IGN talks PS3
- Thread starter Kesler
- Start date
hey69 said:
Obviously. The point was, PC IQ is a gazillion times better than consoles'.
That's all.
I have not finished a PC game in... EVER. Cause i lost interest long before i got to the end. And i've bought Farcry, Doom3, HL2 and all the big ones, played them at full settings on my very expensive PC.
Oh, i have finished Turok, the first one, on my Voodoo, now THAT was a good game
I have finished almost every game i have bought/rented on PS2, because all the games i've bought/rented were games that i couldn't stop playing. I don't buy that many games, but the ones i buy, are the ones i know are GOOD. Even the ones that were less interesting than others, like Summoner, i finished them.
But that is not a good argument for the simple fact that PC IQ is a gazillion times better than consoles'.
cthellis42 said:FFVII?! No offense man, but there are just some things you shouldn't say.Phil said:
I have real issues going back to first-generation 3D steps--all of them--as at this point they're like going back to play Atari 2600 games after experiencing all the best 2D has to offer. Nostalgia can help, but dammit if the low-res textures and blocky models don't make the games hard to absorb. -_-
I'd be happier going to new machines, but I could stand this generation's quality for a while longer. But PS1/N64/Saturn? No fuggin' way!
Oh, it's not that hard once you consider that there are very few games that came out since then that rivals Final Fantasy VII in substance. On the other hand, it's graphics really aren't that bad once you get over the beginning of the game and get rewarded with beautiful pre-rendered backgrounds and nice flawless transitions from them into FMVs. I will agree though that the characters are really blocky, but hey, so what? The game is certainly way less aliased and pixellated than many 3d PlayStation games out there. As an example, I found it harder to get into MGS1 again - despite the motionblur and the quite high quality graphics and consistent framerate.
I will agree though that I was itching for next generation around 1999 when PlayStation games were having serious framerate problems (Need for Speed 3 had great framerate, High Stakes on the other hand nicer graphics but halfed framerate) and the game were starting to look very pixellated. I guess Dreamcast also helped to make it more obvious. Right now though, I'm looking at Gran Turismo 4 and seeing other PC efforts side by side (which are the benchmark as far as graphics go today) and I'm thinking my PS2 still has quite a bit of life in it. As said earlier, PC games undoubtedly have the edge as far as IQ goes, but unfortunately IQ alone doesn't make it a better experience. IMO art is something that a lot of those games lack and when I put in a game like Snake Eater, I am quite blown away by the art-direction, the way the whole enviromnent interacts with the player and gameplay mechanics - DESPITE the lower IQ, fewer quality textures, less polygons etc. It's then that I ask myself "do I really need next generation NOW"? I really don't. I'd rather have what I have for another good year or more and then be *blown* away by next generation.
Watch out, man, someone's going to beat you up for that.Phil said:
Regardless, one can always enjoy the substance of a game without needing graphics. But all we're TALKING about right now is graphics. Hehe...See, the FMV and pre-rendered backgrouds I can still hack, as they don't feel dated. But what I'm referring to are the "game pieces" so to say... Moving around those blocky characters is a bit... ugh. -_-
Regardless, FF 7-9 are not quite the games to bring up when talking about graphics of that generation, as they are entirely different stylistically and are not what we think of when talking about games in a "3D engine." I mean, I can quite easily go back and love playing Symphony of Night as well, but that isn't much of a parallel, is it?
It can, but the gen is running basically as long as the last one (a little longer, actually) so what were we expecting?
Games look good enough, but I'd rather see all the new machines and games start rolling out now, so that in 2-3 years when I'll be REALLY tired of this gen's, they'll actually be producing games that look great and encorporate the new tech well, rather than poly- or glam-fests. It's not like this gen's gameplay is going away, anyway. Frankly, next gen's machines can only enhance it. A studio may get distracted by new graphics, but if they've already been experimenting with complex AI, interactive environments, etc.? How is getting machines that can handle so much MORE of it going to detract? ^_^ I think we'll be getting much better OVERALL games sooner, too.
the point is imho,
not surprising, ps2 badly show age, gc re4 hot but grainy still majority gc games are weak as ps2, even xbox is lowresy some what.
once see good pc 3d cannot go back to consoles. really simple, how any one can say other wise...unless of cozz one exposure to modern graphics are limited to certain set up... and no is not just 1600x1200.
ok i do give the doubt of diminishing visual returns a tick.
