Finally Watched/Played a 360 Demo Unit

[SOAPboy]

My god COD2 looked like crap..

That is all 

[skid_68]

Thats funny cause so many peeps say it looks better than the PC version.
But I trust your opinion over them anyway. Wonder if my gamestop has the demo units in yet. Still debating whether I want to pick one up at launch, maybe ebay it.

[JoyMonkey]

So far I've seen demo kiosks in WalMart and BestBuy. None of the playable demos are in any way impressive.

[SOAPboy]

Thats funny cause so many peeps say it looks better than the PC version.
But I trust your opinion over them anyway. Wonder if my gamestop has the demo units in yet. Still debating whether I want to pick one up at launch, maybe ebay it.

Yeah im sure it does on crappy hardware.. this is very true..

But when you have a 7800GTX at home, then go see it, it looks pretty dang crappy imo..

Whats funny about the whole thing, it wasent TO bad until i played it, and was kinda looking around at stuff.. they borked so many of the textures in places its just funny..

Who knows what will happen at launch, but im really not impressed..

Dont get me wrong, ill end up picking one up, but yeah, it wont be replacing my PC..

[diabolic]

Expecting it to look as good as your 7800GTX is pretty unreasonable IMO.

[SOAPboy]

Expecting it to look as good as your 7800GTX is pretty unreasonable IMO.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Just played it at Best Buy today. Soapboy is right, COD2 really didn't look all that impressive. I thought the 360 was supposed to have 4X Anti-Aliasing? Sure didn't look like it on the COD2 demo.


mrC

[elvis]

Just played it at Best Buy today. Soapboy is right, COD2 really didn't look all that impressive. I thought the 360 was supposed to have 4X Anti-Aliasing? Sure didn't look like it on the COD2 demo.

mrC

What did you see it on?  4XAA doesn't mean squat on an SD-res TV display. 

All this hoo-ha over next gen consoles' graphical power is all wonderful and peachy, but when a standard television is only capable of 300-odd lines of real resolution, it's pretty pointless.

Connect it to a proper VGA (or better) monitor, or perhaps a genuine HD (and by that I mean one that has a real pixel count, not a 480-line device with a nice scaler attached) plasma/LCD display, and we're talking.  Anything less and even the best of us will struggle to notice any of the whiz-bangery thrown into the console.

And with that in mind, do be aware that this is PowerPC, and new ground for Microsoft (and many game manufacturers).  Not to mention being multi core (some of you may well remember the dual-CPU Sega Saturn which was plagued by slowdown until game devs worked out how to utilise SMP effectively).

As with every console that ever existed, the first batch of games always sucks in terms of visual quality, as developers rush to push them out the door in time for release (compare NES Mario to NES Mario 3, or the original SNES games with their horrible flicker and slowdown compared to the much better graphics sported by titles at the end of it's life).  Hell, there are games coming out on XBox today that look a tonne better than the first generation of XBox games, simply because people are getting used to the hardware.  I really doubt we'll see the true potential of the XBox360 for at least 2-3 years.  And by that time Microsoft will force an upgrade on us anyway, no doubt.

With that said, the graphics don't make the game.  I'm sure as hell not spending my hard earned dollars on this puppy until it becomes reasonably priced.  Early adoption be damned for that sort of money, especially when I'm still using a SD-res CRT TV set to play my consoles on.

Some people call me cynical.  I say most other people are cursed with bad forsight.

[SOAPboy]

Just played it at Best Buy today. Soapboy is right, COD2 really didn't look all that impressive. I thought the 360 was supposed to have 4X Anti-Aliasing? Sure didn't look like it on the COD2 demo.

mrC

What did you see it on?

[shmokes]

Graphics DO make the game.  To suggest otherwise is absurd.  Super Mario 64 could not have been accomplished on the Super Nintendo.  Look at the way shadows affect gameplay in Splinter Cell, Thief and Doom.  Look at the how integral the jungle foliage is to making FarCry the amazing experience that it is.  And in any game, the graphics play a role in immersion, in suspension of disbelief.  You think graphics aren't an important part of Silent Hill?

They're not the ONLY thing that makes a game, but implying that graphical prowess is nothing but window dressing is like implying that a person who goes out tonight and sees Jason and the Argonauts for the first time will have a similar experience to a person who goes out and watches the Lord of the Rings.

Graphics matter.  And it can't be all about gameplay without being about graphics too, because, as is the case with Super Mario 64, graphics enable new types of gameplay.  Look at Super Mario World compared to it's younger sibling Super Mario 3.  Remember how you could climb on the chainlink fences and punch certain areas to flip over to the backside of the fence?  That was a gameplay improvement that was enabled solely by the Super Nintendo's superior graphics hardware.  I could give you a hundred examples like this off the top of my head.

