The Xbox 360 is approaching the "upper end" of it visual potential, reckons Gears of War 2's senior producer Rod Fergusson.
Speaking to Gamasutra, the Epic man said that after two of three years of optimisation the Gears dev is much further along graphically than it initially thought is was going to get.
"I think we're certainly approaching the upper end of it," he said. "As far as what developers are able to do with it, but just looking at all the demos we saw today -- ours and others -- it's clear that all the games just keep improving, and keep pushing that bar."
Epic is of course the creator of the Unreal Engine, which is powering along most of this console generation's best looking games including Mass Effect and Bioshock.
"There will be games in development that won't ship until 2010, and I'm sure they'll look killer," Fergusson added. "Just because, again, they'll have more time with it, and learn from mistakes and optimizations of others. So, I don't know; I think we're getting up there, but I still think there's room to grow."
Gears 2, which is apparently 90% complete, is out on November 7. And yes - it looks much prettier.
Where is there to go next? Crysis running on very high settings on PC looks fantastic, but doesn't really add anything new. Maybe Nintendo have something, maybe the next step will be something other than improving the graphics?
i'm waiting on all the gears heads coming on and just going on about how this game is gonna be the dogz bollox. even though its not what the topics about, thats what it gonna turn into. sure the game does look s**t hot but are those just the shots we've seen and is the rest of the game the brown fest we had the last time? hopefully the've used some more colours this time. and i'm sure that there will be games that are a hell of a lot better looking than this to come before the end of the 360. just look at the ps2, all the lush games that came out just before the next gen consoles were released.
I think next gen will be graphics led, it's still too early for anything ground breaking such as VR. Interesting that he mentions games not releasing until 2010, maybe that's an indication of when they see this gen coming to a halt. I myself can't really see another 2 xmas's after this one with the current xbox.
Is it just me or do most of games' screenshots, especially previews, look alot clearer and crisp than any of the gameplay vids do? and compared to when you are actually playing them at home........
Is it just me or do most of games' screenshots, especially previews, look alot clearer and crisp than any of the gameplay vids do? and compared to when you are actually playing them at home........
.....could just me my monitor though.
The streaming videos are going to be far more compressed than the screenshots, so they're bound to look worse.
As for when you're playing them at home, the visuals on the 360 can look a little washed out through the VGA cable, which I assume you're using if you're playing through a monitor? If you try it through HDMI on a good quality TV it should look great. I've always thought so anyway. The other option (if you don't have HDMI) might be to get hold of a TV with a "Game" mode. I know Samsungs have this. All it does is alter the display settings to improve them for gaming. It particularly improves the colour saturation through VGA.
Pretty obvious statement that. The graphics card in the 360 is now 3 years old, so obviously it's pushing it's limits - surely even the fanboys can't deny that.
All you can really do is be clever with the texturing and shading to make it look higher detail than it actually is.
Is it just me or do most of games' screenshots, especially previews, look alot clearer and crisp than any of the gameplay vids do? and compared to when you are actually playing them at home........
.....could just me my monitor though.
The streaming videos are going to be far more compressed than the screenshots, so they're bound to look worse.
As for when you're playing them at home, the visuals on the 360 can look a little washed out through the VGA cable, which I assume you're using if you're playing through a monitor? If you try it through HDMI on a good quality TV it should look great. I've always thought so anyway. The other option (if you don't have HDMI) might be to get hold of a TV with a "Game" mode. I know Samsungs have this. All it does is alter the display settings to improve them for gaming. It particularly improves the colour saturation through VGA.
The Samsungs also have a great VGA port. Mine is plugged in via one of these and along with game mode switched on, looks great.
Pretty obvious statement that. The graphics card in the 360 is now 3 years old, so obviously it's pushing it's limits - surely even the fanboys can't deny that.
All you can really do is be clever with the texturing and shading to make it look higher detail than it actually is.
Often when a console starts to reach it's limits the games start to get better as developers get clever with the tech. This has happened with practically every console ever released. Just look at what they were getting from the megadrive near the end of it's life.
Yeah, most stuff like this is completely right on one hand, and a load of old tosh on the other.
The machine is getting on a bit now, the hardware in the machine is aged, but there's still alot that can be done with it.
The whole comment about the graphics reaching their limit is just crap though. It depends on what you're trying to display doesn't it? Graphically Killer 7 and No more heroes look like the nuts to me, so does MGS4. They are two different graphical styles, so they can't be compared. You can say MGS looks better than Killer 7, And you can also say the K7's art style is better than MGS!
