BreakmanX.com

A standard definition T.V. can't really showcase the difference between the two, anyway. It is like playing Half-Life at 320x240 or something. Also, as Richie said, we really have only seen 1/3 the power of the 360. Only one cpu is currently being utilized. In the same way that the PSP's cull CPU isn't being utilized yet either.

I was playing Virtua Tennis last night with Leanne, actually.. Top Spin did look better than Virtua Tennis, but the gameplay on Virtua Tennis was better. Top Spin is now coming out by 2k which is comprised of the Virtual Concepts people that made Virtua Tennis.

This gen will be interesting. I'm really excited for the Ps3 and the Revolution.

Richie wrote:

Mecha wrote:What about last generation PS1 games versus first generation PS2 games? Huge difference.

To this, I quote you:

Mecha wrote:Yes Fight Night 3 on the 360 does look ten times better.

And that's not true only of Fight Night: There are other 360 games that look much better than seXbox games. The only reason this isn't true for ALL 360 games, is the trend of producers (read: EA) to do multiconsole releases; such wasn't true when the PS2 was released.

FN3 on 360 looks ten times better than the xbox version.

PS2 games looked 30-40 times better than PS1 games.

BreakmanX wrote:It is like playing Half-Life at 320x240 or something.

And what's wrong with playing Half-Life at 320X240? I've had to play many games at that resolution because I've never owned a top of the line computer and video card. The thing about resolution is, it doesn't effect gameplay. It can effect the overall experience, but the gameplay still stays the same. I don't know, but if I had to choose between having to play Half Life at 1280x1024 at 15 frames a second or Half Life at 320x240 at 30 frames a second, I'd go with 320x240. To have both high resolution and high frame rate would be nice, but that costs money. X-Box 360s and HDTVs are expensive. At this point I think neither is worth their asking prices. Yes, I am pretty cheap, but the thing is, I rather spend money on more games than on a new console or TV.

I had a really long post all typed up, and accidentally closed the window. I'm not going to retype it all because I have to go to class, but in short;

Technology of all kinds revolves around constant inprovement. Not only does it make the highest end constantly amazing, but it also makes the lower end cheaper. Standard definition TVs are cheaper because of the influx of HDTVs. All the high technology that most people can't afford make what was once unattainable, very plausable. For this reason, I don't believe that developers should ever aim for the lowest common denominator. I think the visionaries that continue to aim higher and higher are the ones that are really amazing.

Now, obviously, gameplay is number one. You'll never get an argument out of me there. But, graphics and other such things can enhance gameplay. There are many more gameplay opportunities now than there were on the NES, or possible on the NES. Would Half-Life2, for example, work very well on the NES? The 360's main improvement involves online gaming, which has been built with a very good infastructure. The Revolution's controller will continue to push things forward, and will be ultimately copied just like everything else Nintendo's done with controllers. Microsoft's online functionality has greatly brought this into the forefront of console gaming. What started on the Dreamcast has learched forward. Ps3 and even Reggie have mentioned that they'd like to do something like Xbox live except free and better. Even then, it IS the model for console online gaming. Sony popularized the CD format, and massive storage for console games in general.. The list of technologies go on and on. HD will push visuals farther and farther into the future.. with higher resolution comes more polygons and better looking everything.

There's nothing wrong with playing games at 320x240. But, there's no denying that the push for technology will ultimately make it cheap for you to play it at higher resolutions in the future.. and simply make it possible for you to play it now. Technological growth is better for everyone. Your preference to get more games than a new console or TV is certainly a valid one as well. Besides being a gamer, I'm also a techniphile and have always been fascinated with high-tech stuff. New consoles, audio receivers, and T.V.s are just a part of that for me. Just preference.. no ones right or wrong. But, continuing technological growth helps both preferences.

Mecha wrote:FN3 on 360 looks ten times better than the xbox version.

PS2 games looked 30-40 times better than PS1 games.

Eye of the controller holder.

Retort opportunity: Denied.