Graphics are important!  Saying so doesn't make you a pansy, mainstream videogame whore sell-out.  It matters to hardcore gamers too, even if they don't like to admit it around their elitist friends (who also care about it). 

[big daddy]

Those Displays at walmart, at least the one here, HAS a really nice ass widescreen display for it, it STILL looks like crap..

It's been widely reported about improperly set up systems at these kiosks(sp?).  A nice widescreen display still doesn't do any good if the thing is set to output at 480i (which apparantly a lot of systems are...especially at the walmarts).

I saw the xbox360 at best buy and the quality was stunning (better than PC).   At the same best buy they were also demoing the new sony HD camcorder and the picture was amazing on that as well.  It was pretty much HD heaven at that store 

[xonix_digital]

AA on the Kong demo blew too.

-=XD=-

[Hoagie_one]

It'll be a good system.  the graphics are better than before, which is all i think they were really going for.  And a few new features.  Release titles are rarely the best for the system.

[JoyMonkey]

Graphics DO make the game.  To suggest otherwise is absurd...
Graphics matter.  And it can't be all about gameplay without being about graphics too..

That's not always the case. There have been plenty of beautiful games that fall short on every other level, most of which just pass the mainstream by almost without notice. Also, there have been some excellent games with extremely average graphics (GTA San Andreas is a prime example). Pretty pictures will always make a game easier to approach, but at the end of the day it's the overall experience that a game presents which sticks in a gamers mind.
Why else would people be using their modded hi-tech consoles to play old 8-bit console games today?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

What did you see it on?  4XAA doesn't mean squat on an SD-res TV display.

I'm pretty sure it was an HD LCD screen. I thought it'd be more impressive. Maybe there were other factors involved (ie: rushed proto-type, mis-configured resolution settings, etc)

I'm certainly not saying the 360 is going to suck, I'm just saying that I expected my first experience to be a little better then, "meh."

Maybe Microsoft should only send out proprietary demo discs that push the 360 to the limit. I mean, who does the marketing there? Wouldn't they want that on display instead of some crusty ass WW2 demo with bad textures and pixelated edges?


mrC

[SOAPboy]

Those Displays at walmart, at least the one here, HAS a really nice ass widescreen display for it, it STILL looks like crap..

It's been widely reported about improperly set up systems at these kiosks(sp?).

[SirPoonga]

Best Buy had a good setup.  They were using a samsung monitor.
I turned up the graphics all the way on my call of duty 2 demo on my pc.  No where near the quality of the xbox demo.  But then again, I don't have a $500 video card either

I was impressed.  However, FPS still needs a keyboard and mouse.  Controller is just too slow.

[big daddy]

Meh, it looked like ass compaired to my home pc.. Itll continute to look like ass compaired to it..

Its not a PC killer, Which is my entire point..

you keep MISSING the point which is that it was almost certainly misconfigured on the one you saw.  People that have seen both on properly configured setups are telling you that the xbox version looks better.   

I saw call of duty on a  pc running at 640x480 and it looked like ASS.  And it will continue to look like ass        

[TurboC--]

Graphics DO make the game.

[SOAPboy]

Meh, it looked like ass compaired to my home pc.. Itll continute to look like ass compaired to it..

Its not a PC killer, Which is my entire point..

you keep MISSING the point which is that it was almost certainly misconfigured on the one you saw.

[shmokes]

Graphics DO make the game.  To suggest otherwise is absurd.

... Eventually it won't be very noticeable, and then game makers won't be able to sell games on "wow" anymore.

First, I clearly said that graphics matter, but that graphics isn't the only thing that matters.

And old schoolers, just like people who hold desperately to classic rock, forget about all the crap.  Most Atari games and NES games and old arcade games are complete and utter crap.  For every Robotron there are 100 ET's.  The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker isn't just "wow" factor.  Neither are Splinter Cell, Prince of Persia, the Burnout series, Grand Theft Auto, Metroid, Half Life, FarCry, Crimson Skies, Metal Gear Solid, World of Warcraft, Psychonauts, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

None of these games are possible on the Super Nintendo, let alone an older system.  The gameplay mechanics that make these games so fun could not exist without the advanced graphics hardware.  Graphics is, and always has been an intrinsic part of gameplay.  Super Mario Bros. was not possible on the Atari.  Look at the difference between Super Mario Bros. and Pitfall and tell me with a straight face that graphics don't affect gameplay -- that graphics don't matter.