Games such as Guitar Hero and the like don't really need a brilliant graphical interface. And who wants to see characters such as Sonic with individually rendered spikes?
As with any hardware, i don't care that the 360 may be reaching it's limits. As long as they keep pumping out great quality games i'll be happy.
I'd rather they maxed out the 360's abilities and we get to see what the machine is truly capable of, rather than we never get to see the true potential of the machine, just like they did when they dropped the Xbox like a hot potatoe!
The graphics chip in the 360(and the PS3) may be three years old, but what is there running on the newest PC graphics cards that's so far ahead of them at the moment? Far Cry2 looks the same to me on PC, 360 and PS3. And from what I've seen of PC hardware, they'll not be getting much better in the next few years either.
i'm waiting on all the gears heads coming on and just going on about how this game is gonna be the dogz bollox. even though its not what the topics about, thats what it gonna turn into. sure the game does look s**t hot but are those just the shots we've seen and is the rest of the game the brown fest we had the last time? hopefully the've used some more colours this time. and i'm sure that there will be games that are a hell of a lot better looking than this to come before the end of the 360. just look at the ps2, all the lush games that came out just before the next gen consoles were released.
Careful, mentioning the colour pallette in games is likely to get you chastised.
Or maybe that applies to PS3 exclusives only - I'm not sure on the rules.
Come on Epic we all knew the 360 tech was running at it's limit, especially me, and now you have confirmed it so people can start seriously taking note of what I post here.
Whilst you give out this damning indictment on the 360 hardware, Konami said earlier this year that MGS4 was using 'about 30% of PS3s potential', and on that bombshell, goodbye
Come on Epic we all knew the 360 tech was running at it's limit, especially me, and now you have confirmed it so people can start seriously taking note of what I post here.
Whilst you give out this damning indictment on the 360 hardware, Konami said earlier this year that MGS4 was using 'about 30% of PS3s potential', and on that bombshell, goodbye
I think you're in NO danger of people taking you seriously dude.
Come on Epic we all knew the 360 tech was running at it's limit, especially me, and now you have confirmed it so people can start seriously taking note of what I post here.
Whilst you give out this damning indictment on the 360 hardware, Konami said earlier this year that MGS4 was using 'about 30% of PS3s potential', and on that bombshell, goodbye
I think you're in NO danger of people taking you seriously dude.
Come on Epic we all knew the 360 tech was running at it's limit, especially me, and now you have confirmed it so people can start seriously taking note of what I post here.
Whilst you give out this damning indictment on the 360 hardware, Konami said earlier this year that MGS4 was using 'about 30% of PS3s potential', and on that bombshell, goodbye
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. people will take that more seriously than some of the s**te you spout.
Come on Epic we all knew the 360 tech was running at it's limit, especially me, and now you have confirmed it so people can start seriously taking note of what I post here.
Whilst you give out this damning indictment on the 360 hardware, Konami said earlier this year that MGS4 was using 'about 30% of PS3s potential', and on that bombshell, goodbye
Right, you tw*t. First of all it was hardly a "damning indictment" - if you actually READ the article he says that he expects games coming out in the next couple of years to look a lot better because devs will have found ways to optimise code and discovered new tricks. Secondly, Hideo Kojima was actually quite vocal about the PS3 not having the power to deliver everything he wanted for the game. When you consider that MGS actually has rather crap graphics in place (some of those textures are truly shocking), it is perhaps not the best example to use in backing up your "argument" (in quotation marks because we all know that it's not a valid argument, cos all you do is speak sh*t). And stop bloody hyping yourself up as if you are some massive prophet. You talk b*llocks mate. That's all. We all know it, no-one takes you seriously. And all that formatting doesn't make you clever. It just makes your posts look like they came from the editors column in The Sun. Actually, are you sure that you don't work for The Sun? Or is it a bit too highbrow and intelligent for you? Bottom line: who really gives a crap about graphics at this stage? Graphical improvements are becoming so trivial now that its a non-issue. "Oooooh, my console can render more individual strands of facial hair than yours". Big deal. It's all about the GAMES people! Case in point - I have had a hell of a lot more fun playing some of the games on Wii than anything on PS3 or 360, and you can hardly say that processing power is holding THAT back.
