is in the PS3). That's 16 processors in all!! Of course they can start to do realtime ray-tracing!!

Those demos were only to show the potential of multi-threaded gaming. Soon, Intel and AMD will put out multi-core (> 2) processors as well and then we'll go into a new era of gaming. The PS3 will just make the demands for it early..that way there won't be much turnaround time for PC hardware between mass-production of multi-core processors and PC games that use them.. ;)

-M

Knotter8
11-22-2005, 07:26 PM
I agree with Sonk.

The Kojima man has never had to backpedal on graphics promises he made in any MGS game.
In recent interview he went on record that the final MGS4 game will look better than that trailer. He will make sure though that emphasis will be on innovation ; behaviour & inner workings of materials unseen from the outer surface.

Furthermore, the game is PS3 specific ; team Kojima spent loads of time & effort on getting the to look like it looks on PS3. It took 'em a hefty time, a year after MGS2 SOL, to do a MGS2 port to XBox... which didn't even look better but also suffered choppy framerates.

MGS4 technically possible on Xbox360 = most likely, if coded for Xbox360 from scratch.

PS3 MGS4 port to Xbox360 easy/quickly/flawlessly done ? = I don't think so.

It's all about console specific games, not about comparing next gen console versions of pc fps's.

You buy a certain console BECAUSE you won't find the console specific games on any other platform or pc ;

- PGR3
- next gen Team Ico game
- next gen Team Silent Hill game
- next gen 1st party Nintendo games
- any next gen exentric Japanese game
Etc, etc !

Imho the core reason are those console platform specific games each with their console specific user interface. If ported at all to pc ; always alot later and poorly done.

So, choosing a console is by that fact, never a stupid or invalid choice. As for performance promises ; there are enough great current gen games which prove those sceptics of yesteryear, wrong.

switchblade327
11-22-2005, 07:44 PM
So, choosing a console is by that fact, never a stupid or invalid choice. As for performance promises ; there are enough great current gen games which prove those sceptics of yesteryear, wrong.

Of course consoles aren't a bad choice. I have an xbox and ps2 as well as a PC. I couldn't imagine trying to play Burnout or MGS3 with a keyboard (the same way that an RTS or FPS isn't the same with a controller). Consoles are a different market.

Besides, if I didn't do 3d for a living, I wouldn't be buying graphics cards that cost more then any console does. But graphicswise (and that's the only aspect of the comparison Im concerned about for the purpose of this argument) PC graphics WILL catch up to the next gen consoles' full potential. They always do.

As for 'the skeptics of yesteryear' comment, I say again that the ps2 was supposed to be able to run Toy Story in real-time. Just as politicians exaggerate to get elected, console manufacturers exaggerate to get sold. There are a lot of great looking console games out today, but they are the result of programmers mastering the consoles over time; they are not 5 year old tech demos finally come to fruition.

Capel
11-22-2005, 07:50 PM
360 looks cool. luckily my roomate is a mega gamer so i won't have to buy it.

but i'm holding out for PS3 for one reason. TEKKEN. hopefully it'll be online.

Kion
11-22-2005, 08:19 PM
This is untrue. Technically, unless you are utilizing all 3 cores for different processes (and even then the P4 EE can simulate 4 procs), I can't see the high-end PCs today not being able to run GoW. They would have to use way more pixel pipelines in that custom ATi card than the current 16 pipelines in the 7800GTX in order to get it look different.

beleive me, current pc's can not run GOW as of now (good framerate and HD resolution)

Like i said give it a year and you see very impressive games from both systems.
As for programing for for the ps3 it "might" be tough ,not impossible, thats what programmers paid to do.

I find that argument weak still, do you really think that they used the full potentail of the PS3 alpha development kit

As for alpha kits that is very true the first ps2 alpha kit was as big a pc tower case with hardware that was close to the power of the ps2. When it came closer to the launch of the ps2 then the actual hardware was released so it is very possible for mgs to look better. If the mgs and unreal trailer were running on a alpha kit and not final hardware, i think thats pretty impressive.

Veizer
11-22-2005, 08:23 PM
The 360 is cool and the PS3 is cool too but the whole discussion is about what people like and what not,it's like talking about which 3D app. should I use.The PS3 is gonna be stronger than 360 but PS3 will only be available next year but the 360 is available now.And who cares what CNN says about gaming,they aren't that type of channel,if the things were said by GameSpot,1UP or IGN it would be more important .

Shaderhacker
11-22-2005, 08:24 PM
Of course consoles aren't a bad choice. I have an xbox and ps2 as well as a PC. I couldn't imagine trying to play Burnout or MGS3 with a keyboard (the same way that an RTS or FPS isn't the same with a controller). Consoles are a different market.

Only for certain games. The PC has game controllers now that rival consoles, so that's not even an issue.



Besides, if I didn't do 3d for a living, I wouldn't be buying graphics cards that cost more then any console does. But graphicswise (and that's the only aspect of the comparison Im concerned about for the purpose of this argument) PC graphics WILL catch up to the next gen consoles' full potential. They always do.


They rival the next-gen consoles now. They will be better come next year. The main problem with PC games is that their target customers' hardware vary too much. Developers can't just swing to one end of the spectrum. It will *always* plague developers. If I could program for only high-end PCs, then I'd be making killer games just like on the next-gen consoles.


-M

Shaderhacker
11-22-2005, 08:26 PM
beleive me, current pc's can not run GOW as of now (good framerate and HD resolution)

I don't believe you. With the right development team, I can almost guarantee you can see GoW on a PC. The fact is, there is nothing you are telling me that makes it impossible on a high-end PC..:shrug: The hardware in the 360 is almost identical to the high-end PC's hardware.

-M

Knotter8
11-22-2005, 08:30 PM
Of course consoles aren't a bad choice. I have an xbox and ps2 as well as a PC. I couldn't imagine trying to play Burnout or MGS3 with a keyboard (the same way that an RTS or FPS isn't the same with a controller). Consoles are a different market.

Besides, if I didn't do 3d for a living, I wouldn't be buying graphics cards that cost more then any console does. But graphicswise (and that's the only aspect of the comparison Im concerned about for the purpose of this argument) PC graphics WILL catch up to the next gen consoles' full potential. They always do.

As for 'the skeptics of yesteryear' comment, I say again that the ps2 was supposed to be able to run Toy Story in real-time. Just as politicians exaggerate to get elected, console manufacturers exaggerate to get sold. There are a lot of great looking console games out today, but they are the result of programmers mastering the consoles over time; they are not 5 year old tech demos finally come to fruition.

I'm sorry, but you still missed my point. I would love to have Ico on a high end pc, coded for pc from scratch with all shader model 3.0 bells n whistles. Some ppl would love to have Katamari Damaci on high end pc in the same high fidelity way.

Is sucha thing gonna happen ? No, not even if i send Sony a thousand Euros tomorrow !

I love my Xbox and PS2 > my 6800GT equipped PC, because of games such as Ico, Onimusha, MGS3, PGR1&2, Virtua Fighter's etc ; for the simple fact they do not appear on PC. If they get the pc port at all (which isn't many), it's YEARS later as crappy ports with less than stellar pc gamepad support.

Also, it's a matter of taste ; I'd rather have a console game with superb artdirection and gameplay i totally love, than ultra high rez FPS game # billion. Besides, on pc gamer boards there are increasing complaints about how they need ultra expensive pc hardware just to run their pc version of a multi format game at a somewhat decent framerate without videocard driver issues.

switchblade327
11-22-2005, 08:46 PM
I'm sorry, but you still missed my point.

The point is that certain games are only for certain systems, right? And that dictates what consoles people will buy? I haven't missed that point at all. In fact, it's the only reason I own an xbox and especially the ps2 (bought when MGS3 came out) and it would be the only reason I get a ps3 or 360.

MY point is that I'm just talking about the hardware and graphics, since that's the aspect relevant to CGTalk.



