you can blow up a Nintendo 64 game to whatever resolution you want and it will still look as primitive as it normally does -- you might get rid of some jaggies in this way but the game will not look fundamentally better.
This isn't true to me (well using a 64 game, yes I'd agree). When I popped in Ninja Gaiden in my 360 after I got my HDTV I was amazed at how it DID make the game look so good (better even). I had 2 buddies who have played that game all the way threw and they had the same reaction. Same thing with Chaos Theory.... they most certainly do NOT look worse and most deffinately look BETTER.
If you are still wondering where I am going with all this let me make my position clear: I believe that the PS3 and the Xbox 360 are not powerful enough to handle true HDTV resolutions, and at the same time deliver the large variety of new effects necessary to approach photorealism.
He uses DOA 4 as an example only, then makes claims about hardware he's never seen and wasn't released yet (PS3). I don't see how anyone can't think it's a bit of a rant or biased somehow.
Then I'm shocked anyone here was expecting photo realism from this gen. Thats crazy expectations, i never expected that. That's basically saying you expect a system to be able to make movie quality visuals REALTIME. Hell most movies still to this day that use CG effects I can still tell aren't real and those aren't even realtime. How could someone expect to get that out of machine that costs 300 to 500 when budgets on movies FAR excede that just to create prerendered effects?!
What folks don't get in this thread that's been brought elsewhere is that it takes way more manpower, time and resources to get a next gen game pumping out awsome visuals.
Think about it this way. What if I gave you a 20 blocks to stack in the shape of a house or something and told you "you have to use all of them". Then afterwards I told you OK, now here is 10,000 and you must do the same, be sure to use ALL of them. It's pretty clear it's gonna take ALOT more time and effort. We are talking millions of polygons now. Even if you had hardware strong enough for photorealism it would take an enormous amount of manpower OR a VERY long development time. The budgets required to make games of this calibur would have to be increased per game significantly to pay all that extra manpower and other costs. I mean think about having to sit and creat a 3D model on a desktop constructed of 500,000 polygons. Thats you sitting there having to make individual polygons and attach them to one another 500,000 times. Then your still not done.
Alot of comments have been made by developers when these new systems started to be shown on how the smaller developers might not be able to cope with this due to rediculous budgets a game requires to actually put a dent in the hardware it's running on.
EA or square-enix will be fine but smaller folks like snk or treasure wouldn't be able to throw the cash or manpower like those two can. i'm not saying that makes them bad developers, but I think it's a relavent point.
This gen is the weirdest I've seen in awhile, i honestly can't see where it's headed and who's gonna be the winner this time. One is way powerful and it's price matches that, ones is pretty compitent power wise and has a good 1 year lead, another is weak on power but takes a totally radical shift in gaming and focuses on smaller games ect. Then on top of it we have the issue of development costs for games catching up to movies now.
In other words, if you take any currently available Xbox game, which has been designed to run at 480i, and you try to display it at 1080i, you will need a system approximately seven times as powerful as the original Xbox. Similarly, to run a regular PlayStation 2 game at 1080p you will need a system fourteen times as powerful
This ain't true at all.... it's not that simple. Those machines weren't made to do those resolutions.
My car is a manual. It's made so me and me alone can control the RPMS. That means I decide what I want... speed versus power. I can keep my car in 3rd gear longer than a automatic. That'll make my RPMS higher and that gives me more power. With that extra power I could pull more weight than an automatic. An automatic car isn't made with the option to over rev a gear, it will automtically shift up once it reaches a certain RPM.
My point with that info is this. Both the automatic and the manual have the same damn engine and everything else, one technically has no more power than the other. What one of them DOES have is a different way of letting you control it, it was built with that kind of usage in mind. Ask anyone who likes a stick and they'll say it's b/c it gives them more control. One car is NOT 4 times as powerful engine wise over the other but one can most deffinately have an easier time pulling weight uphill than the other. In this thread PC resolutions were brought and someone in here mentioned it apples and oranges... some PCs don't have to use that much extra juice for a higher res, some others due. It depends on how and what it was designed to do.
And if it takes a system 7 times more powerful than an xbox in order to display an xbox one game in 1080i. Then that means the 360 is 7 times more powerful then a xbox, b/c it most deffinately display an xbox game in 1080i and not break a sweat (via emulation on top of it). If you agree with this dude then I'd have to say if the 360 is an xbox times 7 then it's pretty f=@king strong. Genrally we see a double in performance every next gen, but hell..... now we skipped up to 7 times more the power.
So i gotta say I don't think I was that outta place to call BS when I see it.
it's hard. I once made a thread about experts disappearing from this board. This is just a prime example of what I meant. I hope you will in the future still educate us that are willing to listen.
