What do you see the next gen consoles doing Graphicly?
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
jvd said:
loud and clear, but i already tried to explain why in my previous posts... is it me or whenever the name Sony comes out u get all defensive???
just kidding...
but to be safe, let's talk about it as *next gen consoles* not only ps3, ok?
to me, if games on PS3 will look comparable to the FMV in FFX then i'll consider the leap very big, bigger than ps1-ps2.... but of course we are getting close to the point of diminishing returns.... and anyway all of this is extremely subjective, what looks great to me might not look as good to u...
london-boy said:jvd said:
loud and clear, but i already tried to explain why in my previous posts... is it me or whenever the name Sony comes out u get all defensive???
just kidding...
but to be safe, let's talk about it as *next gen consoles* not only ps3, ok?
to me, if games on PS3 will look comparable to the FMV in FFX then i'll consider the leap very big, bigger than ps1-ps2.... but of course we are getting close to the point of diminishing returns.... and anyway all of this is extremely subjective, what looks great to me might not look as good to u...
Okay , but i was never just talking about the ps3. I'm talking about all graphics hardware. Its safe to say that on 90% of console games there is no fssa or aniso. On current video cards those features still take quite a bit of performance. The higher the level of it the higher the performance hit. That is just one thing the ps3 will be expected to do on every game. Not just the ps3 but all future consoles. This is just two of the biggest improvements that will take alot to do .
jvd said:london-boy said:jvd said:
loud and clear, but i already tried to explain why in my previous posts... is it me or whenever the name Sony comes out u get all defensive???
just kidding...
but to be safe, let's talk about it as *next gen consoles* not only ps3, ok?
to me, if games on PS3 will look comparable to the FMV in FFX then i'll consider the leap very big, bigger than ps1-ps2.... but of course we are getting close to the point of diminishing returns.... and anyway all of this is extremely subjective, what looks great to me might not look as good to u...
Okay , but i was never just talking about the ps3. I'm talking about all graphics hardware. Its safe to say that on 90% of console games there is no fssa or aniso. On current video cards those features still take quite a bit of performance. The higher the level of it the higher the performance hit. That is just one thing the ps3 will be expected to do on every game. Not just the ps3 but all future consoles. This is just two of the biggest improvements that will take alot to do .
TO BE HONEST i would put my priorities somewhere else but yeah u're right.....
really, i take good graphics as granted next gen, what i really really want, and what i think is the hardest thing to do, is having realistic physics in a game. i mean REALLY realistic. i would put that before graphics...
I am wondering,
Sony've got the cell/broadbandengine/EE2 and the visualizer/GS3 linked with insane bandwidth. GS3 most likely comes with a small hardwired feature set, which is to be complete by a software feature set powered by GS3/EE2, those software features could be written by Sony, IBM or any third party dev. This design should be pretty flexible. You could shift the power to [insane graphics / poor AI&physics] or [poor graphics / insane AI&physics].
For example,
GTA [insane graphics / poor AI&physics]: something that looks like the screenshots earlier posted in this thread, same AI&physics as PS2.
or
GTA [poor graphics / insane AI&physics]: something that looks like GTA-PS2 x2, but with almost no LOD, insane physics and insane AI.
On the other hand,
X-Box2 high powered GPU and medium powered CPU. In case the GPU is not able to do anything else then mindblowing graphics, shifting the power shouldn't be possible. No examples, hope you got my idea.
The Nintendo's ATI/NEC combo could be something in the middle.
"What do you see the next gen consoles doing Graphicly?"
PS3: mixed bag, ugly worm, pupate, shimmering jagged butterfly with character ... j/k
X-Box2: hot-air balloon, outside pretty, inside hot-air ... j/k
NGC: something balanced, which is loved by five 3rd party devs ... j/k
Any comments? Way off?
Sony've got the cell/broadbandengine/EE2 and the visualizer/GS3 linked with insane bandwidth. GS3 most likely comes with a small hardwired feature set, which is to be complete by a software feature set powered by GS3/EE2, those software features could be written by Sony, IBM or any third party dev. This design should be pretty flexible. You could shift the power to [insane graphics / poor AI&physics] or [poor graphics / insane AI&physics].
