If a next gen console X could reach the graphic level of Unreal 3, and next gen console Y could reach the graphic level of that Madden next gen picure, would you say there is no difference in graphics quality between said consoles?
Madden NFL Football game looking amazing on PS3
- Thread starter McFly
- Start date
The nice thing about football games is that they are in VERY controlled environments. Field, 22 players, a couple refs, stadium and fans, benches, lights/sun, some weather effects, and that is it. (Of course there is Audio and AI, but you know what I mean!)
Having such a consistant and controlled environment means EA should be able to really push the new consoles graphically.
That being said, I could care less. Has anyone played Madden? I just got done playing a game (I have been testing it on the PC). The game is so glitchy it is not even fun against humans. Strategy and game smarts are overwhelmed by knowing "Hey, if I run a Quarter Defense and blitz the two slot corners every time I can still cover all his WR, but the tackles wont pick up the blitz and I can stuff runs in the backfield or get easy blitzes" or "Hey, with this great new DB AI I can cram everyone at the line with no safties and stuff the run and take away the flats and quick passes. And since my DBs can turn around on a dime they dont get beat deep, but they also can stop the short dump passes that would normally kill a Defense with no safties". How about the nice cheat a friendly gamer told me? "You are pretty good, you will win a lot of games once you learn some cheats" and then proceeded to tell me how to do a cheat with a simple audible where the DL go right through the line. Great to know
Madden is all about finding glitches in the game AI and exploiting them. That is not football OR fun.
EA better augment the boring/repetative/limiting Mo-Cap system and go with a totally physics driven animation system. No more lock on OL blocking. 5OL, 1FB, and 1TE lead blocking against 3DL and 1LB in a Quarter Defense should be a HUGE gain--not stuffed in the backfield. Tackles should be assisted realistically and broken out of by strong players with good balance. Big hits from both side should make a player crumple. Big backs like Bettis should bruise you up and knock guys over and run through arm tackles whereas little quick guys like Hall and Dunn should be gitterbugs all over the place with great balance to change directions. I did not really know how broken Madden was until the last couple weeks while testing this out. I had not played Madden against humans since 1999-2000 and the CPU does not cheat (I played a few season in 2003 GCN; in 2005 against the CPU on All-Pro I am 7-0 and averaging 50+ points and allowing 3.5 a game, so I do ok).
But right now I am getting no enjoyment online because the game does not play like football. It reminds me of the first version on the SNES. My friend would ONLY play as SF because they had a tripple reverse pass audible that could NOT be broken. You could not tackle the WRs during the play until the 3rd one, Rice, got it. And if you were there he would not take control of Rice and Rice would bomb it across the field to Taylor for a pass that was always caught (could not be dropped, could not be intercepted). My friend always did this play when he was behind. I see the same thing happening online. Guys run these "money plays" non-stop. And some of them are very good, but they just exploit the AI and engine problems in such an unrealistic way (who runs a Quarter D against a 1WR, 2TE, 2RB set?! And who then tackles the HB in the backfield for a 3 yard loss?!!!) because the game is glitchy.
If NFL 2k was on the PC I would love to test it. Madden needs to change a lot. So I could care less about the graphics--make it play like real football!!
I am gonna be one upset football fan if Madden just ups the graphics and keeps the same lame animation system. I think CELL sounds awesome, but unless games actually exploit it for heavy physics/AI and animation systems that are dynamic and extremely interactive then there really is no point.
Anyhow, I will end my frustrating with Madden for the evening by going and losing another game to glitching players!
Ps- If the PS3 ships in spring of 2006 and is using GF 7xxx tech and Xenon launches in fall of 2005 with the R500, then I personally am not expecting the PS3 to look out of this world better, I would even doubt that the PS3-to-Xenon would even rival Xbox-to-PS2 differences.
