I dont think thats a fair comparisson just because the experience of working on next gen titles for the xbox helped developers get up to speed with some of the next gen stuff... even if the programming is not exactly alike that experience still helps.. besides originally ps3 was coming 4 months after the 360..
MercuryNews: A Chat With Phil Harrison
- Thread starter "Nerve-Damage"
- Start date
- Status
I dont think thats a fair comparisson just because the experience of working on next gen titles for the xbox helped developers get up to speed with some of the next gen stuff... even if the programming is not exactly alike that experience still helps.. besides originally ps3 was coming 4 months after the 360..
Why should we have to do that when Phil Harrison didn't?
Don't make excuses for him. It's OK to admit he was wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
The scale is bigger?
Bigger in what way? Just a size measurement, or in the sense of it delivering the gameplay experience that the developers wanted?
GOW's player limitation isn't due to any technical reason you know, it was a gameplay decision. They went with what worked best for their game, not with a big number just to say they had a big number.
Well, back in the first days of the Xbox, I used to say something similar, but I was put in my place pretty quickly. The 360 games have an extra year of API, firmware, OS and developer experience. However, the PS3 has an extra year of hardware. Hence it's reasonable, even in technical terms, to compare games between the platforms that launch near each other.
He probably means more data on the disc.
(though I thinkt he environments and maps are also bigger, and there are 5 times as many players in multi-playwer,there are probably more levels, stuff like that).No, but after they made that decision I'm fairly sure that this affected how many polies and textures they could put into the characters.
I do agree that GoW is the more innovative game. Though you could say it pretty much takes the MGS's boss-fights (for example the first boss-fight on the ship in MGS2) and makes a whole game out of them, it clearly stands out as a game from its FPS brethren. Resistance is far more conventional in a genre that has been done to death, and therefore stands out much less. Having said that, I'm looking forward to seeing the reviews and graphics side by side on these two games. I think GeoW is going to be one of those games that are extremely polished and exhale that coolness factor that you used to expect from all games that were released by, say, Team17 or the Bitmap Brothers (I'm talking back in the 16 bit days). I love the animation in that game, and especially also the way the main character interacts with the environment - not that there is so much interaction, but the way he runs with the camera style, the way he can jolt himself into a wall taking cover, then jumping over, all the while retaining the illusion that he's a big heavy guy, is very well done. I think that in the end though, Resistance has a lot of content and features, and will bring a lot of depth and playability with it. It's very Halo like in many respects, and I'll be interested to see how both games will do come review time (which should be fairly soon).
But to stay mildly on topic, I do think that Resistance is a big game, in the literal sense of the word. There's a *lot* of game there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bold part is plain wrong,but if we bringing UE3 suite into the equation makes it all a moot point,anyway..,what we where showed allmost all the first year could almost have been done without a single programmer,just an artist with medium UE3 script mod skills.
And considering graphic excellence (matter of opinion ), not all map designers are equally gifted...
Fully agree with LB ,btw ,it's another stupid thread...
Regarding the Gears of War / Resistance comparison, I think it might be useful to frame it in another way. I've played most of Epic's games, from the early days of 2D console clones like Jill of the Jungle, Jazz Jackrabbit, and One Must Fall to the more modern UT, UT2kX series. I've also played several of Insomniac's games, including Spyro and the Ratchet & Clank series (I have not played Disruptor). If I were given the chance to play a game from either Epic or Insomniac, knowing nothing about either game beforehand, I would go with Insomniac.
First of all, you can't really compare those two games. GoW got good art direction (subjective though) and impressive shader/texture tech that creates a decent amount of details and sfx, but the gameplay is somewhat repetitive (IMHO), there are only a few characters on screen, the characters and environments are pretty low poly and so far only close-quarter combat was shown. R:FOM is wider spaced, is pushing a lot of geometry and lots of animation, special effects and is able to break some fps traditions with it's unique set of weapons and online modes.Nerve-Damage said:
Both games are noteworthy, but R:FOM is a launch title on a Play Station platform and if a 1st gen game is that solid, then holy crap regarding the stuff to come.
What's so innovative about GOW? I'd admit it looks pretty, but like Arwin pointed out, it's probably because they decided to go with less characters onscreen, so more detail per character. And we started seeing shots of the UE3 engine (mostly of the monsters featured in GOW) from like, the Ice Age? And gameplay? I see a Kill.Switch clone. Yes, it looks cooler because of the characters and teh monsters/aliens/ugly mofo's, but to me it looks very much like Kill.Switch's blindfire system. And the voice acting...nevermind.
Anyways, you guys need to quit hating on Phil. He's the man, plus he didn't even say anything bad about your beloved X360 -- even though the interviewer tried! Out of all the PR heads, this guy is the most well spoken, knowledgable guy who doesn't trash the competition, but will always promote his product as better than anything else (whether you agree or not, as it's a matter of opinion, so it don't mean he's "wrong") and he's probably the quickest on his feet when asked difficult questions. Long live Phil!
How so? Please elaborate... Is it because you think GOW is better?Powderkeg said:
Anyways, you guys need to quit hating on Phil. He's the man, plus he didn't even say anything bad about your beloved X360 -- even though the interviewer tried! Out of all the PR heads, this guy is the most well spoken, knowledgable guy who doesn't trash the competition, but will always promote his product as better than anything else (whether you agree or not, as it's a matter of opinion, so it don't mean he's "wrong") and he's probably the quickest on his feet when asked difficult questions. Long live Phil!
Does it matter what I think?
I believe the comment was that Resistance was better than ANYTHING that you can get ahold of. Are you suggesting that it's the absolute greatest game available, and NOTHING can compare?
If that is you position I can assure you that you are just as wrong as him. I can name at least a couple of dozen games that are comperable and on shelves right now. Even if you wanted to limit it to just FPS's I can still name quite a few that can certainly stand up to Resistance.
Stop maing excuses for him and just admit it's PR BS.
Stop arguing with Powderkeg. Now. Obviously he is beyond all of us and he doesn't need to actually experience something to compare it with something else. He alone holds the power to see who is RIGHT and who is WRONG. He is above all.
His greatness makes it impossible for him to be wrong.
On a more serious note, why are we still debating technicalities of a PR statement?
Bigger scenes...
No one of us has seen the completed Gears game to determine scope.. and then sooo what?
R: FoM appears more run and gun... along the lines of an Unreal/COD hybrid... completely different from Gears... not to mention Gears IS NOT an FPS... COD3 is a better counter part to compare to R: FoM gameplay wise...
R: FoM appears more run and gun... along the lines of an Unreal/COD hybrid... completely different from Gears... not to mention Gears IS NOT an FPS... COD3 is a better counter part to compare to R: FoM gameplay wise...
While I agree with you, many people have a hard time seeing the nuances in the FPS genre. It is kind of like racing games: Some people have a hard time seeing the differences between games like GT, PGR, Burnout, etc Obviously some comparisons can be made, but you have to be careful.
Oddly enough... I don't think of GT or FM as racing games... they are much more simulators to me... Daytona, Ridge Racer (pre- drift), Daytona, I think of those as racers... arcadey... but I'm old school... and never got into games like GT and FM...
No, it's unquestionably right. The 360 first launched in November 2005. The PS3 will first launch in November 2006. That's one year of difference. If Sony did not capitalize on that year, that's their fault. MS capitalized on their extra year of hardware for the X1.
That's about sums it up, yep.
- Status