For example,
GTA [insane graphics / poor AI&physics]: something that looks like the screenshots earlier posted in this thread, same AI&physics as PS2.
or
GTA [poor graphics / insane AI&physics]: something that looks like GTA-PS2 x2, but with almost no LOD, insane physics and insane AI.
On the other hand,
X-Box2 high powered GPU and medium powered CPU. In case the GPU is not able to do anything else then mindblowing graphics, shifting the power shouldn't be possible. No examples, hope you got my idea.
The Nintendo's ATI/NEC combo could be something in the middle.
"What do you see the next gen consoles doing Graphicly?"
PS3: mixed bag, ugly worm, pupate, shimmering jagged butterfly with character ... j/k
X-Box2: hot-air balloon, outside pretty, inside hot-air ... j/k
NGC: something balanced, which is loved by five 3rd party devs ... j/k
Any comments? Way off?
If you look at today's games, and compare them to games from the previous generation (N64/Dreamcast), you can see a vast difference in texture quality and polygoncount. We've come a long way from the low-resolution, point or bilinear filtered textures of the N64 to the high-resolution trilinear textures of a "Halo" or "Unreal Championship". Polycount has also become very high; you can't see polygon edges easily in current-generation games like Unreal Championship.
This year, the trend seems to be going toward games with better lighting. From Splinter Cell to Silent Hill 3 and Halo 2, lighting is becoming a major focus of console games. The current generation of consoles is powerful enough to handle lighting tricks such as bumpmapping, specular lighting (Halo), overbright lighting (flares), and universal or nearly-universal shadows.
Most likely, the 1st wave of games we see for PS3 and XB2 will look much like circa-2005 Xbox games ("Quake 4" type graphics or slightly better) but with more polygons and a high degree of antialiasing and anisotropic filtering. AA and aniso will no longer be options in the next generation - they will be mandatory! Even with a Radeon9800 (which will be quite obsolete by the time PS3 and XB2 are out), you can leave AA and AF on all the time. The addition of always-on AA will probably be the most obvious graphical improvement in the next generation; the dreaded jaggies have plagued console games for all too long.
However, we will almost definitely not see the same difference as PS to PS2. Polygon counts in Unreal Championship are already so high that you really wouldn't notice any further increase. The texture resolution in Halo is already about as good as you can display on a 640*480 television screen. The lighting in Splinter Cell is excellent. Other than antialiasing, the other graphical improvements in the next generation will likely be details. Instead of everything looking flat and uninteresting when viewed up close, they will be detailed - pores in someone's skin, the fine grain of a wooden surface, ripples in a clear pool of water, etc. Materials shaders and procedural textures will guarantee a higher level of detail. Next generation games will be very impressive when you take the time to look at them. However, it will not be anywhere near as blatant as the difference between Cloud Strife and Sam Fisher.
This year, the trend seems to be going toward games with better lighting. From Splinter Cell to Silent Hill 3 and Halo 2, lighting is becoming a major focus of console games. The current generation of consoles is powerful enough to handle lighting tricks such as bumpmapping, specular lighting (Halo), overbright lighting (flares), and universal or nearly-universal shadows.
Most likely, the 1st wave of games we see for PS3 and XB2 will look much like circa-2005 Xbox games ("Quake 4" type graphics or slightly better) but with more polygons and a high degree of antialiasing and anisotropic filtering. AA and aniso will no longer be options in the next generation - they will be mandatory! Even with a Radeon9800 (which will be quite obsolete by the time PS3 and XB2 are out), you can leave AA and AF on all the time. The addition of always-on AA will probably be the most obvious graphical improvement in the next generation; the dreaded jaggies have plagued console games for all too long.