EA makes the most money by making versions on all the consoles and really exploiting the PS3 may make cross platforming hard. If they use Xenon as the least common denominator they can port to the PC easily and then go to the PS3. And if the PS3 is more powerful graphically (something we do NOT know... the strength of the PS3 seems to be CELL and the memory interface which should allow AMAZING AI and Physics) then they could add bells and whistles like the Xbox version has. I recently played NCAA 2005 side by side on the PS2 and Xbox and the Xbox version looks a ton better. I am shocked that the posted pic is from Madden PS2 because NCAA looks NOTHING like that. Of course this is how the game is really played which is much more similar to NCAA, so those close up shots do not say much. Aliasing really is distracting on the PS2 version of NCAA 2005 and this pic seems to reinforce that. The Xbox version looked much sharper--BUT as someone here noted, they both play the same and both are very playable, and that is what matters.
What I think we should all find interesting is EA mentioned the PS3 version and how great it looks but not a peep on Xenon. I also did not see Madden listed on the EA Xbox/Xenon release thing from the Neatherlands leak, but that may just be a given. What will be very interesting is if Xenon gets the Next Gen version in 2005, or if EA waits until the PS3 release. And ::shutter:: with the NFL monopoly hopefully for gamers everywhere we do not see ANY platform get an exclusive. I do not care if it is MS or Sony (I would laugh if Nintendo got one though), an NFL exclusive would be a killer move worth its weight in gold in marketing but would be bad news in this gamers eyes.
Having such a consistant and controlled environment means EA should be able to really push the new consoles graphically.
That being said, I could care less. Has anyone played Madden? I just got done playing a game (I have been testing it on the PC). The game is so glitchy it is not even fun against humans. Strategy and game smarts are overwhelmed by knowing "Hey, if I run a Quarter Defense and blitz the two slot corners every time I can still cover all his WR, but the tackles wont pick up the blitz and I can stuff runs in the backfield or get easy blitzes" or "Hey, with this great new DB AI I can cram everyone at the line with no safties and stuff the run and take away the flats and quick passes. And since my DBs can turn around on a dime they dont get beat deep, but they also can stop the short dump passes that would normally kill a Defense with no safties". How about the nice cheat a friendly gamer told me? "You are pretty good, you will win a lot of games once you learn some cheats" and then proceeded to tell me how to do a cheat with a simple audible where the DL go right through the line. Great to know
Madden is all about finding glitches in the game AI and exploiting them. That is not football OR fun.EA better augment the boring/repetative/limiting Mo-Cap system and go with a totally physics driven animation system. No more lock on OL blocking. 5OL, 1FB, and 1TE lead blocking against 3DL and 1LB in a Quarter Defense should be a HUGE gain--not stuffed in the backfield. Tackles should be assisted realistically and broken out of by strong players with good balance. Big hits from both side should make a player crumple. Big backs like Bettis should bruise you up and knock guys over and run through arm tackles whereas little quick guys like Hall and Dunn should be gitterbugs all over the place with great balance to change directions. I did not really know how broken Madden was until the last couple weeks while testing this out. I had not played Madden against humans since 1999-2000 and the CPU does not cheat (I played a few season in 2003 GCN; in 2005 against the CPU on All-Pro I am 7-0 and averaging 50+ points and allowing 3.5 a game, so I do ok).
But right now I am getting no enjoyment online because the game does not play like football. It reminds me of the first version on the SNES. My friend would ONLY play as SF because they had a tripple reverse pass audible that could NOT be broken. You could not tackle the WRs during the play until the 3rd one, Rice, got it. And if you were there he would not take control of Rice and Rice would bomb it across the field to Taylor for a pass that was always caught (could not be dropped, could not be intercepted). My friend always did this play when he was behind. I see the same thing happening online. Guys run these "money plays" non-stop. And some of them are very good, but they just exploit the AI and engine problems in such an unrealistic way (who runs a Quarter D against a 1WR, 2TE, 2RB set?! And who then tackles the HB in the backfield for a 3 yard loss?!!!) because the game is glitchy.