Quote:
Originally Posted by switchblade327
Of course consoles aren't a bad choice. I have an xbox and ps2 as well as a PC. I couldn't imagine trying to play Burnout or MGS3 with a keyboard (the same way that an RTS or FPS isn't the same with a controller). Consoles are a different market.



Only for certain games. The PC has game controllers now that rival consoles, so that's not even an issue.



True, but the other guys are right that for this type of game, the PC does usually get a crappy port. For any cross-platform anything, I always get the xbox version. After I played the PC versions of Deus Ex: Invisible War and Armed and Dangerous, both of which ran like crap on my high-end PC, I made that decision. But the best games (and certainly the best looking) are almost exclusively single-platform, at least on first release.

Nando
11-22-2005, 09:00 PM
I almost stood inline yesterday, but decided that the release titles look good but not enough to stand in line ;)

other notes: crazy ppl

http://cgi.ebay.com/Microsoft-Xbox-360-Premium-Bundle-Xbox360_W0QQitemZ8234886733QQcategoryZ62054QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Im a console person, never played PC games till BF2 demo and now im hooked.

I do want a 360 but only for Gears of War :bounce:

Knotter8
11-22-2005, 09:21 PM
MY point is that I'm just talking about the hardware and graphics, since that's the aspect relevant to CGTalk.


Ok, but (and then i can surely speak for myself) often console game developers come up with workarounds to create visual detail or specific style, which often leads to more
well thought out or immersive artdirection in those console games. I think this so called 'deficiency' sparks visual originality.

While a pc shooter might have the upperhand graphics technically, i would prefer the technically 'lesser' but more stylish console game it's graphics.

So, in that respect, it is very relevant to this board. Is one a 3D artist becuz he just knows a 3D package very well, or becuz he's an artist who knows a 3D package to some extent ?

Shaderhacker
11-22-2005, 09:44 PM
True, but the other guys are right that for this type of game, the PC does usually get a crappy port. For any cross-platform anything, I always get the xbox version. After I played the PC versions of Deus Ex: Invisible War and Armed and Dangerous, both of which ran like crap on my high-end PC, I made that decision. But the best games (and certainly the best looking) are almost exclusively single-platform, at least on first release.

This is most certainly true.

I wish that the gaming industry would concentrate more on good ports. We can't rely on John C. to always lead the way in good optimized code..

xino
11-22-2005, 10:39 PM
I just feel that this was a great way to spend some money (and piss some fanboys off) :

http://www.neowin.net/forum/uploads/post-23677-1132692413.jpg

http://www.smashmyxbox.com/

Apoclypse
11-22-2005, 10:45 PM
There was some massive slowdown in call of duty and kong. It was very dissappointing to say the least. I don't care how many cores the developers use, these should all have pristeine framerates. I'm not surprised though. I figured the xbox 360 came out too early they should have waited untill their games were mature enough to be realease. I actually saw texturing bugs (the texture dropped from the character) in Kong, As well as some massive framerate drops. Which I haven't really seen in a while ( I've never seen my pc drop frames like this and its of the older generation).

Things are changing, I don't think for the better.

Kion
11-22-2005, 10:46 PM
ith the right development team, I can almost guarantee you can see GoW on a PC. The fact is, there is nothing you are telling me that makes it impossible on a high-end PC..:shrug: The hardware in the 360 is almost identical to the high-end PC's hardware.


the ibm power ps based chip, ati graphics card that is currently in the xbox is not availble to the public yet. Mac doesn't even have power dual core 3.2 dual core chips and thats the power pc chip design used in g5. The alpha dev kits for the xbox 360 dual powerpc chips and they still were running under frame rate GOW MIGHT run on current computers with lower rez lighting, models, and textures. There is a reason GOW is not being released on pc and unreal is not coming out until 2007, graphics and pc will be up to snuff , and in more houses by then.

please exscuse my grammer

Terrell
11-22-2005, 11:33 PM
but in the case of PS3 you will see some games that look way better then what you have seen so far , even with the first gen games.

Based on what? Sony hasn't even shown one second of gameplay. All they've shown is a bunch of fancy cutscenes, and tried to pass off a couple of prerendered cutscenes as realtime, such as Killzone. Sony hasn't shown shit. Sony continues their con job as usual. Remember Kuturagi claiming the PS2 could do Toy Story graphics and how it would revolutionize gaming. Well, we know how that turned out.

I don't believe you. With the right development team, I can almost guarantee you can see GoW on a PC.

Gears of War most certainly cannot be reproduced on a high end PC, and still retain the level of graphics it has on the 360. In order to run that game on a PC, the graphics or the framerate would have to take a drop.

The PS3 is gonna be stronger than 360 but PS3 will only be available next year but the 360 is available now.

More bullshit! Again, what do you base this on? Don't tell me all those pretty PS3 cutscenes. It is far easier to create a jawdropping 2 minute cutscene than it is two create that same level of jawdropping visuals in a 10-20 hour game. If you look at the specs Sony released and compare them with Xbox 360 spec, the technical aspects of both consoles are very similar. The Xbox360 has some advantages, the PS3 has some advantages. The differences in these two consoles, in terms of graphics, will be negligible.

Shaderhacker
11-22-2005, 11:54 PM
the ibm power ps based chip, ati graphics card that is currently in the xbox is not availble to the public yet. Mac doesn't even have power dual core 3.2 dual core chips and thats the power pc chip design used in g5. The alpha dev kits for the xbox 360 dual powerpc chips and they still were running under frame rate GOW MIGHT run on current computers with lower rez lighting, models, and textures. There is a reason GOW is not being released on pc and unreal is not coming out until 2007, graphics and pc will be up to snuff , and in more houses by then.

please exscuse my grammer

Grammer excused, but you don't know what you are saying dude.

The Power PC chip in the Xbox 360 is equivalent to a low-end P4/2.0Ghz processor. Even though each processor can have 2 threads, I doubt Epic is using more than 1 thread for each processor. Secondly, a dual-core Intel or Amd will blow away multiple P4/2.0ghz in processing power.

Gears of War seems to be very pixel processing heavy. This means that the CPU probably isn't a factor. Having said that, it's not likely that a 7800GTX would be max'd out since it is more powerful than an imaginary 24-pixel pipeline R420 of the Xenon. Bandwidth to produce 1080p images won't be an issue either since the 7800GTX has at least 50% more bandwidth.

I think the reason GoW isn't coming on the PC anytime soon is the same reason Halo 2 hasn't come on the PC yet. It's a flagship title for the X360!!

-M

Shaderhacker
11-22-2005, 11:57 PM
Gears of War most certainly cannot be reproduced on a high end PC, and still retain the level of graphics it has on the 360. In order to run that game on a PC, the graphics or the framerate would have to take a drop.

BS. High-end PC hardware is at least equal to current next-gen consoles and can only get better faster. The only reason you think it can't be done is what (other than they designed the game from the ground up with X360 in mind)?


-M

tozz
11-23-2005, 01:11 AM
Grammer excused, but you don't know what you are saying dude.

The Power PC chip in the Xbox 360 is equivalent to a low-end P4/2.0Ghz processor. Even though each processor can have 2 threads, I doubt Epic is using more than 1 thread for each processor. Secondly, a dual-core Intel or Amd will blow away multiple P4/2.0ghz in processing power.

Gears of War seems to be very pixel processing heavy. This means that the CPU probably isn't a factor. Having said that, it's not likely that a 7800GTX would be max'd out since it is more powerful than an imaginary 24-pixel pipeline R420 of the Xenon. Bandwidth to produce 1080p images won't be an issue either since the 7800GTX has at least 50% more bandwidth.

I think the reason GoW isn't coming on the PC anytime soon is the same reason Halo 2 hasn't come on the PC yet. It's a flagship title for the X360!!