art is subjective thou
for pc to show great art + graphics look no further than hl2... unless of cozz see hl2 thruogh gfmx.
for gt4 the glitzy replays leaf more impact to one sub conscious decisions than actual in game which many racers are better, granted pd big resource effort in photo modelling the cars help some place.
for mgs3, no denying the cinematic directions are kung pow wow! but technically its back to what we say about ps1/saturn lowres grainy poorly lit visuals. mgs3 is even chugging alone at 30fps.
if anything base developed console holding back 3d future thats already now.
that why next gen cant come fast enough to release power of 64bits cpu 256mb fb 16pixelpipes etc.
not surprising, ps2 badly show age, gc re4 hot but grainy still majority gc games are weak as ps2, even xbox is lowresy some what.
once see good pc 3d cannot go back to consoles. really simple, how any one can say other wise...unless of cozz one exposure to modern graphics are limited to certain set up... and no is not just 1600x1200.
ok i do give the doubt of diminishing visual returns a tick.
art is subjective thou
for pc to show great art + graphics look no further than hl2... unless of cozz see hl2 thruogh gfmx.
for gt4 the glitzy replays leaf more impact to one sub conscious decisions than actual in game which many racers are better, granted pd big resource effort in photo modelling the cars help some place.
for mgs3, no denying the cinematic directions are kung pow wow! but technically its back to what we say about ps1/saturn lowres grainy poorly lit visuals. mgs3 is even chugging alone at 30fps.
if anything base developed console holding back 3d future thats already now.
that why next gen cant come fast enough to release power of 64bits cpu 256mb fb 16pixelpipes etc.
cthellis42 said:
cthellis42 said:
Actually, it seems you are talking about graphics - I was rather speaking about the experience factor. If you want to limit yourself to graphics alone, we could have started this thread ~3 years ago when PC graphics officially surpassed what consoles offered. Even better: why not just switch back to PC-gaming? You'll have all the updates that ensure better graphics on a yearly basis there.
cthellis42 said:
I hope you are aware that if next gen rolls out now that developers would have shifted their focus on to the newer hardware already months ago - leaving you with little to play for the next 2 to 3 years on the old console (as quality support will have dropped and moved on).
As to your question "what were we expecting" - I'm beginning to wonder that myself. As I said, I'm happy to wait till fall 2006 (PAL) for next generation as there's still plenty for me to look forward to until then. If it ment waiting a little while longer into 2007 if it ment my next generation console of interest could shift to a better process and thus deliver more for my money, depending on what sotware is planned, I'd be willing to wait for sure. Having said that, I guess it depends more on what I'm going to get when next generation launches - after all, that generation should last for 6 or even 7 years.
Oh for God's sake Philly, all we're saying is that we can't freaking wait to see next gen games.
The fact that you still play bloody FF7 doesn't mean that current consoles aren't an eyesore compared to a normal resolution PC game (1280x1024 or even 1024x728). Let's not even talk about the 32-bit generation where i can actually count the black lines in between the screen due to low resolution.
No one was talking about the experience, you brought that up to defend your argument. If we talk about the games, and the experience and the gameplay, it wouldn't be the same discussion now would it?
Current consoles are "enough" cause we can't have it otherwise. We HAVE to wait. Playing FF7 today would give me a brain tumour.
Now, relax!
The fact that you still play bloody FF7 doesn't mean that current consoles aren't an eyesore compared to a normal resolution PC game (1280x1024 or even 1024x728). Let's not even talk about the 32-bit generation where i can actually count the black lines in between the screen due to low resolution.
No one was talking about the experience, you brought that up to defend your argument. If we talk about the games, and the experience and the gameplay, it wouldn't be the same discussion now would it?
Current consoles are "enough" cause we can't have it otherwise. We HAVE to wait. Playing FF7 today would give me a brain tumour.
Now, relax!
That right! no one saying current games becozz of old graphics suddenly become bad gameplay the next night.
One still can have fun on console games depend on preference, but no denying many console graphics are eye sore or lack the eye candy impact now.
To be fairness, if one game exclusive on certain set up, one can be excused thinking otherwise.
One still can have fun on console games depend on preference, but no denying many console graphics are eye sore or lack the eye candy impact now.
To be fairness, if one game exclusive on certain set up, one can be excused thinking otherwise.