If NFL 2k was on the PC I would love to test it. Madden needs to change a lot. So I could care less about the graphics--make it play like real football!!
I am gonna be one upset football fan if Madden just ups the graphics and keeps the same lame animation system. I think CELL sounds awesome, but unless games actually exploit it for heavy physics/AI and animation systems that are dynamic and extremely interactive then there really is no point.
Anyhow, I will end my frustrating with Madden for the evening by going and losing another game to glitching players!
Ps- If the PS3 ships in spring of 2006 and is using GF 7xxx tech and Xenon launches in fall of 2005 with the R500, then I personally am not expecting the PS3 to look out of this world better, I would even doubt that the PS3-to-Xenon would even rival Xbox-to-PS2 differences.
EA makes the most money by making versions on all the consoles and really exploiting the PS3 may make cross platforming hard. If they use Xenon as the least common denominator they can port to the PC easily and then go to the PS3. And if the PS3 is more powerful graphically (something we do NOT know... the strength of the PS3 seems to be CELL and the memory interface which should allow AMAZING AI and Physics) then they could add bells and whistles like the Xbox version has. I recently played NCAA 2005 side by side on the PS2 and Xbox and the Xbox version looks a ton better. I am shocked that the posted pic is from Madden PS2 because NCAA looks NOTHING like that. Of course this is how the game is really played which is much more similar to NCAA, so those close up shots do not say much. Aliasing really is distracting on the PS2 version of NCAA 2005 and this pic seems to reinforce that. The Xbox version looked much sharper--BUT as someone here noted, they both play the same and both are very playable, and that is what matters.
What I think we should all find interesting is EA mentioned the PS3 version and how great it looks but not a peep on Xenon. I also did not see Madden listed on the EA Xbox/Xenon release thing from the Neatherlands leak, but that may just be a given. What will be very interesting is if Xenon gets the Next Gen version in 2005, or if EA waits until the PS3 release. And ::shutter:: with the NFL monopoly hopefully for gamers everywhere we do not see ANY platform get an exclusive. I do not care if it is MS or Sony (I would laugh if Nintendo got one though), an NFL exclusive would be a killer move worth its weight in gold in marketing but would be bad news in this gamers eyes.
Yes, but even though football games, fighters... are maybe easier to make graphically impressive than games with larger gameplay areas, the difference in graphics quality between them and other games isn't really that big.
If you look at Madden games this gen, and look at other games on same console, you can easily predict the average graphic quality of that console... or maybe not, maybe it's just because of experience
If you look at Madden games this gen, and look at other games on same console, you can easily predict the average graphic quality of that console... or maybe not, maybe it's just because of experience
No room for improvement in graphics?
http://inlandempirestrikesback.net/v-web/gallery/IESBGAMES/Unreal3?full=1
And it's still very lacking in AA and polygon count...
http://inlandempirestrikesback.net/v-web/gallery/IESBGAMES/Unreal3?full=1
And it's still very lacking in AA and polygon count...
jvd said:
IMHO, the unnaturally sharp edges on the gun are very disturbing - they'd cut the marine's hands
Every man-made object has slight bevels on it's edges, but it'd require a lot more polygons to implement. So there is still quite some room for improvement left... and we're still not talking about hair and fur which would eat up the polygon count very very fast.jvd said:
The point is, until that guy looks like the black guy in FFSTW or like Will Smith on you BadBoys2 DVD, there is room for improvement, whatever normal maps you want to use on him.
jvd said:
Yes, there are diminishing returns such that you'd reach a point where improvments in tech become barely notceable. But I don't see that being an issue with next-gen console hardware.
Firstly polygon count isn't the only issue. There's complex pixel and vertex shaders that current gen consoles don't have. More importantly there's floating point representation of colour allowing photorealistic lighting effects, HDRI lighting maps, and other 'real-world' effects.
