360 GRAPHICS

Reserved for modern gaming discussions.
voorhiessa

360 GRAPHICS

Postby voorhiessa » March 17th, 2006, 9:24 am

I dunno, I hear everyone talking about how they're disappointment with the lack of a dramatic difference in graphics between the Xbox and new 360.  I think it makes perfect sense, in that the closer we get to "real life" graphics, the smaller steps we'll begin to take.

 

I mean, come on, graphics (done right) on the XBox were awesome, and games that pushed for that ultra-real look can get really, really close at times.  I think that graphics will very gradually improve with new systems, but that we will begin to see differences in other important things, like AI, realistic movements, and so forth.

 

Anyone else have any thoughts about this?


Alienblue

360 GRAPHICS

Postby Alienblue » March 17th, 2006, 1:56 pm

I agree, but that's why they should have waited a few more years before the "next gen" of consoles. The Next gen like 360 should have graphics indisdinquishable from photgraphs/reality-and it don't. It's like Genesis was 40% better then NES while the 360 is at most, 10% better then Xbox.

But actualy, the better graphics get the more depressed I become. In the days of 16 bit and before, graphics couldn't be 100% real looking (they tried and muddy FMV was the result)...so they concentrated on the GAMEPLAY making lots of FUN, DIFFERENT games and using different graphic techniques that ran the gamut from cartoony (donkey kong), abstract (Tetris), to Dahli-like Surrealistic (Panic!) or a variety of styles (insector X).
Now, all games look alike, play alike, and use form over content to sell (sorta like what happened with comic books, with holgram covers and computerized layouts). That is why I PREFER the "graphically Crippled" DS, it forces programmers to either give us old style games or (GASP!) come up with new concepts! I seriously doubt Nintendogs or Phoniex Wright or Rub Rabbits would have come to the PSP or X360. Sometimes NEW isn't always better. Want a NEW improved plastic-stirred tofu ice cream cone?

voorhiessa

360 GRAPHICS

Postby voorhiessa » March 17th, 2006, 4:06 pm

I agree, and probably the system I'm most excitied about is the Revolution.  Nintendo seems to be opting out of the technology war and going for innovation (which they've been really sucessful with in the past). 

 

And in terms of graphics.....Have you ever played an awful game with excellent, jaw-dropping graphics and loved it?  No.  But have you played a "graphically challenged" game with great gameplay and fun multiplayer and kept coming back?  Certainly so.


Anayo1
Posts: 758
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

360 GRAPHICS

Postby Anayo1 » March 18th, 2006, 7:47 pm

[QUOTE=Alienblue]I agree, but that's why they should have waited a few more years before the "next gen" of consoles. The Next gen like 360 should have graphics indisdinquishable from photgraphs/reality-and it don't. It's like Genesis was 40% better then NES while the 360 is at most, 10% better then Xbox.

But actualy, the better graphics get the more depressed I become. In the days of 16 bit and before, graphics couldn't be 100% real looking (they tried and muddy FMV was the result)...so they concentrated on the GAMEPLAY making lots of FUN, DIFFERENT games and using different graphic techniques that ran the gamut from cartoony (donkey kong), abstract (Tetris), to Dahli-like Surrealistic (Panic!) or a variety of styles (insector X).
Now, all games look alike, play alike, and use form over content to sell (sorta like what happened with comic books, with holgram covers and computerized layouts). That is why I PREFER the "graphically Crippled" DS, it forces programmers to either give us old style games or (GASP!) come up with new concepts! I seriously doubt Nintendogs or Phoniex Wright or Rub Rabbits would have come to the PSP or X360. Sometimes NEW isn't always better. Want a NEW improved plastic-stirred tofu ice cream cone? [/QUOTE]

It's kind of like movies. If I may go on a television tangent, think about old science fiction shows, such as something from the 60's, then compare them to what we have now. Back then they didn't have special effects and things of that nature, so they had to rely on a compelling, imaginative story to bring it all to life. These days, though? Shoot, someone can get away with throwing a bunch of computer graphic effects together and hamstringing it with some awful story and [i]still[/i] make a buck.

It could be said that it's the same way with games, on a certain level. A long time ago success relied on innovation and fun, so as to make that laughable X/Y matrix of dots come to life as something totally awesome. But with increasing horsepower in gaming machines, like the forementioned special effects in television and movies, people think that they can justify making something flashier and shinier meanwhile compromising genuine and true fun.

On the other hand, we have a sort of middle ground. There are some people who still want to make a totally awesome game, but they aren't hampered by the limitations of yesteryear, so they end up utilizing [i]both[/i]. I think [i]this[/i] is what we need to watch out for.


Return to “Modern Gaming”