|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
26 Oct 2005 19:07 | Dusty | Xbox 360 Many of the 360 games we have seen so far looks more like Xbox games, only with sharper textures and running on a higher resolution. There is a very simple and logical explanation to this mystery, and it has nothing to do with the hardware Microsoft decided to equip the 360 with. The answer is simply because THEY ARE Xbox games with sharper textures and running on a higher resolution. Games like GUN , the new Tony Hawk and many of the not so visually impressive 360 games were all developed for the old Xbox but are now being ported to the 360 with minor graphical upgrades. MS decided that they wanted to start the next-gen race early, and as a result they are forced to port a lot of current gen games to their new console to make sure we “the gamers” will have enough games to choose from. This is not a negative thing though, as these Xbox 1.5 games don’t make the 360 any less impressive. We all know what the machine is capable of, just look at Gears of War. In a year or two all 360 games will look this good right? or will they? As game developers move away from the current gen systems and start to solely develop for the next-gen machines, the next-gen of gaming will show its true face. However, the next-gen of gaming could be a three faced creature, and let me explain. What is the difference between “good” graphics and “great” graphics? I am sure there are many opinions about this, but my personal view is when the developer master the hardware and make good use of the technology available we get “good” graphics. So what are great graphics then? You get great graphics when the developer not only master the technical aspect of the new hardware, but also take this new tool and create something so beautiful that you could hang it on the wall as a piece of art. Looking back though, very few games have “great” graphics. But let’s talk some more about “good” graphics. Some people seem to believe that if you just give the developers powerful enough hardware, they will automatically produce “good” looking games. Though that might have been partially true in the past, powerful hardware only makes super detailed graphics possibly from a technical point of view. The 3D artist still has to make the characters and items twice as detailed to look twice as good. Of course with new hardware comes also new software and tools to help the developers take full advantage of the new hardware, but simply adding a bunch of fancy graphical effects to a game will not do. At the end of the day the artist still has to produce the 3D models, and with more powerful hardware, better and better looking 3D models have to be produced to reach a graphical level that can qualify as “good” graphics. Look at some of the 3D models in the first Tomb Raider game for example. With all respect for the 3D artist working within the polygon-limits of the PSX, but from a pure art perspective that ice bear is not exactly what I would call a great piece of art. Even I with my very limited 3D studio skills should be able to make a better looking ice bear if I ever was to try. My point is simply that until a few years ago you could work as a 3D modeller for a game company with very limited artistic skills, you only needed the technical know-how of how to operate the software. However, when game development moved over to PS2, Gamecube and Xbox it became more evident which game companies that had 3D modellers who also possessed some artistic skills. But most developers were still able produce “good” graphics. Now with the arrival of the next-gen consoles not only will the gap between “good” looking games and “great” looking games widen, but I think many developers with limited resources will move down from the “good graphics” club to the “ok graphics” club. I also think now would be a good time for us “the gamers” to start viewing video games more like we view music and movies. Rather than expecting every game to be better looking than the last, maybe we could just see them for what they try to be. There is no excuse for bad graphics, but shouldn’t decent graphics be good enough as long as the gameplay is top-notch? Can’t we just learn to appreciate “great” and “good” graphics when games have it, instead of hating on every game that doesn’t? Graphics Vs gameplay is the oldest cliché in the video game community, but if we want the game industry to be as broad as the music and movie industry we “the gamers” need to change our view on what we think video games are supposed to be. I applaud Microsoft for putting so much effort into Xbox Arcade, giving developers with limited resources the chance to reach an audience that for the last 10 years has been preserved to money strong companies. I am not an Xbox fan in particular, as I am equally excited about the PS3 and Revolution, but credit should be given where credit is due. So far I know too little about both the PS3 and Revolution to really have a solid opinion about these consoles. Even how good the 360 is I won’t know for sure until I get one in the living room, but so far I like the direction Microsoft is taking with the Xbox 360. At least from where I am sitting it looks like Microsoft is trying to make the 360 a broad platform where developers in all sizes and shapes can publish their games. The question is are we going to start appreciating this, or are we going to continue to bitch about how some games don’t look “next-gen.”