BreakmanX wrote:Also, as Richie said, we really have only seen 1/3 the power of the 360. Only one cpu is currently being utilized. In the same way that the PSP's cull CPU isn't being utilized yet either.

OK Break, you and Richie have been saying 360 has 3 CPUs for months now, and I have been putting off calling you on it for a while. Quite simply, it does not have 3 CPUs. 360 has one CPU with 3 cores (depleted POWER cores). This is a HUGE difference, and an important one, as 3 truly independent CPUs would be much more efficient at processing then 3 cores on a single chip. In addition, a larger single cored CPU on the same chip would be more powerful, cheaper, less likely to overheat, and easier to program for. Finally, these 3 cores in the XBox 360's CPU architecture share the same L2 cache, meaning there is less bandwidth and in fact a bottleneck created that holds it back from being as powerful as independant CPUs. Utilizing the other 2 cores will result in more power, but not nearly as much as you might expect.

Conversely, unlocking the PSP's extra 50% of CPU power, additional power for the GPU, and additional bandwidth to the GPU (which are all capped in software in Sony devkits due to battery concerns) would unlock much higher "graphical increase factor" (I just made that term up) then unlocking the 360's untapped potential would.

Vamp wrote:

BreakmanX wrote:Also, as Richie said, we really have only seen 1/3 the power of the 360. Only one cpu is currently being utilized. In the same way that the PSP's cull CPU isn't being utilized yet either.

OK Break, you and Richie have been saying 360 has 3 CPUs for months now, and I have been putting off calling you on it for a while. Quite simply, it does not have 3 CPUs. 360 has one CPU with 3 cores (depleted POWER cores). This is a HUGE difference, and an important one, as 3 truly independent CPUs would be much more efficient at processing then 3 cores on a single chip. In addition, a larger single cored CPU on the same chip would be more powerful, cheaper, less likely to overheat, and easier to program for. Finally, these 3 cores in the XBox 360's CPU architecture share the same L2 cache, meaning there is less bandwidth and in fact a bottleneck created that holds it back from being as powerful as independant CPUs. Utilizing the other 2 cores will result in more power, but not nearly as much as you might expect.

Conversely, unlocking the PSP's extra 50% of CPU power, additional power for the GPU, and additional bandwidth to the GPU (which are all capped in software in Sony devkits due to battery concerns) would unlock much higher "graphical increase factor" (I just made that term up) then unlocking the 360's untapped potential would.

Well, if you want to get picky about it, we could go into AMD vs. Intel, and how we define independent processors. Too bad I don't care enough.

You're kinda beating a dead horse, here. We KNOW the 360's engineering isn't exactly brilliant: Look at the power supply for fuck's sake. And when it's on, it buzzes like a hornet's nest.

But regardless of how you look at it, our (Break and mine) point was that developers aren’t making use of everything available to them. A similar thing is happening on the PC side: We have good 64-bit processors, but very few games/apps are programmed to make use of them. We have to wait for the software to catch up to the hardware.

Gun.....Tony Hawk $60 Wasteland

that's an example of SOMEONE(ahem, Never*COUGH*soft) just porting shit over for the hell of it, without taking advantage of the system power.

The sweat in 2k6 NBA, Fight Night 3 and PGR3....

that's an example of someone taking time to take advantage of the system.

Agreed. The games that were ported for the 360 have looked worse in some cases than the earlier releases for the original Xbox. The thing is they're just stupid. If anyone thinks that they're getting a next-gen game with Gun or Wasteland (as examples) they're totally wrong. You have to really make sure that the game is going to be "made for next gen" not ported for a next gen system. If you look at the scores from Gamespot, which I agree with, on Gun, you're looking at a nice difference between the original game and the port. I played Gun for the 360 and it looked like shit. Kinda fun, but so much uglier than half of my original Xbox library.

Look for "Only for Xbox 360" stamped on the front of 360 games. That usually indicates a made for next gen game.

yeah, like Blazing Angels. i thought of buying that....but then i saw Superman.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here because I'm bored. Also, I think I might have something to say, but it's not like anyone really cares what I say anyways. So, whatever, I'm going to say it anyways...