-M
Wasn't it Epic who said Unreal Engine is written almost completely for multi core (they rewrote alot of code). So unless you're gonna game on a 2*dual core opteron system you're basicly out of luck trying to compare pc-hardware. And PLEASE don't come dragging with Intel HT, it has proven to give worse perfomance in alot of applications with it enabled compared to running without it.

It's alot of theory in this thread... "it could be possible when the sky is blue and the sun is shining"... Well, who cares? A PC game HAS to be coded for multiple system configurations and therefore it will suffer from lower performance than a game coded for a single system. So even IF a current SLI config with dual core could, in theory, produce Gears of War, it won't.

As someone said before, only games in the box counts. If-When-Maybe doesn't really mean crap.

Edit:
PC-Gaming has come to a point where developers seem to put more weight in trying to sell hardware to gamers than to write good code. New hardware, new first gen games. Then new hardware again, and once again, new first gen games... Where is the optimizations people? Not to mention all new games coming out today have plastic textures reflecting more light than the lightsource is shining with. Look at the Quake4 intro, plastic flesh shining like the corpse had a sun inside it.

Kion
11-23-2005, 01:27 AM
Grammer excused, but you don't know what you are saying dude.

The Power PC chip in the Xbox 360 is equivalent to a low-end P4/2.0Ghz processor. Even though each processor can have 2 threads, I doubt Epic is using more than 1 thread for each processor. Secondly, a dual-core Intel or Amd will blow away multiple P4/2.0ghz in processing power.


-M

360 is a low end p4 2.0 ghz your joking right. From what i heard the unreal demo was running on one thread, GOW is a first gen game, think of how good games will look like a 1-2 years from now.

Sonk
11-23-2005, 01:28 AM
This is also a weak argument. How can you assume that they would have put in enough research to leverage all 6 cores in the PS3 by the time MGS4 comes out? I would venture forth that the programmers there aren't geniuses and would probably need more time to try and leverage *all* of what the PS3 can offer. Hell, I'm probably betting 2-3 years before we see optimized use of the main core working in harmony with the 6 sub-cores. The technology behind the PS3 is way before it's time and likely most game developers won't catch on for some years yet.

-M

Maybe if you learn to follow the subject and object, you would realize that the responds was to the MGS4 demo using the full potential of the PS3 alpha development kit ;) and so thats why its a weak arugment, especailly for a team like Kojima Productions. Considering they are thee most talented developer on this green earth, they shouldnt have a issue with tap the rest of the power from the final PS3 dev kits.

Also considering they used most of the power from the PS2 on their first game, MGS2. thats a proven track record, that speaks for itself..only a fool or a MS fanboy would argue against that.

6 cores? whats up with all the mis-information. The Cell has 1 PPE and 7 SPE the 8th SPE is not active for yield reasons..so get your facts straight, before posting. And they are geniuses in every sense of the word. They manage to tap most of the power from the PS2, while other companies were complaining about how tough it was to program for the PS2.

MGS4 could very easily end up on both consoles for the fact that their PS exclusive contract is up. No doubt in my mind that we will see it on both consoles, so I think that it is no threat to the 360.

I dont think so, according to this recent interview with Kojima with game informer..so dont hold your breath ;): Its a threat alright!

"GI: Your devotion to the Sony hardware is very understandable given that history. But do you think that there could have been a chance that the series could have gone multiplatform if the Xbox or GameCube versions of the games had been bigger hits?

Kojima: It’s a difficult question to answer, because multi-format is not what I like to do in terms of game development. I believe that all hardware has good points and bad points. With the rivals of this hardware battle, that grows, meaning that the game industry grows. If game hardware is integrated to one, and games are integrated to one, then we die, same as nature. So what I thought was that I wanted to create a game for the PlayStation, specifically using the PlayStation and what the PlayStation could do. Same for the Xbox. I would like to create games for the Xbox, to take advantage of what the Xbox is the most capable of doing.

For instance, Metal Gear Solid 2 was specifically created for PlayStation 2, because the PlayStation 2 was capable of creating transparent polygons. Alpha - meaning combinations of transparent polygons was what gave them the idea to express rain and wind using the PS2. So it was suitable for users to play using the PlayStation format. When it was converted to Xbox, that’s a little different, because there is a change there of the expression. It’s not as complete, because it was designed specifically for the PlayStation 2.

I should not say anything bad about our competition, but look at Splinter Cell 2, the Xbox version looks really great, but the PS2 looks a little odd, with choppy graphics. I think that is not loyal to the loyal game fans. I don’t want to do that kind of thing.

So for Metal Gear Soild 4, we have already started the project for the PlayStation 3 platform. We would like to concentrate specifically on what we could do just for the PlayStation 3. For example, if I was to create Metal Gear Solid 5 or another title for the Xbox 360, I would create solely for the 360, taking advantage of the hardware, and would not convert to PlayStation 3, because that will not be a very good conversion. Another example is the Revolution. I will try to create a title specifically taking advantage of the Revolution hardware.

So it wasn’t the hardware’s fault for the conversion edition of the Xbox game, or the GameCube version of the Twin Snakes. It didn’t do as well as people thought because it was a conversion. It wasn’t created for that machine. If Metal Gear Solid was created specifically for GameCube or Xbox, the result would have been a lot different."


"Faith" being the incredibly appropriate word. I never said you were wrong. I said *you just can't know*. Not til it's in the box.


Oh im sure its going to look like the TGS demo, if not better. Even Kojima himself mention that very same thing in the new interview with Game Informer. Im not basing my opinion on a new company with zero track record, that would be foolish. this is Kojima productions were talking about, while everyone was complaining about how tough the PS2 was to program for ,they wow the crowd with the MGS2 trailer at E3..some people even said it was pre-render at the time! The quality of the visual did make it into the final box. So i dont doubt for a second that MGS4 will look as good if not better as the TGS demo.

MGS4 well have alot of things that scream next generation.

the game informer interview:

http://forums.e-mpire.com/showpost.php?p=857887&postcount=724

anyways lets come up with better arguments people..they are seriously weak without foundation. "You just cant know" is weak, and without merit.

and lets not us "BS!" in replys, it makes you look like 16 year old kid!

PhilOsirus
11-23-2005, 01:30 AM
Let's not forget the PS2 will soon have a game where 65535 ennemies are present in one map and hundreds can be seen on screen at the same time (http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=7873&pl=game&type=mov), and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory on PS2 has real-time displacement maps. Just goes to show what can be done with optimization.

poly-phobic
11-23-2005, 03:03 AM
Let's not forget the PS2 will soon have a game where 65535 ennemies are present in one map and hundreds can be seen on screen at the same time (http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=7873&pl=game&type=mov), and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory on PS2 has real-time displacement maps. Just goes to show what can be done with optimization.
im sorry,
did u just write "real-time" displacement maps on the PS2.... or real time displacement map for that matter...

Shaderhacker
11-23-2005, 04:09 AM
Wasn't it Epic who said Unreal Engine is written almost completely for multi core (they rewrote alot of code).

Multi-core or multi-thread? 2 different things buddy. Point me to a link and then perhaps I can interpret it for you.


So unless you're gonna game on a 2*dual core opteron system you're basicly out of luck trying to compare pc-hardware.

How much do you know about simulating multi-threading? You can easily do it with one processor. If the processor is fast enough, you can give it many many tasks and it can outrun smaller lower performance cpus as well.


It's alot of theory in this thread... "it could be possible when the sky is blue and the sun is shining"... Well, who cares? A PC game HAS to be coded for multiple system configurations and therefore it will suffer from lower performance than a game coded for a single system.

Let's see.. how long has it been since bump-mapping was first introduced on the PC? At least 4 years ago...hmm..we are JUST now seeing it!! What does that tell you? That the technology is way ahead of the software. If you seriously think that a highend PC just simply can't run GoW at a good framerate NOW - you are kidding yourself. You don't even know all the tech behind GoW!! Look at the hard specs of the Xbox360.. it's not really all that. So, I ask.. where's the beef???