?Add Comment 1 - Unregistered - og 10.26.2005 20:12 if a game with a block for the main character has the best game play in the world and, theres a game that looks almost real and all u could do was walk around in this fake world i would take that any day. i hate games with bad graphics they never hold my attention because i cant stand to look at it 2 - MadJax 10.26.2005 20:26 And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why there isn't any innovation in games these days. A lot of people are only interested in graphics these days, so developers blow millions developing stupidly powerful graphic engines, and skimp on the rest of the game. Take Unreal 2, Halo 2 (Who's engine was bugged beyond belief) and Doom 3 to name but a few. However, graphically simple games, like Darwinia, have incredibly fun gameplay, yet sell next to nothing, forcing innovative developers to shut their doors. Concentrate less on graphics and more on the actual meat of the game. After all, a steak can look beautiful and tasty, but when you bite into it, it can taste like raw dog wank. (Not that I've ever tasted it) 3 - Unregistered - mick 10.26.2005 23:46 For me it's about fun. Is it more fun to play a simple looking game with great gameplay... or is it more fun to have amazing looking graphics and not much to do. Clearly a good game has a mixture of both... but for me gameplay is much more important. While it's nice to look at great graphics... I get bored very quickly and need a game to be interesting. If I want realistic scenery and do nothing, I'll go stand in the yard. 4 - Graphics Unregistered - an opinion 10.27.2005 01:07 The are called VIDEOgames people. V I D E O. That means "relating to the production of images on video displays" Hmmm. The entire point of a videogame is graphics. We can debate the merits of balanced controls, music, character depth, and the like all day. But in the end, the whole reason we play is graphics. Why is HL2 the "best FPS ever?" Do you think it would be so critically acclaimed if it was identical in every respect, but used the original Doom engine? Hell no. I like the DS, but if the DS had the same gfx quality as the gameless PSP, how many PSP's would have been sold? None. The bottom line is that developers should get the graphics right first, then work on balanced controls, music, etc. 5 - but... Unregistered - joakim 10.27.2005 04:16 you know, also ther are called video G A M E S, and that is main reason why you want to P L A Y them. You can give me the most graphically beautifull game in universe but if gameplay is bad or no story, that means nothing to me. I remember more original and interesting games on oldoldold Spectrum48K than most of todays 3d-real-mega-motion-captured-cg-engine-franchise-app-killers. Of course graphic is important but for me that isn't first on my mind when you say 'that is a really good game'. 6 - Playability Unregistered - Andre 10.27.2005 06:27 Yes. It sounds like a mortal kombat finishing move, but should be considered the most important aspect of a game. I think it's great that reviewers are using "playability" or "fun factor" as a part of the verdict when making a review. Game mood over detailed settings Playability over enviroment interaction Great characters over 500 simultaneous polygon infested monsters in frame 7 - This question to the author Unregistered - Luis 10.27.2005 14:30 Hey author of this news, journal whatever. Have you ever made a game had anything to help made a game. No you dont know crap, you dont know how anything works, so your opinions really mean crap. So STFU. 8 - graphics of next- gen Unregistered - solid snake 10.27.2005 15:44 the games of the xbox360 will the games comein out for it will its graphics stay like that or game devlopers are only limedt to cretain grapic qualti because i love great gameing and great graphics but if grapics are only raseid a bit i might get the ps3 but i want the xbox360 for chrismas witch one shoud i chouse and the other qstin 9 - To #7 Dusty 10.27.2005 16:44 Did I hit a nerve? To answer your question, yes in fact I have but that is irrelevant , as one don’t have to have any personal experience with game development to understand or discuss this topic. Why don’t you explain why you do not agree with my views instead of writing such useful comments. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, so let’s hear your thoughts on the subject? I am curious to hear your opinion... 10 - Unregistered - Mature gamer 10.27.2005 17:10 Good article. We're definitely just going through the transition stages to next-gen right now. Graphics are just one aspect of the virtual reality we're looking for. Good graphics makes the game seem more real, and therefore, we can relate and be immersed in it more. But graphics is just one aspect. Physics, sound, and pure entertainment value is another, which tend to be overlooked and harder to sell. It's much easier to market a game by taking a few screenshots than to explain how realistic the physics are, or how it challenges the player while providing hours of fun. Good graphics is relative. I bet we have all spent countless hours playing an older game because back then it was fun and state of the art. Now just because technology allows photo-realistic games doesn't mean we should sacrifice the fun factor to get it. 11 - I want next gen graphics Unregistered - Mighty Boom 10.27.2005 20:46 Games that do not look next-gen I wont buy. If a developer wants my hard erned cash, they better get more artistic. 