However, we will almost definitely not see the same difference as PS to PS2. Polygon counts in Unreal Championship are already so high that you really wouldn't notice any further increase. The texture resolution in Halo is already about as good as you can display on a 640*480 television screen. The lighting in Splinter Cell is excellent. Other than antialiasing, the other graphical improvements in the next generation will likely be details. Instead of everything looking flat and uninteresting when viewed up close, they will be detailed - pores in someone's skin, the fine grain of a wooden surface, ripples in a clear pool of water, etc. Materials shaders and procedural textures will guarantee a higher level of detail. Next generation games will be very impressive when you take the time to look at them. However, it will not be anywhere near as blatant as the difference between Cloud Strife and Sam Fisher.
I'm somewhat skeptical as to how well the "insane physics/AI" will perform in the next generation. Simply increasing the amount of CPU power does not guarantee better AI, and although it does generally make better physics, AI is much more crucial to gameplay than physics. Just looking at PC first person shooters, single-player enemy AI has yet to clearly surpass "Half-Life", a game released in 1998, perfectly playable on a 300 MHz Pentium 2. Of course, HL relied heavily on scripted events, but single-player gaming is like a magic trick : it doesn't matter how you "cheat" to do the trick, if the illusion is convincing then it's great.
As for physics, I have yet to see a game where physics is more than just a gimmick. Of course, you could argue that graphics is just a gimmick, and if we wanted pure gameplay we would all be playing turn based games. This is somewhat (not completely) true, but I don't see good physics and poor graphics ever winning out against excellent graphics and mediocre physics. For the common FPS, as long as dead enemies don't clip through walls and they can fall down stairs (both of which are already in nearly all modern shooters), that's all the physics you need. Given the choice between DOOM3 graphics with Quake3 physics, versus Quake3 graphics and DOOM3 physics, I would find the DOOM3 graphics more impressive anyday.
As for physics, I have yet to see a game where physics is more than just a gimmick. Of course, you could argue that graphics is just a gimmick, and if we wanted pure gameplay we would all be playing turn based games. This is somewhat (not completely) true, but I don't see good physics and poor graphics ever winning out against excellent graphics and mediocre physics. For the common FPS, as long as dead enemies don't clip through walls and they can fall down stairs (both of which are already in nearly all modern shooters), that's all the physics you need. Given the choice between DOOM3 graphics with Quake3 physics, versus Quake3 graphics and DOOM3 physics, I would find the DOOM3 graphics more impressive anyday.
"Most likely, the 1st wave of games we see for PS3 and XB2 will look much like circa-2005 Xbox games"
No way in hell a 1st gen XB2 game will look like a 2005 xbox game.
"The texture resolution in Halo is already about as good as you can display on a 640*480 television screen."
Than why do FMV's look so good? I know games will look like those FFX fmv's were seeing.
I have a feeling this jump is going to be like the one from snes to n64, totally huge.
No way in hell a 1st gen XB2 game will look like a 2005 xbox game.
"The texture resolution in Halo is already about as good as you can display on a 640*480 television screen."
Than why do FMV's look so good? I know games will look like those FFX fmv's were seeing.
I have a feeling this jump is going to be like the one from snes to n64, totally huge.
Paul said:
I don't think that jump will ever happen again Its diffrent from going from 16bit sprites to 100 thousand polygons a second. That jump will never be seen again. Look at the ps2. Its very powerfull , more so than the dremacast (correct?) Firt gen ps2 games looked like 2nd gen dreamcast games. No one no matter how easy the system is to work with will get a 100% performance out of first gen and pre gen games . The xbox even in 2005 will be a decent system . Right now In its what 2nd or 3rd generation of games is keeping up or slightly passing the quality of what 5th or 6th gen ps2 games. So why wont 5th or 6th gen xbox games keep up with first or pre gen ps3 games ? Or any system thats bran new that year.
Paul said:
once again a 100x more powerfull at what ? Frying an egg on a heatsink ? We have no clue how much more powerfull the ps3 will be over the xbox. When it comes down to it the ps3 may only be 10 times more powerfull in full specs than the xbox. Or it may suck at textures or pixel shaders or who knows. Not only that but look how long its taken for people to fully tap the ps2. The ps3 will be a beast as with all the consoles of its gen and as with all previous systems the first games to come out with the system look nothing like the last games. Why wouldn't this hold true now ? Not only that but the ps3 will be extremly complex and difficult to program for just as the ps2. I dunno i'm just using lodgic
Paul said:
How can i answer the question when i don't know what a 1000x the power of the ps2 is . Mhz wise ? Polygon pushing power ? Texture pushing power ?