So even IF a current SLI config with dual core could, in theory, produce Gears of War, it won't.

Maybe not. but it won't be because the PC can't run it. And to add to that...I'm sure there will be a game equal to GoW that will be designed on the PC only.. that's just the way the gaming industry works.

-M

Shaderhacker
11-23-2005, 04:19 AM
360 is a low end p4 2.0 ghz your joking right....

Geesh.. do you guys read anything on the web?

Taken from AnandTech:

"The problem is that today, all games are single threaded, meaning that in the case of the Xbox 360 (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=6#), only one out of its three cores would be utilized when running present day game engines. The PlayStation 3 would fair no better, as the Cell CPU has a very similar general purpose execution core to one of the Xbox 360 cores. The reason this is a problem is because these general purpose cores that make up the Xbox 360’s Xenon CPU or the single general purpose PPE in Cell are extremely weak cores, far slower than a Pentium 4 or Athlon 64, even running at much lower clock speeds."

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=6

-M

Shaderhacker
11-23-2005, 04:26 AM
...especailly for a team like Kojima Productions. Considering they are thee most talented developer on this green earth, they shouldnt have a issue with tap the rest of the power from the final PS3 dev kits.

Oh really? Where were they when the original DOOM was out? You'd be hardpressed to find anyone with more talent than John Carmack to squeeze out performance from any system!


6 cores? whats up with all the mis-information.

I stand corrected. 8 cores. ;)

And they are geniuses in every sense of the word. They manage to tap most of the power from the PS2, while other companies were complaining about how tough it was to program for the PS2.

Please stop the fanboyism. MGS is a great game, but it's not revolutionary dude..:rolleyes:

-M

Sonk
11-23-2005, 04:53 AM
Oh really? Where were they when the original DOOM was out? You'd be hardpressed to find anyone with more talent than John Carmack to squeeze out performance from any system!



I stand corrected. 8 cores. ;)



Please stop the fanboyism. MGS is a great game, but it's not revolutionary dude..:rolleyes:

-M

ROFL, John Carmack? when was the last time he had a great game?

I never said MGS was revolutionary, my point was that Kojima production is one of the most talented developers on the planet, even more so than Johny boy Carmack. BTW im not a fanboy of MGS, more of a Kojima Production fan(dont confuse the 2).

From the game informer interview with Kojima, i would consider MGS4 revolutionary.

Shaderhacker
11-23-2005, 05:10 AM
ROFL, John Carmack? when was the last time he had a great game?

His games may suck (in story and style), but his engines are unprecedented. He knows how to optimize (which is supposed to be the subject of discussion).


I never said MGS was revolutionary, my point was that Kojima production is one of the most talented developers on the planet,

Thanks for changing your wording. That sounds much better..


even more so than Johny boy Carmack.

How so? What did they do that was innovative? And be specific.

-M

Darktwin
11-23-2005, 05:18 AM
why is it always about the technical jibberish.... "this looks great" or "this looks poor" -- its about 'game play' guys... your not gonna buy a new platform if all the games play badly. The graphics will come along for sure, but its next generation gaming that i want!

Preach on brotha

PhilOsirus
11-23-2005, 05:20 AM
im sorry,
did u just write "real-time" displacement maps on the PS2.... or real time displacement map for that matter...

Yes, real-time displacement mapping. They call it "geotextures", but basically it creates actual geometry based on a map. Compare the geotextured bamboo walls of the Hokkaido map on PS2 to the normal mapped ones on Xbox and you can see the difference. Here is a video that shows it in action (http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=4500&pl=game&type=mov). Oh and the water is dynamic, unlike the static textures of the Xbox version.

Of course the Xbox version of the game was superior, but the point is that a whole lot of power lies in these little consoles:)

GreyWolf_OPS
11-23-2005, 06:09 AM
I think it time to just enjoy the fact that we have a new next gen system availible.
Sounds like a bunch of old ladies in here nagging @ each other.

The Thread started out kinda cool, but is totally lame now. And I have to say that I wasted 20-30 min. reading it all.

Thats my 2 cents on this thread.

-----------------------
Isn't Sanity is a one trick pony?

I mean you get one trick.
Rational Thinking.
But when your good and crazy!

The SKY's THE LIMIT!

MCronin
11-23-2005, 06:27 AM
Geesh.. do you guys read anything on the web?

Taken from AnandTech:

"The problem is that today, all games are single threaded, meaning that in the case of the Xbox 360 (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=6#), only one out of its three cores would be utilized when running present day game engines.

I'm going to take a wild guess that the person who wrote this has never, ever written a console or arcade game. Console programmers and arcade programmers generally don't write engines or license engines. It's a very foreign concept to them. Every console game I worked on that was not a sequel or port was written from the ground up for the hardware it was on. Console programmers write games, not engines, and their biggest concern is sucking every last ounce of power out of the hardware. They have this luxury because the hardware is a hard target. At most, when starting a new game, a console programmer may borrow some technology, but shoe-horning a game concept into an existing engine on a console is a very inefficient way to make a game; unless, for instance, you have an FPS engine and are trying to make an FPS game. Even then, though, if the scope of your FPS is different than that of the engine you could be asking for trouble. See 3D Realms, or Valve for proof of this, and consider they were working on PCs. Development should have been a breeze.

Any well experienced console programmer knows how and has written multithreaded games on multiple cores. The Saturn was multicore, many, many arcade machines were multicore, the PS2 required you to write two syncronous threads of code in addition to the main game loop in order to use it effectively. Many of these developers already have experience writing synchronous code for multiple chips at a very low level. It's a very new concept to these tech journalists and PC game programmers, but there are many game programmers who have been dealing with this on some level for years. I know a couple programmers who wrote an LBE game in 1996 that ran on a rack of MIPS CPUs. The only difference now is that they've basicly compacted what used to be an entire logicboard or rack of computers down to a single piece of silicon. Sure there are some current console programmers out there who are going to choke on these new consoles, but Hideo Kojima's team deffinitely is not one of them.


You keep bringing up Carmack... I think if you talk to a good console or arcade programmer, and ask them what they think of Carmack's ability, you are going to get some chuckles. There are people out there who are much, much better both as game designers and programmers and Carmack is modest enough to admit this. He's been fortunate in that in addition to being a good programmer he and his team also came up with a good idea at the perfect time. There are plenty of people out there who are working on a whole different level than Carmack. When John Carmack was making Quake, Jason Rubin and Andy Gavin were making Crash Bandicoot. When he was working on Doom, Hideo Kojima was working on Snatcher, Yu Suzuki was working on Virtua Fighter 2, Yutaka Nishino was working on Daytona, Warren Spector was working on System Shock. When John Carmack was working on Commander Keen, John Sanderson was rendering flat shaded polygons on the Atari Lynx. There are some amazing game programmers out there, people who would shame Carmack; given the creative control fame and financial and publisher independence offers Carmack.

Shaderhacker
11-23-2005, 07:44 AM
Yes, real-time displacement mapping. They call it "geotextures", but basically it creates actual geometry based on a map. Compare the geotextured bamboo walls of the Hokkaido map on PS2 to the normal mapped ones on Xbox and you can see the difference. Here is a video that shows it in action (http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=4500&pl=game&type=mov). Oh and the water is dynamic, unlike the static textures of the Xbox version.

Of course the Xbox version of the game was superior, but the point is that a whole lot of power lies in these little consoles:)

That video doesn't show any realtime geometry shader. They talked about normal mapping for those walls.

Realtime procedural geometry shaders aren't here yet.

