Xbox 360 Case Study: Reasons why 2nd generation console titles will excel

[pegisys]

You are wrong on this one. Everyone knows that Madden 2007 will be the first true Madden. It's being built from the ground up as a next-gen title. This year was more of a port than next year will ever be.

for some reason I don't think so, I think they will keep the same graphics and add a feature or 2 and do the same each year. That may have been the reason they are releasing a stripped down version this year so they will have something to add to the game in the next few versions and blame it on the switch to new hardware.

The reason I say this is because Madden has had pretty much the same graphics since 2001 even though NFL 2K updated every year

 

[Acert93]

why do you mean actually ?
i believe 1280x1024 is higher in resolution then 1280x720 (720P)
and why compare 4xAA with 8xAF on R520 @1280x1024 with

About the closest resolution I could find with decent benchmarks for the R520 (frequently when you go lower other limitations, like the CPU, come in).

Also it bears in mind that many PC games have minimum framerates 50% or even less than their average. To hit a *solid 60fps* on a TV you have to have a fairly high minimum framerate as well. e.g. A typical game that averages 60fps could look jerky at 60Hz due to it dropping down to 30fps off an on. e.g.

Note how the X1800XT averages 41 FPS, but has drops as low as 7fps

Looking at it another way, note this SC:CT benchmark below for the X1800XL. Note that while it averages almost 45fps that the game actually spends ~60% of its time well under 45fps with a number of dips below 35fps and even 30fps. If you were able to "lock" this game at 45fps to sync with a 45Hz refresh rate this game would be VERY jerky.

So an "average framerate" of 45fps in a game like SC:CT does not tell the whole story, neither does the max/min (33fps/96fps), although that is more helpful. It is pretty clear, to me at least, to get a really solid 60fps you will need to have the majority of your frames ABOVE 60fps. This does not mean there cannot be dips, but if you are averaging 60fps with as many frames below 60fps as above then this will not seem as fluid.

This is why an X1800XT averaging 55fps would not be a good canidate for 60fps and why the Xbox 360 running at a solid 60fps is impressive--it indicates the average frame rate is either higher or that they were able to fine tune the game (probably a bit of both). We know Xenos has a lot more shader power than the R520, so this should not be a surprise.

(i dont know the exact AA and AF aplied but surely not 4X ?) 720p on xenos?

Xenos ROPs are designed to do 4x MSAA with no perforance hit. The performance issues we have seen are based on design (e.g. early Z pass in a renderer) and the limited time devs have had with the final dev kits. But this does not seem to be universal. Some games are not having as many issues as others. It is too early to say whether all games will face the same trouble getting MSAA to work in launch titles.

That said a few media sources have noted how the 360 version looks great (even a few indicating it was better than the PC, although this may have been a reference to the particle effects). Obviously we need to wait for the final game to see how it compares to the PC, but based on the developer comments about the hardware he seemed pretty excited about its performance and features in relation to the PC.

 

[jvd]

Also don't forget to mention that this is a world wide launch. We normaly have a good 6-8 months between japanese launch and american / europe launches .

6 months makes a huge diffrence. See tekken for the ps3 japanese launch to american launch to see it .

 

[mckmas8808]

I dont think that all people thought the graphics werent possible, but just the entire package of AI, physics, etc ,etc. If you read the impressions form the major online publications they bring everything into question, not just the grfx.

J

But even that should not be said. How do we know if a game can't have what that video showed? In 1999 I wouldn't have believed that a lot of games on the PS2 were possible. MGS3, SOTC, RE4, GOW, etc take your pick. Hell even Burnout looks like something I would have questioned in 1999 compared to the Gran Turismo video. It's a little premature to just randomly say this or that is not possible. Grfx or the entire package.

for some reason I don't think so, I think they will keep the same graphics and add a feature or 2 and do the same each year.

I say that because if you know your Madden history you would know that in the late 90's Madden didn't upgrade to 3D polygons the same year Gameday did. Madden waited until Madden 99 to upgrade to 3D polys while Gameday 98 already had them. Madden 98 was still using 2D sprites.

 

[expletive]

But even that should not be said. How do we know if a game can't have what that video showed? In 1999 I wouldn't have believed that a lot of games on the PS2 were possible. MGS3, SOTC, RE4, GOW, etc take your pick. Hell even Burnout looks like something I would have questioned in 1999 compared to the Gran Turismo video. It's a little premature to just randomly say this or that is not possible. Grfx or the entire package.