I am relaxed. Seriously, I think you should go back and read the comments from IGN (which incase you didn't notice is what the thread is all about). No one there is saying console graphics are as good as PC graphics - the main question asked is "do we need next generation already?"
If you want to limit your take on the matter to graphics alone, fine by me - it doesn't change the fact though that the above question which is the one that is discussed is open to other factors as well - i.e. experience and entertainment that this generation is offering now and today. I respect your opinion - how about you respect mine?
Seriously, I think you should go back and read the comments from IGN (which incase you didn't notice is what the thread is all about). No one there is saying console graphics are as good as PC graphics - the main question asked is "do we need next generation already?"If you want to limit your take on the matter to graphics alone, fine by me - it doesn't change the fact though that the above question which is the one that is discussed is open to other factors as well - i.e. experience and entertainment that this generation is offering now and today. I respect your opinion - how about you respect mine?
IGN said:
Yes.
40mb ram, hell 64mb, sub ghz speed, 480i, hell 480p and everything, dont cut it now. so many console game will look and play better faster with more hardware head room for imaginaton.
for instance kazunori@gt4 lament repeated interviews, how ps2 technically limited for him to implement his greater ideas. what u get after gt3 is ... well just.. gt4 .. if u get what i mean.
Phil said:
You just sounded quite aggressive about it that's all.
I've read the IGN article, if so you can call it.
Heh, I'm into graphics/advanced technical achievements as the next guy, but ask yourself the following question as a PlayStation gamer:
would you rather have a 1 PPE (possibly with only 4 SPEs) TODAY or rather a 1 PPE with 8 SPEs in 2006 (at 90nm)?
Following other reports on Sony's process and their fabs, what if you knew Sony could pull 65nm in late 2006 which in take could give you maybe even a 2 PPE setup (16 SPEs in total)? What if their 45nm tech would be quite advanced by the end of 2006 which would mean they could pack even more into it?
I'm not quite sure people itching for next generation NOW are really aware that you'd have weaker hardware as a result. Going to a more advanced process isn't something that happens that quick - what if you knew an extra year could give you much better hardware? I sure know I'd love to have a 2 PPE setup. You can't have everything though. My point is basically - as long as this generation is "good enough" - next generation can only get better with a bit of patience.
Of course the above goes for any company, may it be Nintendo or Microsoft. Later launch == better tech. available. Of course if tech would be all equal regardless of the time schedule, then I'd be for next generation NOW as the next guy.
would you rather have a 1 PPE (possibly with only 4 SPEs) TODAY or rather a 1 PPE with 8 SPEs in 2006 (at 90nm)?
Following other reports on Sony's process and their fabs, what if you knew Sony could pull 65nm in late 2006 which in take could give you maybe even a 2 PPE setup (16 SPEs in total)? What if their 45nm tech would be quite advanced by the end of 2006 which would mean they could pack even more into it?
I'm not quite sure people itching for next generation NOW are really aware that you'd have weaker hardware as a result. Going to a more advanced process isn't something that happens that quick - what if you knew an extra year could give you much better hardware? I sure know I'd love to have a 2 PPE setup. You can't have everything though. My point is basically - as long as this generation is "good enough" - next generation can only get better with a bit of patience.
Of course the above goes for any company, may it be Nintendo or Microsoft. Later launch == better tech. available. Of course if tech would be all equal regardless of the time schedule, then I'd be for next generation NOW as the next guy.
Well nothing's gonna come out TODAY anyway, so...?
Obviously, the more we wait, the more powerful the next consoles will be, but they will have to come out one day in the future, and this generation is closing in on its 6th year. I think that's enough.
Xbox2 is going to come out at the end of the year, maybe next year, and the other 2 will come out after that.
I think, by the time they're out, my PS2 will have taken its last breath. Quite rightly so.
Obviously i will be playing Shadow of the Colossus all the way till next gen, and i will love every second of it, but that doesn't mean that i'm happy to wait another 57 years, just to get an uberpowerful PS3.
Obviously, the more we wait, the more powerful the next consoles will be, but they will have to come out one day in the future, and this generation is closing in on its 6th year. I think that's enough.
Xbox2 is going to come out at the end of the year, maybe next year, and the other 2 will come out after that.
I think, by the time they're out, my PS2 will have taken its last breath. Quite rightly so.
Obviously i will be playing Shadow of the Colossus all the way till next gen, and i will love every second of it, but that doesn't mean that i'm happy to wait another 57 years, just to get an uberpowerful PS3.