-M

Shaderhacker
11-23-2005, 07:58 AM
You keep bringing up Carmack... I think if you talk to a good console or arcade programmer, and ask them what they think of Carmack's ability, you are going to get some chuckles. There are people out there who are much, much better both as game designers and programmers and Carmack is modest enough to admit this. He's been fortunate in that in addition to being a good programmer he and his team also came up with a good idea at the perfect time. There are plenty of people out there who are working on a whole different level than Carmack. When John Carmack was making Quake, Jason Rubin and Andy Gavin were making Crash Bandicoot. When he was working on Doom, Hideo Kojima was working on Snatcher, Yu Suzuki was working on Virtua Fighter 2, Yutaka Nishino was working on Daytona, Warren Spector was working on System Shock. When John Carmack was working on Commander Keen, John Sanderson was rendering flat shaded polygons on the Atari Lynx. There are some amazing game programmers out there, people who would shame Carmack; given the creative control fame and financial and publisher independence offers Carmack.

I bring up Carmack for good reason.

If you are a game programmer, let me ask you this - why is it that 90% of games released today are way behind the technology curve? You boast that you can squeeze every ounce of power from the given piece of hardware, but out of all the PS2 games out - how many of them show this? I would say a very very small portion. In reality, game development is slow to catch up with the current technology. Most of the game programmers can't be on the same level as Carmack (regardless what you say). If that were so, we'd see several games that were technological demos.

Name some games that boast the complex shadow stencil buffering and multiple shader support that's in Doom 3 on the PS2? Only a handful of PS2 games offer this kind of detail (Splinter Cell comes to mind).

In short, until I start seeing the average game boast features that have been seen in games like Half-Life 2, Doom 3, and Gears of War - I'm not really impressed...

Finally, Quake 4 on the Xbox 360 is using the Doom 3 engine and even it suffers in framerate compared to the PC. The only thing I can think of (since you say most game developers know how to program multi-threaded multi-core CPUs) is that hardware itself isn't up to speed. But that's ridiculous since the 360 is clearly capable of running Quake 4 at 1080p with 4X/AA. So what's the reason? Maybe not using the full power of the 360 - which would probably mean not harnessing the full potential of the multi-core architecture.


-M

MCronin
11-23-2005, 09:07 AM
You sort of missed the point. My last comment was that you's see these developers step up if they had the access to money and the creative freedom to make their games that Carmack does. These console game programmers are often cranking these games out in a span of 12-18 months with some huge constraints in budget and hardware. John Carmack takes like a year to do research and then another couple two-three years to actually make a game all of which he funds himself. In contrast 95% of console developers don't have the luxury of uttering the words "When it's done". They have to ship by Christmas or else. Carmack is always aiming at hardware that will be available when or shortly after his game is going to be released. He's not locked into a system that's capable of 6 gflops total, he's aiming at hardware that has a CPU capable of 8-10+ gflops and a gpu that does 150+ gflops.

The other thing that seems lost on you is that Carmack obviously spends the bulk of his time making very pretty but very simplistic games. He's basicly been making the same game over and over again since 1991. Not all game developers, particularly those on consoles, are concerned with eye candy, some of them push the hardware in different but no less amazing ways. Look at Katamari Damacy. You're probably not at all impressed by it, because it's very simple and childish looking and isn't using stencil buffers and multiple shaders. That however in no way negates what an impressive feat the game is from both a design and technological standpoint considering the hardware constraints and the fact that it was made in less than 12 months. Then you have games like Shemue, Shadow of the Colossus and San Andreas. Again you probably don't find them impressive, but consider that what Carmack does is basicly drop in a box, and his renderer can cull it very aggressively because you can never see more than a couple dozen yards in front of you. These other games have free roaming gameplay, you can see for miles and they stream data in so as to disrupt the experience as little as possible. Some developers are willing to sacrifice eyecandy to make an engaging game that plays really well, while using as much of the hardware's potential as possible. It's really not that impressive feat to make a corridor shooter look pretty, especially one with extremely limited gameplay.

The reason why Quake 4 and most of the initial Xbox 360 games for that matter, are weak looking is because it is a new piece of hardware, and these games were made as quickly as possible. I'm willing to bet Quake 4 was ported to 360 in a matter of months. If MS handled Xbox 360 anything like they handled the Xbox, many of those developers probably didn't get their graphics hardware until July/August and final kits until September. At E3 the 360 games being shown were running on Power Macs. That tells me that even if MS handed out final hardware to their developers at E3 (which they didin't), these guys had no longer than 4 months to make the best of whatever project they were on. The only game that really comes close to looking like a next gen game is PGR. It's obvious that PGR was probably also the easiest game to produce. There's no huge AI or physics issues to solve, no complex animation systems or scripted events, no story. The game is the equivalent of a flying logo, really. They already had the game mechanics nailed. All they had to do was port it and probably 80% of their effort went into making it pretty.

halo
11-23-2005, 09:53 AM
...i thought xenon was going to rock me. :hmm:

DotPainter
11-23-2005, 11:06 AM
My only comment is that if you use Gears of War to be a benchmark for next generation games, then give credit to Epic games and the Unreal engine over the Xbox 360. GoW looks great on the 360 and there is no doubt that it would look good on a PC. Remember, Epic games has gotten wildly popular by producing the Unreal francise and its engine, both of which started out on the PC and still mostly run on the pc. Therefore, there is nothing in GoW, which should not be possible on the PC, since the engine behind it is multi-platform.
Sure, there may be some optimizations for the Xbox itself, but that is to be expected.

Even with all of that in mind, you have to remember that Epic is selling not only a game, but the game engine. Therefore, having a flagship game like this allows Epic to do 2 things, get a successful title running on a console (the unreal ports to the consoles were flops), and to get more people to liscence the engine. If they want to liscense the engine using the game, then that would mean that all of the fancy eye candy should be produceable by the engine on ANY platform as a selling point.........

My only concern is that a lot of next gen games pc or console will all look the same with the same types of shaders slapped onto the same types of character models and the same types of environments we have seen so many times, with no REAL effort to really bring truly unique cinematic gameplay to each title.

samartin
11-23-2005, 11:41 AM
Checked the Kong demo yesterday and I saw Kong fight the T-Rex, what an absolute pile of ............... Collision detection was almost non-existent, Kong could go through most objects especially the T-Rex, framerates must have hit an all time low of about 8fps. Why are they demo'ing such poor quality? Rushing it out is one thing but that is an understatement IMO...

PS. Why has the PS3 become an issue in this thread? It ain't out for a long time and it's all speculation at the mo'...

tozz
11-23-2005, 11:50 AM
McCronin: Excellent writing, couldn't agree more.

Shaderhacker: you missed the point, totally. As I said, there is no point in comparing if-then-when. You say the PC can run this and that, still, you have no games to show for it, what foundation are you basing your arguments on? If it's pure theory you won't win many points. You say the Quake4 conversion suck on 360, have you tried Halo on PC? Using your arguments it would mean the PC doesn't have enough power to run a xbox game...

As I sidenote, I played bump-mapped games about 6years ago on my G400. Didn't do anything for gameplay then, doesn't do anything for gameplay today.

SanjayChand
11-23-2005, 12:21 PM
everyone needs to remember one thing:

Sony is the kind of bullsh*t.

They only show tech demos that do not represent real game footage.

Killzone, MGS, That boxing game, etc.

all tech demos.

no game footage.

People get easily duped while Microsoft shows real footage.

Dont get me wrong, the PS3 is powerfull, and I will play it... alot.

But Sony has been pulling this tech demo BS for years now and people still get duped.

ciff
11-23-2005, 12:45 PM
Played 360 Demo pod, none of the demo's impressed me in the slightest, pretty dissapointed,
Think i'll be waiting to see what Revolution brings to the table, thank fudge someone's trying to innovate.

halo
11-23-2005, 12:47 PM
People get easily duped while Microsoft shows real footage.



the irony being that MS have shown non-in-game footage, but the stuff that has been in-game looks utter rubbish!

Sony may do the same...but as they're a long way off releasing the console only time will tell. This thread is about the Xbox360, not an xbox360 vs unreleased PS3.