I think thats a fair statement. I just wanted to clarify that a lot of people werent just saying we'll never have those kind of 'graphics', just that we'll never have that kind of 'gaming experience', which expands it into all facets of the games desgin.

J

 

[mckmas8808]

I think thats a fair statement. I just wanted to clarify that a lot of people werent just saying we'll never have those kind of 'graphics', just that we'll never have that kind of 'gaming experience', which expands it into all facets of the games desgin.

J

Well to be honest people were saying that those graphics were impossible. But I see what you are trying to say and we agree what people basically meant so cool.


PS: If you what me to pull the old comments I can.

 

[seismologist]

Of course this is subjective, but I would would go as far as saying the 6 major console releases of the previous 2 generations (N64-SS-PS & GCN-PS2-Xbox) only 2 launch titles from all 6 consoles were "wow" by any degree and those were Mario 64 and Halo. And of all the launch titles, those two included, I still think this is true: Titles post Mario/Halo were much better looking on their respective platforms.

So what launch titles from the last two generations made you go wow?

I cannot say any Xbox 360 titles will be titles with the impact Mario 64 of Halo had (Especially without playing them), but it appears to be the most solid launch I have seen and a couple titles (PGR3 namely) have wow potential, at least in my book

I didn't mean that every console launch was impressive. But usually the "first mover" for the generation has something of a WOW factor since the technology is new and cutting edge.
If you think back to the Dreamcast launch, I dont know about you but at the time I was blown away by the graphics quality. It was pretty far beyond anything we'd seen before even on the PC.
The 360 seems to be nothing but excuses dating all the way back to the first PDZ screenshots in March. First it was "30% alpha kits" next "only using one core" then "70% clock speed", and now here we are today with this thread.
Really, the games should speak for themselves. If we having to keep coming up with reasons why things aren't looking so hot then there's definitely a problem.
Throughout the course of the console lifespan there will be some improvement but it's nothing like the kind of leap that the 360 needs right now to appear "next gen".
Considering XNA and the superior dev tools this shouldn't be the case.

So with that I'll add one more excuse to your list. "Diminishing returns". Which is what could be witnessing now. Though it's hard to imagine that's the case considering the quality seen in the PS3 concept videos. I'll guess we'll know more once we start seeing footage of actual PS3 games.

 

[PG2G]

I think the only reason people aren't impressed is because of the effect that PC Gaming and hardware is having. PC GPUs wasn't nearly as impressive back around the time of Dreamcast and PS1 releases. Today's GPUs are nearly equivalent to the hardware in consoles we are getting 2-12 months down the line. We've been looking at 'next gen' games for the past year or so...

 

[Tap In]

I didn't mean that every console launch was impressive. But usually the "first mover" for the generation has something of a WOW factor since the technology is new and cutting edge.

go and see PGR3 in a couple of weeks on an HD X360 kiosk.


I think there will be a WOW factor there even with the limitations listed above by Acert93.

 

[pipo]

I think the primary reason people are not impressed has a lot to do with the move to HD too. X360 in SD would be a different picture (sorry) altogether...

 

[hey69]

We've been looking at 'next gen' games for the past year or so...

in resolution and gfx cards yes , but not really in games.
if that where the case, we should have seen games like GT4
TEKKEN5, Dead or alive etc... many years ago on pc

cards in pc are always 1- 2 generations ahead of the games.

what good is it if only you get the same fps but just on higher resolution (or just faster FPS)

the games look almost the same between 2-3 generation of cardds on pc
yes, they are developed to be massmarket compatible.
thats the advantage on consoles and thats why you can't compare them.


remember ONI in the launchdays of the ps2 ? that game was made by BUNGIE.

just look at it! omg how dated.
and compare that to GT4 , TEKKEN5, GOD OF WAR.
those are al made on the same hardware. you dont see these kind of advancements on PC gfx.

 

[Mordecaii]

I think the primary reason people are not impressed have a lot to do with the move to HD too. X360 in SD would be a different picture (sorry) altogether...

Not to derail the subject, but at some point SD just isn't good enough to make the games look good... For example, Fable on PC looks a lot better IMO just because of the better resolution. I think my Xbox games look fuzzy (and I'm hooked up to my TV with high quality component cables).

Personally, while no games blew me away so far, games like GoW and Kameo look really good to me and I'm rather impressed. Although having a high-end PC makes the jump to new consoles a little less drastic from my point of view.

 

[pipo]

Not to derail the subject, but at some point SD just isn't good enough to make the games look good...