12 - To the author Unregistered - Ben 10.27.2005 21:50 To the author of this article: I know you listed games like gun, and the tony hawk one, but have you actually seen the real next gen games. GUN isnt just a game that was being developed for xbox, it is being developed for all current gen systems. And xbox360 will suffer games like that untill Sony and Nintendo release their next gen consoles. I dont know if you have seen any of the vidoes of Kameo,or Perfect Dark Zero, but the screenshots just dont do them justice. Kameo easily beats any game on the current xbox by miles, miles upon miles. And while not as celebrated in the looks department, perfect dark also has things that can not be dont on current gen consoles. To all you people whining about graphics, and gameplay, in my opinion, with good graphics comes good gameplay, look at HL2 for example, the graphics, and the engine, made the game how it is because the engine powered the physics system, which is still the best in any game today, and adds to gameplay. If the graphics can work to create better gameplay opportunities, then more power to the game. 13 - # 12 Unregistered - Mighty Boom 10.28.2005 12:42 Die of bird flu noob. 14 - READ THIS IT'LL SAVE YOU TIME. Unregistered - I decide if I put my name in. 10.28.2005 13:26 This discussion in one: Graphics make a game, gameplay doesn’t matter. Graphics pointless, gameplay essential. Graphics make a game, gameplay doesn’t matter. Graphics pointless, gameplay essential... and so on. I agree #13 15 - 13 Unregistered - Ben 10.28.2005 20:06 Screw you, dumbass prick, you dont know anything for what you are talking about, and you arent even talking about anything, you put in meaningless comments, without any evidence to back it up. and 14, thank you for repeating what everyone else already said, and thank you for being wrong. 16 - hate to be shallow Unregistered - sadsad 10.28.2005 23:54 Sorry, dude, but a video game is like physical attraction: it's all in the package. You could be the most wonderful guy or girl in the world but if you look like the 'elephant man' it doesn't matter. Games with bad graphics don't stand a chance nowadays. I mean, I don't even want to play xbox games anymore...the better looking stuff is what I am interested in. 17 - Next-Gen Graphics comment Unregistered - ED 10.29.2005 05:01 From Pong to Atari to Coleco Vision, etc., etc.,, all the way to present day consoles, there has been a step taken each time toward better graphics (and gameplay). Atari 2600 was "next gen" compared to Pong. If games weren't meant to look and play better then why create and market a "next gen" console? Those PC gamers aren't going to buy a new graphics card unless a game is out that NEEDS that card to show it off in all its glory and run it at an acceptable frame rate. It's the same thing with consoles. The next version is ALWAYS supposed to have games that look and play better. If you need a TV tomorrow, are you going to go out and buy a B/W one? Of course not. You're going to look for something that has better technology than the last one you had as long as it fits within your budget. I think what this really comes down to is that MS is selling something that isn't theirs to sell — ramped up graphics, animations and gameplay features that take millions of dollars to produce. If these 3rd party developers don't have access to affordable tools that allow them to take shortcuts while improving the work that goes into these games, we're going to see a lot of duds over the next few years. I've been renting a lot of xbox games lately, and I think some of the newer games that have come out look barely half as good as Halo and Halo2. And xbox has been out for about five years or so? I just think expectations have been set a little too high. I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out. 18 - # 15 Mighty Boom 10.29.2005 16:25 Like I said before, DIE OF BIRD FLU NOOB. Go play colleco vision, it more your speed you forum troll!!!! 19 - Games Unregistered - NP 10.30.2005 08:40 Saints row, Halo 3, Condemned, Elder Scrolls IV, and Resident Evil 5. That is all that needs to be said. 20 - To the Author Unregistered - Moderator 10.30.2005 11:24 While I do agree with you your article doesn't go into very much detail on "great" graphics. You go from looking at he "good" graphics to comparing good and great graphics. You also only use one example for your next gen game. Gears of War. While that is a great game I would suggest you trying to add a little more diversity into your choices for next gen games. Should all next gen games be like G.O.W.? I would have to say yes and no. Yes when it comes to third person shooters. No when it comes to RPGs, Sports games, Adventure games, ect. Elderscrolls 4 Oblivion is a great example of what a next gen Xbox360 game should be like. They not only improved their graphics but upgrades NPC AI, Combat controls and experience, and the open-ended style of game play. My opinion of next gen games? I think all games (exception of sports games) should no longer be linear. Linear game play was a thing of the past. Racing games should start expanding on that go anywhere feel, FPS should also follow the lead with OFP 2 which is an open-ended first/third person shooter. 