Frank Lake
11-23-2005, 01:11 PM
everyone needs to remember one thing:

Sony is the kind of bullsh*t.

They only show tech demos that do not represent real game footage.

Killzone, MGS, That boxing game, etc.

all tech demos.

no game footage.

People get easily duped while Microsoft shows real footage.

Dont get me wrong, the PS3 is powerfull, and I will play it... alot.

But Sony has been pulling this tech demo BS for years now and people still get duped.

NO NO NO! You mixed up some words. It's X260 not Sony.

Just face it ALL of the consoles showing their materials will do what it takes to put forth the BEST possible impression and if it takes a reel of faked footage so be it! Only they'll know and by the time the 'true' actually comes out the public has already swallowed the hook!

Knotter8
11-23-2005, 01:31 PM
FACT :

Nintendo Revolution has shown ZERO game material/footage or whatever you wanna call it.

They'll surely bring some good innovation to the table, but until they show at least something; bringing up a Nintendo argument in this thread = null.

PhilOsirus
11-23-2005, 02:34 PM
That video doesn't show any realtime geometry shader. They talked about normal mapping for those walls.

Realtime procedural geometry shaders aren't here yet.

-M

Humm no, it is not normal mapping, normal mapping does not create actual geometry, this technology does.

poly-phobic
11-23-2005, 04:24 PM
Humm no, it is not normal mapping, normal mapping does not create actual geometry, this technology does.
umm... no... normal mapping does not create actual geo, but this "geotexture" looks like a lame mimic of relief mapping , and i doubt any developer would use "real-time" displacement map for whatever reason a current gen game would need it... only form of real time displacement i know of is [steep] parallax mapping... now why would a splinter cell game on the ps2 need displacement map... i have no idea....
doom3 or quake 4 are not using displacement mapping, or even parallax mapping; and ubisoft would not invest that kind of technology on splinter cell imo, maybe a new title.

PhilOsirus
11-23-2005, 04:29 PM
umm... no... normal mapping does not create actual geo, but this "geotexture" looks like a lame mimic of relief mapping , and i doubt any developer would use "real-time" displacement map for whatever reason a current gen game would need it... only form of real time displacement i know of is [steep] parallax mapping... now why would a splinter cell game on the ps2 need displacement map... i have no idea....
doom3 or quake 4 are not using displacement mapping, or even parallax mapping; and ubisoft would not invest that kind of technology on splinter cell imo, maybe a new title.

Ok so let's just pretend this video is FAKE and that the PS2 version of Splinter Cell has flat textures, when in fact it has actual geometry, as shown in the video.

Whatever.

Shaderhacker
11-23-2005, 04:36 PM
My only comment is that if you use Gears of War to be a benchmark for next generation games, then give credit to Epic games and the Unreal engine over the Xbox 360. GoW looks great on the 360 and there is no doubt that it would look good on a PC. Remember, Epic games has gotten wildly popular by producing the Unreal francise and its engine, both of which started out on the PC and still mostly run on the pc. Therefore, there is nothing in GoW, which should not be possible on the PC, since the engine behind it is multi-platform.
Sure, there may be some optimizations for the Xbox itself, but that is to be expected.

Even with all of that in mind, you have to remember that Epic is selling not only a game, but the game engine. Therefore, having a flagship game like this allows Epic to do 2 things, get a successful title running on a console (the unreal ports to the consoles were flops), and to get more people to liscence the engine. If they want to liscense the engine using the game, then that would mean that all of the fancy eye candy should be produceable by the engine on ANY platform as a selling point.........

My only concern is that a lot of next gen games pc or console will all look the same with the same types of shaders slapped onto the same types of character models and the same types of environments we have seen so many times, with no REAL effort to really bring truly unique cinematic gameplay to each title.

Well said. This is also a concern of mine.

-M

Shaderhacker
11-23-2005, 04:40 PM
You sort of missed the point. My last comment was that you's see these developers step up if they had the access to money and the creative freedom to make their games that Carmack does....

This is true. And of course, I agree.



The other thing that seems lost on you is that Carmack obviously spends the bulk of his time making very pretty but very simplistic games. He's basicly been making the same game over and over again since 1991.

Again, no argument there. His company has done this and I'm frankly tired of it myself.


Not all game developers, particularly those on consoles, are concerned with eye candy, some of them push the hardware in different but no less amazing ways. Then you have games like Shemue, Shadow of the Colossus and San Andreas.

Yeap. Agreed. Those games were really good on the hardware they were developed for. However, I think some of the posts that I'm refuting is in terms of graphics ability.


The reason why Quake 4 and most of the initial Xbox 360 games for that matter, are weak looking is because it is a new piece of hardware, and these games were made as quickly as possible. I'm willing to bet Quake 4 was ported to 360 in a matter of months.

Yep. That sounds fair.

-M

Shaderhacker
11-23-2005, 04:45 PM
McCronin: Excellent writing, couldn't agree more.

Shaderhacker: you missed the point, totally. As I said, there is no point in comparing if-then-when. You say the PC can run this and that, still, you have no games to show for it, what foundation are you basing your arguments on? If it's pure theory you won't win many points. You say the Quake4 conversion suck on 360, have you tried Halo on PC? Using your arguments it would mean the PC doesn't have enough power to run a xbox game...

As I sidenote, I played bump-mapped games about 6years ago on my G400. Didn't do anything for gameplay then, doesn't do anything for gameplay today.

I think you and I are arguing two different points.

Basically, my argument is this: There isn't a game coming out in the next few years that will be totally unfeasible hardware-wise to be develop on the PC. Whether they decide to do it or not is another story.

I thought your argument was: No, Gears of War is totally too much for current high-end PCs and PCs will have to advance another year or so before it will be feasible.

My thoughts: No way. If it can be done on the Xbox 360 (with hardware that's equivalent if not, slightly inferior to todays' high-end PC hardware), it can be done on the PC, look just as good, and run just as fast.

I think your discussion of the quality of the games compared to just eye-candy games is not my discussion. I agree with you that a good quality game is more important. No doubt.

-M

Shaderhacker
11-23-2005, 04:48 PM
Humm no, it is not normal mapping, normal mapping does not create actual geometry, this technology does.

Right. And I'm telling you that from what I saw, they didn't talk about realtime geometry creation on-the-fly by simply reading a texture map. That doesn't even make sense. In order to read a texture map, it has to be bound to some form of geometry already. Our film industry doesn't even have that kind of technology now.:shrug:

-M

switchblade327
11-23-2005, 05:19 PM
NO NO NO! You mixed up some words. It's X260 not Sony.

Just face it ALL of the consoles showing their materials will do what it takes to put forth the BEST possible impression and if it takes a reel of faked footage so be it! Only they'll know and by the time the 'true' actually comes out the public has already swallowed the hook!

So you think it's okay to lie to people to get them interested in your product? I'll be sure and ask my company's marketing department to add "FREE MONEY INSIDE!" stickers on the boxes of the next game they want to sell a lot of. Can't hurt, right?

I don't remember seeing any fake footage from Microsoft or Nintendo yet even the gaming press fell for the Killzone demo. Microsoft's xbox tech demos were never sold as anything but and we unmistakably not gameplay. Sony is the only one with this dubious track record.

tozz
11-23-2005, 05:20 PM
I think you and I are arguing two different points.

Basically, my argument is this: There isn't a game coming out in the next few years that will be totally unfeasible hardware-wise to be develop on the PC. Whether they decide to do it or not is another story.

I thought your argument was: No, Gears of War is totally too much for current high-end PCs and PCs will have to advance another year or so before it will be feasible.

My thoughts: No way. If it can be done on the Xbox 360 (with hardware that's equivalent if not, slightly inferior to todays' high-end PC hardware), it can be done on the PC, look just as good, and run just as fast.