Secondly, polycount isn't just about how detailed characters are but also how much you can have on screen. Take Champions of Norrath on PS2 - a hack n slash and one of the best looking games ever on that platform, including fullscreen 2x AA. At present you can have some 10 enemies on screen at once, maybe 15. Next gen iterations will have 10x as many with 10x the poly count. From a mob, you go to facing an army. That will look impressive!
As I said though, I think the limiting factor will be ram. A tennis game, with hardly anything to render, can use all that memory on highly detailed models, textures and animations, producing a near-TV look. Whereas something more demanding such as a huge RPG will need a lot more RAM for the world and more varied details in th scenery, leaving less for super-quality visuals.
I doubt any racing game will wow me graphically as much as GT3. That was leaps and bounds beyond anything before and any improvements won't be as noticeable (diminishing returns!). But on other titles I still think we'll see some jaw-dropping renderings, especially when blown up on large HDTV screens.
jvd said:
I know what diminishing returns is, and i know that it will take more and more power to have marginally better graphics each generation. But there is so much room for improvement it's not even funny, whatever diminishing returns applies to the graphics technology business.
It will take immense power to get graphics that are indistinguishable from reality, but that doesn't mean it will never happen.
God, please, always let there be room for improvement. Please.london-boy said:
McFly said:I can't wait for games that look better than reality.
Fredi
Games that look better than reality might have 2 effects, get u addicted (u wouldn't want to ever come out of a world that is better than reality), or drive u to suicide (you couldnt cope with reality after hours of being immersed into a better-than-reality world). Or just give u a brain tumor.
london-boy said:McFly said:I can't wait for games that look better than reality.
Fredi
Games that look better than reality might have 2 effects, get u addicted (u wouldn't want to ever come out of a world that is better than reality), or drive u to suicide (you couldnt cope with reality after hours of being immersed into a better-than-reality world). Or just give u a brain tumor.
I would happily chose option one that would end in option two as I would forget to pay the bill for my food injenction machine.
Fredi
McFly said:london-boy said:McFly said:I can't wait for games that look better than reality.
Fredi
Games that look better than reality might have 2 effects, get u addicted (u wouldn't want to ever come out of a world that is better than reality), or drive u to suicide (you couldnt cope with reality after hours of being immersed into a better-than-reality world). Or just give u a brain tumor.
I would happily chose option one that would end in option two as I would forget to pay the bill for my food injenction machine.
Fredi
Just remember that your neurons wont be able to process all the better-than-reality data stuff and will start dying. Hence brain tumor.
All this talk about "we have achieved enough, graphics can't get much better" is well, hilarious. I mean we have achieved so less, there is long long way to go. There is so many thing that needs big improvement. We are nowhere close to animation movies, leave alone photorealism.
Play any game and you realise how little we have done till now.
Play any game and you realise how little we have done till now.
For one, who is arguing that we have achieved "enough"? I certainly wasn't I argues that the time difference between XBOX 2 and PS3 won't produce much of a visual difference. Less of a visual difference they you see between Xbox and PS2 games.
People that are expecting to see graphics like that EA Madden render (and it WAS a render), will be sadly unimpressed next generation.
People that are expecting to see graphics like that EA Madden render (and it WAS a render), will be sadly unimpressed next generation.
To come back to my "better than reality" comment. What I hope to see next gen are things like this from Animatrix (matriculated):
Something that not exist in reality and where people can't point out things that are not photoreal as it never even trys to look photoreal, but at the same time with high enough poly counts and maybe procedural textures so you can't tell where a polygon is or where one pixel starts and where an other pixel ends.
Fredi
Something that not exist in reality and where people can't point out things that are not photoreal as it never even trys to look photoreal, but at the same time with high enough poly counts and maybe procedural textures so you can't tell where a polygon is or where one pixel starts and where an other pixel ends.
Fredi
Yep. It's called Art.
Gonna be hard to find in a world dominated by EA.
Gonna be hard to find in a world dominated by EA.