21 - games Unregistered - shane 10.30.2005 14:35 hi jus wonderin if any1 knew wen or if microsoft r makin a pro evolution for xbox 360 because fifa is terrible 4 any console, yh the graphics r gd but the gameplay is awful. and how much does the xbox gold membership cost ? 22 - Graphics don't mean sh*t Unregistered - Mr Nobody 10.30.2005 19:16 And while everyone here gets in a tiz about who's right, let me point out Driver 3... Great graphics, effing crap game.. So - Do graphics STILL make a game? No. Graphics HELP a game, and no more. A good GAME helps a game, with playability, storyline, new twist on genre, etc... Another example... On one hand I have GTA3(Whatever one you choose) and on the other I have The Getaway. While The Getaway looked far better than GTA3, the game itself was far inferior - Another example that graphics do not automatically make a good game. (Although, for that one it is just my opinion) For the Xbox360 (And PS3) users will already assume games are going to look better as the consoles are more powerful, but don't expect that just because they look more pleasing to the eye, they are going to be better to play. We're all just "pretty colour" junkies! 23 - To #20 - Gameplay and graphics quality Unregistered - Ed 10.30.2005 22:42 I just came back from Wal-Mart. The 360 demos are running! Here's my take. Call of Duty 2 had some nice moments, but it looked like an oder, not so flashy port of a pc game. True, the textures were higher rez in SOME places, but visuals were lacking. I think Halo 2 graphics look MUCH better. I think that disturbs me the most. Is't the 360 supposed to be 3 or 4x more powerful than the xbox? I purposely eyeballed everything just to see what was done with the textures, bump mapping, etc. I saw very little bump and specular mapping. I hope everyone reading knows what those are. They're the effects added to make it look like there's more detail. It really adds shine to a game environment. I walked up to a howetzer (s.p.?) and the textures were soooo low res it surprised me. It's not like the environment was sooo big that they had to cut down on using hi-res textures. The game is freaking linear and the "battle area" is not very expansive. I don't think they even used anti-aliasing. The visuals are a let-down for my expectations. I DIDN'T expect to go see a 3 year old pc demo. I've been hearing so much from journalists in the passed two weeks about how great the f-ing smoke is. It's no big deal. I've seen some similar techniques on the current xbox (game-Missionaries). The particle effects are POOR. When something blows up, you expect to see more debris than what there is - it's extremely underwhelming. I did thing the firey flames looked better than I've seen though. I do have to say that. Physics system you ask? Rag-doll effect you ask? These things have already been put to very good use on the current xbox and I DON'T SEE ANY OF THIS in Call of Duty 2. In all, it looks like a port of a 3 year old pc game. Also, it was EXTREMELY linear, something I REALY hate. I agree with #20s comment on that. For God's sake, if there's any part of game play that should be considered "NEXT-GEN", it should be non-linear gameplay. This game isn't showing that at all. I didn't feel like I was playing something that I'd never played before. Nothing new here. I rented Stubbs the Zomby this weekend (used Halo 1 engine). EVERYTHING was bump mapped and specular mapped. It looked really good. A lot of the surfaces looked better than what I was seeing in the 360 version of Call of Duty 2. Kameo looke pretty shiny and bumby and I think it was showing off its stuff pretty well. King Kong I think may just be a SLEEPER HIT. The environments were looking good. They had a lot of good moments, though some parts looked a little jaggy. When you go play, take the time to look at Jack Black's character's eyes. It's wild. I would say the gameplay is looking new and refreshing. No one will play this demo without being rattled by the T-rex (some cool effects when he roars at you). In all, I'm a graphics whore AND a gameplay whore. I expect both. Like I said before, give me a REASON to upgrade. Those two things would be the reason - NOT exclusive new titles. 