Second of all i believe that at the most it be 10 to 20 times faster than the xbox. Then i think to myself. People who have never had acess to this power before will mostly just update thier engines to use a fraction of its full power as with all systems at launch. This will be compared against the xbox which has games on it that are using every trick known to the system developers over the past 5 years or so. Its commen sense. Look at all past gens .
Leaving any calm, respectfull position behind, I have to say that any person that thinks that a GeForce 3.5 with a cheap Intel chip will be able to look even comparable to a completely new machine in 2005/6 that is capable of displaying hundreds of millions of polygons( and that is being conservative), with all sorts of super higher res textures, pixel effects, FSAA and such at a much higher resolution, is a complete idiot.
Heck, Doom 3 at full detail is a little too much to ask Xbox for, and that´s a DirectX 8.0 (IIRC) game. PS3 games will outshine DIII by several orders of magnitude. It has to, every single generation has been an incredible leap in terms of technological jumps. I couldn´t believe my eyes when I saw Soul Calibur, and before that, seeing Mario 64 left me in awe. There is simply no way that games will not look much better than UT2003 nor that the games will not impress us, like jvd here is implying.
Honestly jvd, it doesn´t take an engineer to see that each generation of gaming machines have taken enormous leaps in terms of technology, and to tell the truth, it would be a disgrace to only see 2X what UT2003 or DIII does onscreen. The gaming community will be shocked to see what PS3 and the rest of the next generation machines will be able to display on screen.
Before posting this, I have to tell you something jvd, and that is that it seems you are trying to convince yourself that a 2005 gaming machine will not be much better than a gaming card currently available today, completely ignoring history and the supposed performance PS3 will achieve.
Heck, Doom 3 at full detail is a little too much to ask Xbox for, and that´s a DirectX 8.0 (IIRC) game. PS3 games will outshine DIII by several orders of magnitude. It has to, every single generation has been an incredible leap in terms of technological jumps. I couldn´t believe my eyes when I saw Soul Calibur, and before that, seeing Mario 64 left me in awe. There is simply no way that games will not look much better than UT2003 nor that the games will not impress us, like jvd here is implying.
Honestly jvd, it doesn´t take an engineer to see that each generation of gaming machines have taken enormous leaps in terms of technology, and to tell the truth, it would be a disgrace to only see 2X what UT2003 or DIII does onscreen. The gaming community will be shocked to see what PS3 and the rest of the next generation machines will be able to display on screen.
Before posting this, I have to tell you something jvd, and that is that it seems you are trying to convince yourself that a 2005 gaming machine will not be much better than a gaming card currently available today, completely ignoring history and the supposed performance PS3 will achieve.
Almasy said:
You believe what you want and will belive what i want. In the end we will both be wrong. You telling me your expectingto see more than 2 times what doom 3 does in a first gen ps3 game ? heh. whatever. To get doom 3 to run properly an at respectable frames with all effects on with no fsaa and aniso you will need a 128 meg card. Thats just video ram. THe textures in the doom 3 gamewill be beyond what eventhe 2005 consoles will be able to store. Sure you can fake it. But i can fake a work of art. Doesnt mean i painted the monalisa .
Yes you can see a diffrence between psx and ps2 games. You can't see the diffrence over dreamcast games and ps2 games and those are diffrent generations. I'm not going to say that game a on ps3 looks exactly like on xbox. But there wil be no big diffrence. Mabye another level of fsaa. Sharper textures and alot more of the old effects. But thats it. NOthing huge and drastic.
Look. Its stupid to even start guessig this crap. At the end of the day this thing can be a cell chip with a rage 128 card hooked up to it for all we know.
Similar threads