I think your discussion of the quality of the games compared to just eye-candy games is not my discussion. I agree with you that a good quality game is more important. No doubt.

-M
Since Unreal Engine 3 is supposed to run on 6xxx series NVIDA cards according to Epic (they could have changed this) it would of course be possible to do the game for the PC. The issue is that PC developement requires "overpowering" since you can't write specialized code, but rather have to be very genric, wich sucks... alot. So yes, give them a high-end pc and make them write the game from scratch to that specification and we get Gears of War to PC, probably even nicer and more fluent than the 360 version, but in reality, this will never happen, so for a PC version to emerge we'll have to wait, and get a load of hardware to play it. This is why I think the argument is weak, just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's gonna be done :)

The edit part was just some ventilation since I get sick of people talking about graphics as it were the essence of the game, rather than gameplay as whole. True, this is a CG board, but it doesn't matter how excellent CG you have if the product sucks in the rest of the areas :)

tozz
11-23-2005, 05:26 PM
So you think it's okay to lie to people to get them interested in your product? I'll be sure and ask my company's marketing department to add "FREE MONEY INSIDE!" stickers on the boxes of the next game they want to sell a lot of. Can't hurt, right?

I don't remember seeing any fake footage from Microsoft or Nintendo yet even the gaming press fell for the Killzone demo. Microsoft's xbox tech demos were never sold as anything but and we unmistakably not gameplay. Sony is the only one with this dubious track record.
I've yet to see a game trailer that doesn't try to sell of cinematics as in-game graphics. Why are companies still showing of cinematics in trailers for their games if not to lure customers and make money? Alot of advertising is about lies and false hopes.

Shaderhacker
11-23-2005, 05:57 PM
Since Unreal Engine 3 is supposed to run on 6xxx series NVIDA cards according to Epic (they could have changed this) it would of course be possible to do the game for the PC.

Ah! So you acknowledge that I was right all along. :) Now that didn't take too long for the confession huh? ;)

So yes, give them a high-end pc and make them write the game from scratch to that specification and we get Gears of War to PC, probably even nicer and more fluent than the 360 version, but in reality, this will never happen,

Don't say never. Epic is very good with optimizing PC hardware. If it's not GoW, it'll be some other game that comes out perhaps by Raven that will look just as good as GoW.


so for a PC version to emerge we'll have to wait, and get a load of hardware to play it. This is why I think the argument is weak, just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's gonna be done :)

We may have to wait, but it's not because of the hardware constraints of the high-end PC stuff. It's because of the politics...that is, because they have to be generic in their target platform for the game. True.

-M

tozz
11-23-2005, 06:08 PM
Ah! So you acknowledge that I was right all along. :) Now that didn't take too long for the confession huh? ;)



Don't say never. Epic is very good with optimizing PC hardware. If it's not GoW, it'll be some other game that comes out perhaps by Raven that will look just as good as GoW.



We may have to wait, but it's not because of the hardware constraints of the high-end PC stuff. It's because of the politics...that is, because they have to be generic in their target platform for the game. True.

-M



-M
I never said it couldn't be done, did I? :) Only a fool would think there won't be a game on the PC not looking better than GoW, but on what hardware, what price, and when? Perhaps 7xxxx generation, dual core cpu's and maybe next year is my guess, still, that would, according to you, be hardware superior to the XB360, so there's really no reason the game shouldn't look better, now is there? ;)

Shaderhacker
11-23-2005, 06:52 PM
I never said it couldn't be done, did I? :) Only a fool would think there won't be a game on the PC not looking better than GoW, but on what hardware, what price, and when? Perhaps 7xxxx generation, dual core cpu's and maybe next year is my guess, still, that would, according to you, be hardware superior to the XB360, so there's really no reason the game shouldn't look better, now is there? ;)

And why did I just spend a day trying to get you to see that? :wip:

-M

tozz
11-23-2005, 07:42 PM
And why did I just spend a day trying to get you to see that? :wip:

-M
That, I do not know. Forums is a wonderful place for misunderstandings and such :wise:
However, there was some other people in the thread who claimed it wasn't possible.

Knotter8
11-23-2005, 09:38 PM
Well, doing 3D & 3D renders does somewhat justify dropping hefty cash for a speedy pc.

I might, just might, upgrade soon to X2 4800 + 7800GTX 512 @ 580/1730

cgtalkiest
11-24-2005, 12:07 AM
True , but in the case of PS3 you will see some games that look way better then what you have seen so far , even with the first gen games. With 360 i dont see anything that makes me go wow. I know the potential is there , its just not realized on the launch.

hahahaha... and where did you see these 'titles' ?? your talking about some mythical hardware that doesnt even exist, yet your so sure that the launch titles will look good... lol

we havnt had a sniff of ps3 around EA qa dept, and were not going to. theyve got a lot of work on their hands, and the ps3 will be just as shoddy as the 360 release....

iv been playing 360 for some time now, and it is brilliant... if you are not using HDTV then you are completely missing the next gen effect. It is well worht buying the cable to use your pc monitor....

360 is great for live alone... we have been testing the market place for some time now, and all i can say is TRY GEOMETRY WARS NOW!!! its just WOW... retro arcade gaming has never been so gooorgeous....

the pad is without a doubt the best pad ever made bar none and it can be used for pc's!!

damn i should write a full review but its late n i gotta go bed... let me know if anyones got questions :) me is 360 expert :p

ArtisticVisions
11-24-2005, 12:18 AM
hahahaha... and where did you see these 'titles' ?? your talking about some mythical hardware that doesnt even exist, yet your so sure that the launch titles will look good... lol
Uh, ever hear of the Tokyo Game Show? :rolleyes:
(four words: Metal Gear Solid 4 :applause: )

Nathan
11-24-2005, 12:27 AM
Uh, ever hear of the Tokyo Game Show? :rolleyes:
(four words: Metal Gear Solid 4 :applause: )

wow, so they have metal gear solid 4 finished and it was running on a publicly available PS3??? that's pretty big news. here I was thinking MGS4 wasn't coming out until 2007 and the PS3 was at least 6 months from being released.

thanks for the news!

Frank Lake
11-24-2005, 01:37 AM
So you think it's okay to lie to people to get them interested in your product? I'll be sure and ask my company's marketing department to add "FREE MONEY INSIDE!"
They'll laugh and say "If we wouldn't get sued don't you think we would've?".

ANY time that you work overtime because 'your behind scheaule' or near a deadline means that your marketing department sold the customer a bill of false hope to get their business. That is lying.

Maybe you should read some of the labels around you and really look at and think about what you've read. I'd bet you'd be surprised if you read the introduction of an animation program manual AFTER you've through learned how to use the program.

Shaderhacker
11-24-2005, 01:49 AM
Well, doing 3D & 3D renders does somewhat justify dropping hefty cash for a speedy pc.

I might, just might, upgrade soon to X2 4800 + 7800GTX 512 @ 580/1730

Go for it! I'm getting my P4D 840 + 7800GTX 256 on Tuesday! Can't wait to start rendering!

-M

ThE_JacO
11-24-2005, 02:18 AM
Humm no, it is not normal mapping, normal mapping does not create actual geometry, this technology does.

I doubt it adaptively creates geometry on the fly like a REYES micropoly render does :)

what it seems to be doing there is probably parallax mapping with some smart caching system for tiled maps and a good system to extrapolate it from the difference between geometries, neither of which is particularly ground breaking (although implementing it with a crappy API and limited memory on PS2 is surely an achievement).

the illusion of geometry on the rim of objects doesn't necessarily require real additional geometry, especially not so when it can be resolved in a self-occlusion.

through careful per-pixel re-sorting after the normals perturbation you can have geometry, which is unaltered in its tris count, to appear much more detailed then it really is when it's occluding itself (and eventually even other objects, but I doubt they split the wall and the tatami's geo in the level anyway).

lookup parallax mapping if you want to know more about the idea.

nice implementation and nice marketable name anyway, but not real geometry.