24 - For the author Unregistered - samonmoose 10.31.2005 08:21 hi, its a little suprising that this arguement is still so linear games have changed in the way we have play them yet the arguement stays the same black and white tone as it always has. Austhetically an immersive game is just that because the game play lends its self to the enviroment crafted for it. Example - splinter cell; u stick sam fisher in a wide open but brilliantly rendered field ur not going to get sucked in and the game wont be generally as attractive as if he was on an aircraft carrier stalking down the corridors during a storm. Halo; was impressive because of its large and for the time open battlefields graphically they were an achievement but gameplay wize they allowed you to approach the situation how you wanted and to feel the need to blow up the powerful looking wraith pummeling the area around you. Games are rated on the interaction of gameplay mechanics with the evnviroment crafted for it. If you create a fps you cannot expect anyone to appreciate your title if the guns you give the player dont look or feel like they are firring (cough bf2 cough) the same as you cant expect them to pay any attention to the enemy if they dont look scary enough or react to you properly (as seen in the fun but brief fire fights in the excellent fear). Today it can no longer be considered a graphics and gameplay issue, we expect more, we expect a.i, physics, sounds that crunch and a good feel to the game. To the auther anyone who cannot match todays rendering standards is probably in the wrong job, iam very happy that titles such as halo are forcing developers to smarten up their act and provide the complete package and all the gamers should be too. Best not mention halo 2 though ;) 25 - In response Dusty 10.31.2005 10:29 I see now how I could have written this article a lot better, as it was basically just me rambling on about my views on the topic. That is also why it is in the journal section and not an official article on the site, because it is my personal view. I still stand by what I wrote though, and I will try to answer some of the questions that some of you asked. With “great” graphics I meant graphics that are impressive from both a technical and art perspective. Many games are technically good looking but have dull character design and environments. Look at Good of War for the PS2, that game blows anything on the more powerful Xbox away visually. Not because of fancy visual effects or the higher number of polygons on screen, but the artistic work in that game is just amazing. Yes there are other games that have “great graphics” like Resident Evil 4, but I am not going to name them all, you get the point. I guess what I am trying to say is that since only about 1 out of 10 games in the current gen come close to matching games like God of War, Resident Evil 4, Halo, MGS3 visually, how can we now expect all game developers in the next-gen to suddenly reach this level of excellence in the visual department? The whole next-gen thing is a bit over hyped as one of you mentioned; Sony and Microsoft are kind of trying to sell something that is really not theirs to sell. I don’t doubt that there will be many 360 games that can challenge Gears of War visually in the future; I only think that there will be many more games that can not. Luckily we all decide each what games we will buy, and personally I won’t demand extraordinary visuals in all the “next-gen” games I buy. But if some of you will, I guess that is perfectly ok too. But do you also demand that the music you buy to have the best audio recording money can buy , and the movies you watch to have better effects than Star Wars? 26 - Xbox 360 Unregistered - Ha Ha Ha 11.02.2005 10:16 it might be priced at 450 cash dollars but the graphic's are suposed to be worth it im not going to buy it it will suck A*S 27 - Better graphics to come Unregistered - Scott 11.23.2005 20:52 I know that most of the games for launch don't look that much better than the original Xbox but, look at PGR2. I mean the graphics for this game are awsome. I can't stop playing it. The cars, the cities, the crowds, even the interiors of the cars look realistic. So far this is the only launch game i can really call to have next-gen graphics. But look what is to come,the new Ghost Recon is probably the best looking game i have ever seen in my life. Also there is gears of war. Plus, we all know that microsoft is going to be releasing a Splinter Cell game, and you know that the graphics for it are gonna be sweet. These games are "launch games." Developers haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what the 360 is fully capable of. and if everyone thinks the PS3 is going to be better because it might have little bit better graphics. KISS my A@@ because without a hard drive, the games for the PS3 not going to be that good. And i never knew you can make a controller out of a boomerang. (no offense to those who might take that comment to be harsh.) 28 - IF IT'S FUN I'LL BUY IT IF IT'S NOT WONT BOTHER! Unregistered - LAGIZZTIC 01.17.2006 20:02 The problem I forsee is that the xbox had great top notch graphics but early games sucked. ex.wwf raw terrible! But the models were awesome looking. I just hope developers dont go after achieving great gameplay and terrible gameplay! 29 - CONTINUED LAST POST Unregistered - LAGIZZTIC 01.18.2006 11:11 What I meant to say was I hope it does't end up we get great graphics and awful gameplay. Add Comment |
|
 |
|
Privacy
Statement
|
Advertise With Us
|
Xbox
360 News is in no way affiliated with Microsoft Corp. All content/trademarks
are owned by their respective owners. ©Copyright 2005 All Rights Reserved Xbox360News.com |