How long have people had their consoles?
Last time I bought one was Dec. 2000.
Of course a lot of consoles have been sold in the last couple of years. But a lot of those are people buying their second or third consoles of this generation.
A lot of people haven't bought since the first couple of years of this generation's cycle, meaning 2000-2002 and 2001-2003.
Last time I bought one was Dec. 2000.
Of course a lot of consoles have been sold in the last couple of years. But a lot of those are people buying their second or third consoles of this generation.
A lot of people haven't bought since the first couple of years of this generation's cycle, meaning 2000-2002 and 2001-2003.
.
Imo is that, in some cases, I Really really need next gen , and in some cases i could easily be very happy with current hardware. Example when playing gta san andreas, witch is a fun game, but as its graphics and physics obviously showing things that could be so much better with todays (tomorrows) hardware. Other types of games like In gradius V i dont see the immediate need, As The innovations what it lacks are not the fault of the underpowered hardware. Like if someone starts to say something about how much mips/gflops it would take to actually incorporate some new movement dynamic to that 20 year gamplay, what is beyond ps2. You obviously are like thousand years beyond current sidescroll shooting evolution if you Must have new hardware for that or no can do.
But its a really big "get use to it" transition when one first start the day with Half life 2/Doom3, and then i switch to gta san andreas to get some getto action to boring evening. Huh that is something that needs some adjustmen (moving your chair and such), it just reads "LOW RES" all over it. Dont get me wrong, i like the game. But in that particular game, damn...100x cpumips 10x ram and 100x shading power And i start to think "I WANT MY PS3 GTA NOW".But then one forgets what lowres, as he is loving the game more than he is hating the textures.
Lastly as gamegraphics , like watching paintings, From close they look like messy and you can see how fat the brush was so you need thinner brush. but if you go far and everything just comes together and your brain does the rest. But techy vice yes pc has better rendering quality as farcry pushes allmost 100 instructions per pixel with 10x texture sampling and resolution on highend cards versus lowres low sampling console conterparents exept few exeptions. But many still like more graphics what console designers output with far less capable hardware. they allmost archive better results by making the game in a way like discribed below.
How would Halo/metroid/res4 look on pc, if designed to run on x800/6800 with 640x480/ 4xrgmsaa with around 20-30 fps target fps and designed to be played throught tv the same ways as with the consoles. With those same teams developing these games who developed the said orginals. using same time to learn how to make x800/6800 scream as they did with the consoles but making the best experience possible with this said pc hardware.
Imo is that, in some cases, I Really really need next gen , and in some cases i could easily be very happy with current hardware. Example when playing gta san andreas, witch is a fun game, but as its graphics and physics obviously showing things that could be so much better with todays (tomorrows) hardware. Other types of games like In gradius V i dont see the immediate need, As The innovations what it lacks are not the fault of the underpowered hardware. Like if someone starts to say something about how much mips/gflops it would take to actually incorporate some new movement dynamic to that 20 year gamplay, what is beyond ps2. You obviously are like thousand years beyond current sidescroll shooting evolution if you Must have new hardware for that or no can do.
But its a really big "get use to it" transition when one first start the day with Half life 2/Doom3, and then i switch to gta san andreas to get some getto action to boring evening. Huh that is something that needs some adjustmen (moving your chair and such), it just reads "LOW RES" all over it. Dont get me wrong, i like the game. But in that particular game, damn...100x cpumips 10x ram and 100x shading power And i start to think "I WANT MY PS3 GTA NOW".But then one forgets what lowres, as he is loving the game more than he is hating the textures.
Lastly as gamegraphics , like watching paintings, From close they look like messy and you can see how fat the brush was so you need thinner brush. but if you go far and everything just comes together and your brain does the rest. But techy vice yes pc has better rendering quality as farcry pushes allmost 100 instructions per pixel with 10x texture sampling and resolution on highend cards versus lowres low sampling console conterparents exept few exeptions. But many still like more graphics what console designers output with far less capable hardware. they allmost archive better results by making the game in a way like discribed below.
How would Halo/metroid/res4 look on pc, if designed to run on x800/6800 with 640x480/ 4xrgmsaa with around 20-30 fps target fps and designed to be played throught tv the same ways as with the consoles. With those same teams developing these games who developed the said orginals. using same time to learn how to make x800/6800 scream as they did with the consoles but making the best experience possible with this said pc hardware.
Similar threads