Sure. I just meant to say a lot of power is 'wasted' on the extra HD pixels. If we were still on SD with x360 the gap with the current generation might look bigger.

E.g. Bizarre stated that PGR3 on SD runs with 4xAA.

 

[scificube]

Excellent post Acert93!

I particularly like the observation that devs have had very little time with HW comparable to the what the X360 is and this is not so true with the PS3. IIRC devs received "beta" kits before from Sony before MS had beta kits available. This in conjunction with having more time until launch gives Sony devs a distinct advantage. They do have "some" time to at least play with the HW beyond simply grabbing all the low hanging fruit. I also agree that looking at launch titles (barring a wild disparity in quality) may lead to some forming opinions about these two consoles on the wrong grounds. I think on can form an opinion on things now and a much better one when we have info about RSX but by looking at the launch titles alone in vacuum one is not making an informed judgment of things.

Again...excellent post.

 

[scificube]

I think the only reason people aren't impressed is because of the effect that PC Gaming and hardware is having. PC GPUs wasn't nearly as impressive back around the time of Dreamcast and PS1 releases. Today's GPUs are nearly equivalent to the hardware in consoles we are getting 2-12 months down the line. We've been looking at 'next gen' games for the past year or so...

I'd disagree. I don't think we've remotely seen a next gen game yet. On PC or otherwise. That includes MGS4 which was still just a real-time demo that displayed nothing of how physics could be used in a game or any of the "cool" new graphical things that are possible....and it still looks better than most anything else I've ever seen running in realtime other than perhaps ATI's recent Toy shop demo.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Considering XNA and the superior dev tools this shouldn't be the case.

I'm not sure XNA is helping yet. Last I heard, months back, XNA was a rebranding of MS's existing tools. There were to be improvements and I remember MS announcing I think it was a project management tool, but AFAIK the tools for XB360 are currently the same as for XB. Maybe a dev, ERP perhaps, can say if things have advanced any in XB360's toolset over the past year?

 

[scificube]

Sure. I just meant to say a lot of power is 'wasted' on the extra HD pixels. If we were still on SD with x360 the gap with the current generation might look bigger.

E.g. Bizarre stated that PGR3 on SD runs with 4xAA.

It's not wasted it's an exchange. If the dev see fit to do this exchange and it meets their needs then it is a good one. I happen to think time has been the greatest factor here and that these systems were designed with HD and much more in mind. The problem is that MS wishes to be out the door first...and this has it's consequences.

Let's be fair here. Take a look at Mass Effect, Too Human, PGR3, or GOW. The jump seems quite good to me and this is still at a point in time when devs haven't come to terms with the HW.

We need to remember the learning curve here is HUGE and if not the greatest in video-game history it's certainly up there. This coupled with very little time nets you less than stellar results unless you are indeed a fast learner and/or very intelligent. Forgot the bandaid...ahem...'IMO.' There all better.

 

[MechanizedDeath]

This is nothing new. Launch software is always rushed. No system has ever been pushed hard from launch, so I don't see any reason to panic or worry. 2nd gen software will be better, and 3rd gen better still, and so on. It'll plateau eventually, but that's just normal. PEACE.

 

[blakjedi]

Acerts post only makes me think one thing:

PS3 graphic quality is closer to its potential than x360's is.

x800 and xenos are miles apart in terms capability, shaders, power etc. rsx and 7800 is MUCH closer.

Visually 7800 was more impressive than x800 due to effects based on SM3.0 spec. Xenos is well beyond SM3.0 spec so the quality of effects should be that much greater than SM3.0 part.

I used to think that PS3 would outstrip 360 visually toward the end of their lifecycles... now i doubt it...

 

[overclocked]

Acerts post only makes me think one thing:

PS3 graphic quality is closer to its potential than x360's is.

x800 and xenos are miles apart in terms capability, shaders, power etc. rsx and 7800 is MUCH closer.

Visually 7800 was more impressive than x800 due to effects based on SM3.0 spec. Xenos is well beyond SM3.0 spec so the quality of effects should be that much greater than SM3.0 part.

I used to think that PS3 would outstrip 360 visually toward the end of their lifecycles... now i doubt it...

You can do almost everything on a X800 compared to say a 6800, if it where these chips in this closed boxes i dont think the difference would be either bigger or smaller than what it seems to be now. You can for ex have "real" HDR with AA on BOTH these cards, look at Valves "Lost Cost" level for ex.