PGR3 : MS's attitude towards graphics actually supports Nintendo!

[Teasy]

Gamers will see 720P as the new standard when they'll see the 360 in action, in by the time Nintendo release the revolution, we'll all be accustomed to 720P, and 640 X 480 will look SOOOOOOO 10 years old graphics.

So then what will the massive majority of those same gamers (SDTV owners) think when they get there 360 home after seeing this "new standard"? Will they think that they just wasted $370 on a 10 year old console?

 

[one]

You're comparing the development time and resources put into PGR3 to RR6? Are you serious? PGR3 has buttloads of real geometry and real textures from actual cities. That alone requires much more work and time than some generic scenery. Then you add all the extra stuff going into PGR3 and it becomes obvious RR6 requires less development time.

So you suggest artists and coders can't work in parallel? That's news to me
If MS's development pipeline is as great as advertised by MS guys, artists won't need coders' intervention very often.

 

[Powderkeg]

So you suggest artists and coders can't work in parallel? That's news to me

I didn't get that at all from his comment. Seems to me he's simply saying there is a lot more content in PGR3, so it takes a lot longer to do.

 

[London Geezer]

So you suggest artists and coders can't work in parallel? That's news to me
If MS's development pipeline is as great as advertised by MS guys, artists won't need coders' intervention very often.

Not too long ago, coders were the artsts!! Kind of a collective split personality syndrome, everyone fighting with themselves over performance or "that 100 polygons more just here.."

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I didn't get that at all from his comment. Seems to me he's simply saying there is a lot more content in PGR3, so it takes a lot longer to do.

Wasn't one talking about rendering engines and game code? Art assets have no bearing on that (in theory). Given 3 years to work on PGR3 versus one year to workd on RR say, That's not 2.5 years art assets, 6 months for PGR3 and 6 months art assets, 6 months code for RR. Coding will have (should have) been going on for the whole period for PGR3. That's 3 years developing a graphics and game engine for PGR3 versus 1 year for RR. Hence given the extra time PGR3 has had, shouldn't it be way more advanced than other games? That doesn't count how many coders on the dev team though, but I assume PGR wasn't 1 guy to RR's 6 or whatever.

 

[Powderkeg]

Wasn't one talking about rendering engines and game code? Art assets have no bearing on that (in theory). Given 3 years to work on PGR3 versus one year to workd on RR say, That's not 2.5 years art assets, 6 months for PGR3 and 6 months art assets, 6 months code for RR. Coding will have (should have) been going on for the whole period for PGR3. That's 3 years developing a graphics and game engine for PGR3 versus 1 year for RR. Hence given the extra time PGR3 has had, shouldn't it be way more advanced than other games? That doesn't count how many coders on the dev team though, but I assume PGR wasn't 1 guy to RR's 6 or whatever.

How are you figuring 3 years for PGR3?

PGR2 launched in November 2003. That's only 2 years ago, and I can assure you they didn't start on 3 until after they finished 2 (And took a holiday vacation)

At most you are looking about a year and 10 months for PGR3.

 

[one]

How are you figuring 3 years for PGR3?

PGR2 launched in November 2003. That's only 2 years ago, and I can assure you they didn't start on 3 until after they finished 2 (And took a holiday vacation)

At most you are looking about a year and 10 months for PGR3.

Weren't they talking about the Shinjuku course that the single course took 2 years to build? They ought to have had some plan on how big the scale of the game would be. If they were just too sloppy/speculative guys and had no idea on the next-gen engine development back then, it might be a different story.

 

[BTOA]

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25685

Apparently it looks better than the PC version, for it to do that it would need that 4xAA.

Can you provide a link to a site claiming it or you could tell what post count number it was mentioned in, because I have looked in that thread for 4xAA being mentioned?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How are you figuring 3 years for PGR3?

I've no idea about the numbers. I was just explaining one's point. Uf PGR3 has been longer in development, it should be better. The idea that it's had more effort go into the artwork doesn't take away from the amount of time that could be spent developing the engine. And if the engine has been in development longer than the rivals, shouldn't it be 'better'?

That's what one was saying. I agree with the idea, but this isn't my argument

 

[avaya]

Can you provide a link to a site claiming it or you could tell what post count number it was mentioned in, because I have looked in that thread for 4xAA being mentioned?

Posts 6 and 21.

For it to look better than the PC version it would have to have 4xMSAA @ 720p.

 

[BTOA]

Posts 6 and 21.

For it to look better than the PC version it would have to have 4xMSAA @ 720p.

I understand your point and where you're coming from, but you still have yet to provide a link pointing to a statement about 4xAA being applied.

 

[avaya]

I understand your point and where you're coming from, but you still have yet to provide a link pointing to a statement about 4xAA being applied.

That's as definitive as I can get at the moment.

I could find a link proving it, (I do recall it being mentioned before with respect to benchmarks of X360 vs. PCs) but I'm making the assumption of 4xAA because without 4xAA the game would likely not have a better IQ than the PC version at 1280x720.

I realise it's an assumtpion but that's the best I can give you at the moment

 

[BTOA]

That's as definitive as I can get at the moment.

I could find a link proving it, (I do recall it being mentioned before with respect to benchmarks of X360 vs. PCs) but I'm making the assumption of 4xAA because without 4xAA the game would likely not have a better IQ than the PC version at 1280x720.

I realise it's an assumtpion but that's the best I can give you at the moment

Its not just the 4xAA makes the game better. From what I have read, its the effects that were added to the game that makes it stand out above the PC version.

On that note, the smoke effects in Call of Duty 2 are worth the asking price of this game all by their lonesome. Whether the smoke effects are billowing from a burning building, seeping out of a freshly-fired artillery piece, erupting from an actual smoke grenade, or spewing from the frozen breath of your allied comrades, the battlefield in Call of Duty 2 is high-end particle effect heaven. You’ll understand a bit better when you walk into a cloud of dust and touch barrels with an enemy, even though you cannot see the opposing soldier at all.

Environments are given life with tons of finely-crafted scripted events and respectable texturing work all around. Life is in the details of course, and Call of Duty 2 gets much of its liveliness via the minute extras that may be naked to the untrained eye. You can see the perfect texturing of the Nazi war banners, or watch the world distort as you try and sight the enemy from behind a burning barrel. The snow falls to hamper your view. Or see how the blood splatters off of your enemy in the precise area he is shot, or the way in which the light catches the high spot on a gun barrel and gives away a hiding enemy’s position.