Shaderhacker
11-24-2005, 03:57 AM
I doubt it adaptively creates geometry on the fly like a REYES micropoly render does :)

REYES dices the scene into tiles and down again into micropolys. That's still not creating geometry from a texture map. The thing I'm thinking about is a geometry shader. Where you explicitly come up with a function that will place geometric vertices in 3d space and then the video card creates a u,v space (closed) of geometry.

One of my assignments when I worked at PDI was to implement a geometry shader that generated tubes from a given input of curves. A given curve would be the centerline of the mesh and the tube would be generated around the curve with a given number of points along the u, and points along the v (very useful for wanting to have an actual surface for individual hairs). This type of shader happens before rendertime.

Imagine creating geometry from a given input like a texture map and somehow trying to "model" the image that's on the texture map with geometry in 3d space.

-M

ThE_JacO
11-24-2005, 04:56 AM
REYES dices the scene into tiles and down again into micropolys. That's still not creating geometry from a texture map.


I know that much thanks ;)
I was talking of how the dicing is adaptive, and how displacement, given the range and rate, will generate the limit surface at fragment level at rendertime.
that is why I mentioned REYES+micropoly when somebody said that "displacement was generating geometry"


The thing I'm thinking about is a geometry shader. Where you explicitly come up with a function that will place geometric vertices in 3d space and then the video card creates a u,v space (closed) of geometry.


in the game?
if it was a shader sure, but I don't think PS2 has a descriptor for Curve primitives, let alone for parametric generation and subsequent slicing of solids.


One of my assignments when I worked at PDI was to implement a geometry shader that generated tubes from a given input of curves. A given curve would be the centerline of the mesh and the tube would be generated around the curve with a given number of points along the u, and points along the v (very useful for wanting to have an actual surface for individual hairs). This type of shader happens before rendertime.


I know that much as well ;)
we often just bend the normals of a ribbon, but for some close up work we ended up having to displace arbitrary riCurves.
Still can't see an implicit or parametric descriptor of geometry to make it into splinter cell on PS2 to be honest with you.

do you have something that makes you think it's not just a parallax shading? I honestly can't see why it would be anything different then parallax from a set of scalars.

infact the kind of shapes they have there don't even require a map as it's just pipes and tiles, they could probably be implicitly defined at shader level.

PhilOsirus
11-24-2005, 05:01 AM
Thanks for the input. According to the presentations we had at school tho, we were told it did create actual geometry, and a floor or wall would end up displaying 40,000 tris, on PS2. Then again it was not very technical in details but on more than one occasion, from different persons, it was said that the PS2 was indeed displaying 40,000 tris for those surfaces. Either way, my original point was just to demonstrate that with more time spent on limited consoles the craziest achievements can be made. So if it is now possible to display thousands of ennemies on screen (like in the trailer I originally showed), have dynamic water, "geotextures", etc, then imagine what will be possible by the end of the next gen consoles' life cycle.

It's too bad that we are already onto next-gen development because now developers have to rush their games, so little research can be done in exploiting the hardware.

Shaderhacker
11-24-2005, 07:17 AM
Thanks for the input. According to the presentations we had at school tho, we were told it did create actual geometry, and a floor or wall would end up displaying 40,000 tris, on PS2. Then again it was not very technical in details but on more than one occasion, from different persons, it was said that the PS2 was indeed displaying 40,000 tris for those surfaces.

Displaying (or drawing) 40,000 tris/sec isn't the same thing as creating them (the application will send commands to the renderer to generate the tris). Perhaps they were trying to say that the PS2 was able to render 40,000 tris/sec.

-M

mr.aufziehvogel
11-24-2005, 02:17 PM
i also think id software has ported quake4 without optimizing it. i mean, they always do so. all pc games that are ported to consoles are not good optimized.

its also true that the dev kits were released late.

i like to see the 2nd generation games. maybe the programmers will use 2-3 threads then :)

all the games, that are availiable are only using 1-max 2 threads.

let's hope programmers will get used to multithreading programming as soon as possible.

gavin_hughes
11-24-2005, 03:58 PM
think about... they spend 40k tris on a floor,
and less than 7k on the main bloody character?
R u kidding, even if this game was being developed by my 7 yr old nephew, he would have a common sense of knowing that creases on "ceramic" tiles have absolutely nothing to do with a game such as this and the player will never ever even get close to the tiles, since the character cannot crawl on the floor or the camera does not pan this low.
the man never said that it was all geometry, i think he was implying maybe a way to simulate that amount of poly through lighting and shading without them being there, similarly to normal map or releif mapping, it look entirely like releif mapping imho http://www.inf.ufrgs.br/%7Eoliveira/RTM.html
and i even doubt they used that...
who cares some guy at ubi soft says its "geometry" and u beleive them, ffs if they are not using 40k polys on these environment http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/Spec_Wall.jpg
why the hell would they do that in "splinter cell"
that video was rubbish.
u better post some in game screen shots from ur own game b4 u start talking about stuff they feed u in school.

PhilOsirus
11-24-2005, 04:06 PM
think about... they spend 40k tris on a floor,
and less than 7k on the main bloody character?
R u kidding, even if this game was being developed by my 7 yr old nephew, he would have a common sense of knowing that creases on "ceramic" tiles have absolutely nothing to do with a game such as this and the player will never ever even get close to the tiles, since the character cannot crawl on the floor or the camera does not pan this low.
the man never said that it was all geometry, i think he was implying maybe a way to simulate that amount of poly through lighting and shading without them being there, similarly to normal map or releif mapping, it look entirely like releif mapping imho http://www.inf.ufrgs.br/%7Eoliveira/RTM.html
and i even doubt they used that...
who cares some guy at ubi soft says its "geometry" and u beleive them, ffs if they are not using 40k polys on these environment http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/Spec_Wall.jpg
why the hell would they do that in "splinter cell"
that video was rubbish.
u better post some in game screen shots from ur own game b4 u start talking about stuff they feed u in school.

Ok first of all it is actual geometry and the video is not bull, the game was released close to a year ago and you can see for yourself, just rent the game. What you see in the video is how it is in the game, when the camera zooms in and shows geometry on the floor it is actually the same in-game. I tested both the PS2 and Xbox version when it was in development, we compared the Xbox and PS2 version and it was clear the Xbox had normal mapping (at a certain angle it looks flat) but on PS2 it was real geometry.

And since you are being such an ass about this, no I won't bother to proove you anything when you have videos and can see for yourself by renting the game.

EDIT: Ok I got more info on it, it does create geometry in real-time, and it works with BSP surfaces+per-pixel lighting. Anyway, no point in arguing with someone so tensed about such an irrelevant issue.

Solothores
11-24-2005, 04:06 PM
hahahaha... and where did you see these 'titles' ?? your talking about some mythical hardware that doesnt even exist, yet your so sure that the launch titles will look good... lol



also take into consideration that sheep works for factor5, who develop for sony's ps3. :)

cheers
solo

cgtalkiest
11-25-2005, 03:52 AM
also take into consideration that sheep works for factor5, who develop for sony's ps3. :)

cheers
solo

so u mean a power pc then :)

Shaderhacker
11-25-2005, 06:29 AM
EDIT: Ok I got more info on it, it does create geometry in real-time, and it works with BSP surfaces+per-pixel lighting. Anyway, no point in arguing with someone so tensed about such an irrelevant issue.

Let's not start this again. Of course the level must create geometry since it must show you something. And using the commands (i.e. OpenGL for example):

glBegin ();
glVertex3f (x, y, z);
...
...

glEnd ();

will definitely yield triangles in realtime (once you call the functions). All games do this. But that's not procedural geometry generation on-the-fly based off of some algorithm (as I mentioned before). So, in short.. they aren't doing anything special I'm afraid.


-M

CGTalk Moderation
11-25-2005, 06:29 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.