I'm not seduced by games with great graphics and sucky gameplay.  I require that the game is fun, and graphics alone won't do that.  But that's always been the case.  Blaster Master had amazing graphics, but no one would look at it today and say, "Wow, that game has good graphics."  Just as nobody is going to look at World of Warcraft in 15 years and say that it has great graphics, regardless of what they say about it today.

Super Mario Bros. was a technological breakthrough, but if it hadn't been fun, too, it would not have turned into the phenomenon that it was.  But at the same time, it wouldn't have been the fun game that it was without the technological breakthrough in videogame graphics techniques.

Your myopic focus on gameplay is like someone who thinks that the only important thing in movies is a good director.  Certainly it is an important thing -- maybe even the MOST important thing, but the movie still needs a good script, good acting, good cinematography, etc.  And the best director in the world can't always save a movie that doesn't have all those other necessary aspects.

[shmokes]

FWIW, it's getting really good, but we've still got a long way to go.

[diabolic]

Someone who won in the Pepsi contest got their 360 today.

http://www.halomovienews.com/xbox360.php

[TurboC--]

You almost made my argument for me in a way.

[shmokes]

You said "graphics MAKE the game...And then you said it isn't the only thing that matters.  Seems contradictory.

Weird, it's like I was arguing with myself. 

Except that like two sentences after I said that graphics make the game I gave an example of how they make the game when I said, "Look at the way shadows affect gameplay in Splinter Cell." 

And that guy is missing all kinds of important points.  First, it's competition, not a lack of novelty that makes Nintendo release a new system every five years.  If Nintendo doesn't release a new system Sega or Sony or MS will, and new, superior games will be possible on that new system, making Nintendo irrelevant.  And it didn't start with Nintendo in the 80's during a secret conspiratorial industry meeting.  There's an Atari 5200 and an Atari 7800.  But it didn't start with them either.  PC games have evolved as long as the PC has (or Amiga, Commedore 64, ST, whatever), from text adventure on up.

And he asks the question, "Are people going to buy Grand Theft Auto if it's just the same thing in a prettier package?"  And the answer to that is, "Think!".  Look at the difference between Grand Theft Auto 2 and Grand Theft Auto 3.  First, I'll make my point for the billionth time, that graphics obviously enable new, expanded gameplay (as you might be able to tell from the two screenshots).   Every GTA game so far as enabled you to interect with more of the game world.  But, in reality, you can still only interect with a tiny itsy bitsy portion of it.  Almost no buildings can be entered, hardly anything is destructible, civilian AI is comical.  There are a billion different ways in which the GTA franchise could be expanded given a machine with greater horsepower, and only a small portion of them will be realizeable on the next gen systems. 

But beyond that, what makes the GTA games so great is the engrossing adventure and story line.  It's why nobody has managed to successfully copy Rockstar's formula, though it's been tried over and over again.  GTA: San Andreas isn't significantly more technologically advanced than GTA: Vice City, but people bought it in droves because they are no more "exactly the same thing" than Spiderman is "exactly the same thing" as Spiderman II.  Because, like movies, videogames also use this 1000 year old technique called drama.

[SirPoonga]

But beyond that, what makes the GTA games so great is the engrossing adventure and story line. 

Storyline, hahahaha.  That's what made GTA3, it HAD a storyline.  GTA2 was all about completing missions for the gangs.  There was no storyline.  You could go to any gang at almost anytime and pick up the next mission for them.

[elvis]

Graphics DO make the game.  To suggest otherwise is absurd.  Super Mario 64 could not have been accomplished on the Super Nintendo.  Look at the way shadows affect gameplay in Splinter Cell, Thief and Doom.  Look at the how integral the jungle foliage is to making FarCry the amazing experience that it is.  And in any game, the graphics play a role in immersion, in suspension of disbelief.  You think graphics aren't an important part of Silent Hill?

They're not the ONLY thing that makes a game,

Holy cow, talk about taking a post out of context.

Yes, 3D has given us much.  Without it there is a whole genre of games that would be completely unplayable.  I have not once said that it was UNECESSARY.  You seem to think I'm some old codger sitting in my rocking chair throwing rocks at kids and telling them how it was better in my day before we had electricity.

The point I'm trying to make is that these new consoles can push billions of polys instead of millions.  They can do 4xAA and 4xAF.  They can do the most amazing hardware shader scripts and make all sorts of whiz-bang eye candy.   That's just super.  Will the new GTA game on Xbox360 be "more fun" than the one on XBox?  I doubt it.  Will "Dead or Alive 4" be any less crap than "Dead or Alive" 1 through 3, because it can push more polys?  Probably not.  Will I be paying stupidly large amounts of money to be an early adopter of a console that doesn't actually have any better games on it?  Hell no.