Plus, you are always banging on about "violent shooty games" like Gears. Which is made by Epic. So you slag them off on the one hand, then start singing their praises. If they released Gears on the PS3 I bet you wouldn't whinge about "shooty games" then, would you? Oh, and what company has done the most to create the so-called "cool" image of violent, 'gritty', macho games? Sony. They did it back in the nineties when they marketed the Playstation as a cool fashion accessory for blokes.
As for when you're playing them at home, the visuals on the 360 can look a little washed out through the VGA cable, which I assume you're using if you're playing through a monitor?
Why would you assume that? Most monitors made in the past 4-5 have had at least a DVI port, if not other connector types as well. In fact, my main monitor has 2x DVI, HDMI, VGA, component, composite, and s-video .
Come on Epic we all knew the 360 tech was running at it's limit, especially me, and now you have confirmed it so people can start seriously taking note of what I post here.
Whilst you give out this damning indictment on the 360 hardware, Konami said earlier this year that MGS4 was using 'about 30% of PS3s potential', and on that bombshell, goodbye
I thought the 360 was suppossed to have a better graphics chip than the PS3?
Come on Epic we all knew the 360 tech was running at it's limit, especially me, and now you have confirmed it so people can start seriously taking note of what I post here.
Whilst you give out this damning indictment on the 360 hardware, Konami said earlier this year that MGS4 was using 'about 30% of PS3s potential', and on that bombshell, goodbye
I thought the 360 was suppossed to have a better graphics chip than the PS3?
your just asking for trouble aren't you? better brace yourself for the fanboy backlash
Come on Epic we all knew the 360 tech was running at it's limit, especially me, and now you have confirmed it so people can start seriously taking note of what I post here.
Whilst you give out this damning indictment on the 360 hardware, Konami said earlier this year that MGS4 was using 'about 30% of PS3s potential', and on that bombshell, goodbye
Come on Epic we all knew the 360 tech was running at it's limit, especially me, and now you have confirmed it so people can start seriously taking note of what I post here.
Whilst you give out this damning indictment on the 360 hardware, Konami said earlier this year that MGS4 was using 'about 30% of PS3s potential', and on that bombshell, goodbye
I thought the 360 was suppossed to have a better graphics chip than the PS3?
your just asking for trouble aren't you? better brace yourself for the fanboy backlash
Come on Epic we all knew the 360 tech was running at it's limit, especially me, and now you have confirmed it so people can start seriously taking note of what I post here.
Whilst you give out this damning indictment on the 360 hardware, Konami said earlier this year that MGS4 was using 'about 30% of PS3s potential', and on that bombshell, goodbye
I thought the 360 was suppossed to have a better graphics chip than the PS3?
your just asking for trouble aren't you? better brace yourself for the fanboy backlash
http://www.ps3power.com/xbox-ati-vs-ps3-rsx.htm
good reply. that'll shut em up mind you thats if they bother reading it rather than just running their mouths off with silly schoolboy prattle.
Come on Epic we all knew the 360 tech was running at it's limit, especially me, and now you have confirmed it so people can start seriously taking note of what I post here.
Whilst you give out this damning indictment on the 360 hardware, Konami said earlier this year that MGS4 was using 'about 30% of PS3s potential', and on that bombshell, goodbye
Did we? Really? I don't recall ever knowing that. In fact, I still don't. Considering that this "damning indictment" is at best a guess from one of the companies producing easily the finest visually and most technically advanced games at the moment, i don't really see what's giving your argument its weight here. At all. Gears 2 still looks (and Im talking visuals alone here, gameplay aside) better than anything the PS3 is offering, and is leaps and bounds ahead of everything Ive seen of Resistance 2 and Killzone 2.
I don't doubt that the PS3 has plenty of power in there somewhere, and that one day it might just show off a game that looks and runs better than a 360 title, but so far, its just not showing it.
Wow, if what Epic are saying has a nugget of truth to it, that's got to make the Xbox360 a developer's paradise.
Most consoles get killed off long before their full potential is realized, it'll be an odd experience to know that the games you're playing on your console are actually using it's power efficiently, when there's not another console around the corner about to kill it off any month now.
Considering we have what... maybe 2 years left of this gen, obviously we are coming to the point where developers need to come up with some new techniques or tricks to take advantage of the consoles hardware. It happens every gen. Just look at PS2 last gen with God of War II. Even though the PS2 was vastly inferior to Xbox, it still managed to produce a game that was well up there graphically with anything Xbox had to offer. It'll be no different this time around, excluding Wii of course. As for that stupid fanboy comment about PS3 using 30% of its power, hey, if that makes you sleep well at night while hugging your PS3, good for you... In truth the Cell processor isn't suited for gaming, meaning the power is there but untapped as it can't really be taken advantage of by developers. Perhaps next gen Sony won't make the mistake of using their console as a vehicle to advertise their other products, ie Blu-Ray and Cell...