BreakmanX wrote:All the high technology that most people can't afford make what was once unattainable, very plausable. For this reason, I don't believe that developers should ever aim for the lowest common denominator. I think the visionaries that continue to aim higher and higher are the ones that are really amazing.

I got my TV for free. That's how cheap I am. Also, my TV doesn't even have A/V inputs, it actually only has an RF input and I use a RF Modulator to plug in my consoles and DVD player. Also, are the creators of X-Box 360 really visionaries?

BreakmanX wrote:The 360's main improvement involves online gaming, which has been built with a very good infastructure. The Revolution's controller will continue to push things forward, and will be ultimately copied just like everything else Nintendo's done with controllers. Microsoft's online functionality has greatly brought this into the forefront of console gaming. What started on the Dreamcast has learched forward. Ps3 and even Reggie have mentioned that they'd like to do something like Xbox live except free and better. Even then, it IS the model for console online gaming. Sony popularized the CD format, and massive storage for console games in general.. The list of technologies go on and on. HD will push visuals farther and farther into the future.. with higher resolution comes more polygons and better looking everything.

I feel you are greatly downplaying the potenial impact of the Revolution's controller and greatly bloating the impact of X-Box Live. I still think online gameplay for PCs is better. And let's not forget Nintendo Wi-Fi. Nintendo Wi-Fi reached 1 Millon players on March 7th. Apparently that somthing like 5 times faster than it took X-Box Live. Since March 7th, Metroid Prime Hunters and Tetris DS have been released. I wouldn't be suprised if they reach 2 million not too far from now. Let's keep in mind that Nintendo Wi-Fi is still only about 4 months old. X-Box Live may have more features, but that's not neccesarily what I'm looking for in a handheld online service. The Revolution's service will most likely be a bit more involved, but most importantly it'll be free. Remeber, I'm a cheap guy.

BreakmanX wrote:There's nothing wrong with playing games at 320x240. But, there's no denying that the push for technology will ultimately make it cheap for you to play it at higher resolutions in the future.. and simply make it possible for you to play it now. Technological growth is better for everyone. Your preference to get more games than a new console or TV is certainly a valid one as well. Besides being a gamer, I'm also a techniphile and have always been fascinated with high-tech stuff. New consoles, audio receivers, and T.V.s are just a part of that for me. Just preference.. no ones right or wrong. But, continuing technological growth helps both preferences.

Technological growth is GREAT. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE technology, but HDTV is not enough! I want TLDTV (True Life Definition Television). Screw 1080p. I want 50,000p and I want the video so life like and realistic that it would be impossible to tell the difference between life and television. But keep in mind, we're still in the uncanny valley and we still have a ways to go. I'm dissapointed in alot of things when it comes to technology. When I was a kid, I always thought that by the year 2000, we'd be flying to work or school in flying cars. I thought maybe we'd have spaceships. I especially wanted those cool form fitting shoes and hoverboards from Back to the Future. For me HDTV is not a great enough improvement over SDTV. I see things in HD everyday on my computer. I want to see something that I truly haven't experienced before. The Revolution controller is the experience that I need.

Don't mean to pick on you, but nobody responded to what you said. So, I took the bait.

I just played the Tomb Raider demo....it's wonderful.

See! Nobody care what we gotta say.

Weezer wrote:I still think online gameplay for PCs is better.

W00t!

I care weezer, I care.

weezerjedi wrote:See! Nobody care what we gotta say.

I read it.

I'm not as cheap as you, Weez, but I'm cheap. I agree, HD doesn't add up for me. There ARE people that can spare the necessary cash, and more power to them.

But I also agree with Break: Were it not for the iMac shoving USB down everyone's throats, I think the transition would have taken much longer than it did. Look at the video card war: nVidia and ATI keep one-upping each other, competing for the best, and the result? Lot's of very good cards available to the budget minded.

The progression of technology - and the force behind it - is what makes technology available to cheap people like us.