Yes, 2D->3D was a giant leap.  Yes, 3D has given us first and third person perspective virtual environments that have made so many games possible that were once impossible, and have made some old genres even better (driving games are so much cooler in 3D). 

BUT (and there's always a "but") right here and right now, the graphic prowess of the XBox 360 IN COMPARISON TO the graphics prowess of the XBox really adds nothing.  In your examples above you compare the SNES to the XBox.  Well, of course we're going to see a huge difference when we look at several generations apart.  But when I look at my aging PSX and Dreamcast consoles sitting in my games room, I feel absolutely no compulsion to upgrade to any new console on graphics alone.  Sure, there are titles coming out that I can't get on my now dead consoles, but were they to be releasing titles for older consoles still, I'd not need to upgrade just for eye candy alone (especially considering the price we Aussies are forced to pay for console gear - almost double what Americans pay for the same stuff).  And don't for a monute confuse forced SOFTWARE obselecenace with me approving new graphics HARDWARE.

So chill.  I'm not laying the smack down on 3D.  Far from it.  What I am doing is questioning the industry's desire to give us new titles of old games with spruced up graphics every few years, and console developers to raise the average cost of a console at new release by a few hundred bucks every time.  Yet this is the same gaming industry that up till recently has been pretty tight when it comes to re-releasing classic games, preferring instead to remake them (and do so poorly at that).

XBox 360, Nintendo Revolution, PS3.  Three consoles that so far have not shown me anything NEW above and beyond the existing models in the market.  Hell yes, they're all way different to a SNES.  But so was my Dreamcast (and it even had VGA out).  It's going to take more than polycount to convince me (as well as 50 million parents worldwide who already shelled out hundreds on their kids' current consoles) to upgrade.

[TurboC--]

Yet this is the same gaming industry that up till recently has been pretty tight when it comes to re-releasing classic games, preferring instead to remake them (and do so poorly at that).

Ehh.  I hope you're not in favor of things like Nintendo putting 20 year old NES games on game boy carts and charging $20 a piece?

[elvis]

Ehh.  I hope you're not in favor of things like Nintendo putting 20 year old NES games on game boy carts and charging $20 a piece?

Hell no.  What I am in favour of is Nintendo saying to their customer base: "Hey guys, our new Revolution console has a SNES, NES and GB* emulator on board, and you can download legal ROMs for play on your console for $1 each" or something to that effect.  I'd be the first bloke standing in line for a Revolution on release day, if that announcement got made.  Ditto for any game company/console you'd care to mention. 

Yet they all seem much happier to hold all their ancient games close to their chest while calling classic gamers silly names like "pirates" and "theives" for wanting to play old games.  Then when they do re-release a game, they do so as you mention above: one or two games in a "bundle", often with major changes to the look'n'feel of the title, and at a stupid price the majority of which goes to publishers and media costs, and not to the game creators at all).  That's the most archaic and stupid thing I've ever seen, when these games are less than a megabyte in size each, and every modern console has a bloody ethernet adaptor hanging out the back of it.

Case in point: the Capcom and Taito classics titles.  At $20 a disc, it's well known that Capcom and Taito only see $5 of that money (if that).  The rest gets split amoungst distributors and the console companies' licensing.  Disgusting.  Downloadable games direct-to-the-console at $1 a piece would make it easier for people to buy them (read: selling more in the process), and strip away all distribution/manufacturing costs associated with disc media.  Yet it seems companies are so afraid of digital distribution.  Hello?  iTunes anyone?  $11Million PROFIT (yes, profit - not gross sales)  in their FIRST 48 HOURS of operation in the US.  Not bad for 99c a song, (2/3 of which goes straight into the RIAA's pocket).  It can be done, and it's pretty easy in comparison, yet nobody in corporate-land seems to understand this.

And the games that do get re-released on disc are roughly 0.001% of the available games library.  Where are the good games?  Where are the obscure games?  Why is there such a tiny, selective list?  With digital distribution, you release everything and let the people decide.  No extra cost in having a few games that don't sell well.  It's not like you wasted the money on making hard copies.

Copyright is a wonderful thing, and protects people from all sorts of nasties.  Fast forward 10 years in the digital era, and it's limitations become apparent very quickly.  There is a very large potential market of classic gamers who are prepared to pay for their hobby, yet it's far easier for the game companies to just ignore us and whine about the fact that we download our games "illegally" and not give us the chance to buy them.

I'm getting dizzy up here on my soapbox... need to step down for a minute....