Slight problem: that info comes directly from an ATI employee, and hence is quite blatantly biased (he's hardly going to admit the NVidia card is better, is he?).
One rather important fact he has "overlooked": the RSX's pixel shaders can perform up to 324 gigaflops and the vertex shaders up to 40 gigaflops, with the maximum shader operations per second being 136 billion. In comparison, the Xenos' shaders are limited to a combined 240 gigaflops, with the maximum shader operations per second being only 48 billion.
Therefore, while the Xenos may have the advantage in some scenes, most scenes will be rendered more quickly by the RSX. The Xenos is considerably better at anti-aliasing, but since it seems a lot of developers of console games can't be bottomd to implement AA, that's not much of an advantage!
There's also no mention in that article of the fact the Xenos is limited to 16 texture samples per clock (filtered or unfiltered), whereas the RSX is capable of 24 filtered samples and 32 unfiltered samples. To put it slightly more simply, the RSX is much better at reducing blockiness and jaggies than the Xenos.
Oh, I noticed there's no mention of the Xenos being capable of 24 billion dot product operations per second, versus the RSX's 26 billion per second. (IIRC this means the RSX is better at calculating where to render things.)
Finally, let's not forget the fact that Xenos supports Direct3D (boo!!!) and RSX supports OpenGL (yay!!!)
Slight problem: that info comes directly from an ATI employee, and hence is quite blatantly biased (he's hardly going to admit the NVidia card is better, is he?).
One rather important fact he has "overlooked": the RSX's pixel shaders can perform up to 324 gigaflops and the vertex shaders up to 40 gigaflops, with the maximum shader operations per second being 136 billion. In comparison, the Xenos' shaders are limited to a combined 240 gigaflops, with the maximum shader operations per second being only 48 billion.
Therefore, while the Xenos may have the advantage in some scenes, most scenes will be rendered more quickly by the RSX. The Xenos is considerably better at anti-aliasing, but since it seems a lot of developers of console games can't be bottomd to implement AA, that's not much of an advantage!
There's also no mention in that article of the fact the Xenos is limited to 16 texture samples per clock (filtered or unfiltered), whereas the RSX is capable of 24 filtered samples and 32 unfiltered samples. To put it slightly more simply, the RSX is much better at reducing blockiness and jaggies than the Xenos.
Oh, I noticed there's no mention of the Xenos being capable of 24 billion dot product operations per second, versus the RSX's 26 billion per second. (IIRC this means the RSX is better at calculating where to render things.)
Finally, let's not forget the fact that Xenos supports Direct3D (boo!!!) and RSX supports OpenGL (yay!!!)
Of course, that would explain why the PS3's graphics are so much better than the 360's in every way.
As for that stupid fanboy comment about PS3 using 30% of its power, hey, if that makes you sleep well at night while hugging your PS3, good for you... In truth the Cell processor isn't suited for gaming, meaning the power is there but untapped as it can't really be taken advantage of by developers. Perhaps next gen Sony won't make the mistake of using their console as a vehicle to advertise their other products, ie Blu-Ray and Cell...
Suivaloom, Vulcanraven. Vulcanraven, Suivaloom. LET BATTLE COMMENCE!
Wow. There's more PS3-bashing than 360-bashing going on in, what is essentially, a article damning the 360. Some things never change. Also, there's a giant spider marching about here. I just thought you might want to know that, rather than listening to each other's rambling bullshit.
Wow. There's more PS3-bashing than 360-bashing going on in, what is essentially, a article damning the 360. Some things never change. Also, there's a giant spider marching about here. I just thought you might want to know that, rather than listening to each other's rambling bullshit.
What "PS3-bashing"? If your refering to my posts, I'm just pointing out that if you claim the 360's graphics have had their day, then so too has the PS3. You'd need to be rather "sensitive" to take that as "PS3 bashing".
Oh, and "damning"? sounds a bit familiar, you wouldn't happen to be related to Suivaloom would you?
I've got to admit, I find it tough to tell the difference between the two machines graphically, each one is better at certain things as far as I can tell from all the specs.
One thing though, what does the cell processor do?
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
.
