Xbox 2 in game shots!

judesalmon · Post by **judesalmon** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:36 pm

jp wrote:I just want to know what the launch titles will be... thats it.

But no, for some reason they can't reveal that info what? Less than 6 months to the release? Gah.

That's easy:

Halo 3
Project Gotham 3
Rallisport 3
Dead Or Alive 4
And some crappy Rare games

jp · Post by jp » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:43 pm

^^^^^

Halo 3 = PS3 launch. I highly doubt we'll see it at the Xbox 360 launch.

I've heard:
Ninja Gaiden 2
Dead or Alive 4
Halo 2.5
Project Gotham 3
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

But nothing has been confirmed, so I assume those are simply rumors.

And I would probably buy a Xbox 360 on launch day if it had Ninja Gaiden 2.

judesalmon · Post by **judesalmon** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:58 pm

Halo 3 is already finished.

jp · Post by jp » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:00 pm

judesalmon wrote:Halo 3 is already finished.

Wha?

Where did you hear this?

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:16 pm

neorichieb1971 wrote:There might be some good light at the end of the tunnel. Imagine in 2 years time when every realistic game is photo realistic, where do they go after that?

Two years?

I want you to do something for me. I want you to look out your window. Look at every little creature, every tiny plant, every little flaw on your neighbor's house. Everything.

You really think we'll be able to accomplish that in two years? We're not even at the level where we can imitate Toy Story properly, let alone get graphics that truly look like real life. We're still far, far, far away from that.

And once again, to everyone complaining that games are looking too realistic with no style, I ask: what games are you talking about, aside from sports games and sims? This whole "most games are trying to be realistic" thing is honestly baffling to me... I look at the PS2 rack at Gamestop and I see rows upon rows of anime-influenced graphics, if anything. Yes, there's a Call of Duty game here and there, but it's not the massively widespread phenomenon that some here are making it out to be.

And companies use "photo-realistic" graphics to demo a system because they're trying to show off the technical possibilities of it, and reality is by far the easiest measuring stick we have for something like that. Thus, it makes sense for a technical demo.

WarpZone wrote:I was just saying I don't see many developers really taking advantage of that technology in ways it could be used.

Well, of course. But that was my point: these developers who aren't really doing innovative things with new technology aren't going to do innovative things with current technology or past technology, either. I don't want new technology for the bad or mediocre games that will come out on it, I want new technology for the good ones, and those will come from the creative and innovative developers.

It reminds me of people who complain about CGI in movies, and then point to Van Helsing as an example of why CGI sucks. Well, the reality is that Van Helsing would have sucked with practical effects, too, and without CGI we wouldn't have a movie like Sin City (which I personally feel is fantastic).

MovingTarget · Post by **MovingTarget** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:27 pm

Man, I saw the advert for Sin city the other day and I was thinking this film looks SHITE, then I found out who the director is and thought surely not! So I'm willing to give it a go for that reason alone(as in the director). Maybe it was just the advert that was shit, ie cheesy lines after pauses etc

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:27 pm

Right now, all I can say is that if all, or most, games are going to look this photorealistic in the next line-up of consoles, then 128-bit is where this gamer's gettin' off!

Seriously, can you imagine (or would you want to?) a shmup with a ship, stages, and enemies that looked photorealistic?! *gagbarfpukehurl*

MovingTarget · Post by **MovingTarget** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:31 pm

I dont think thats too important really, it can be photo realistic as long as it plays well. Although it would be hard making a plasma blossom look photo realistic

edit: of course the best graphics are still stylised(sp?) rather than photorealistic in my opinion. BUT! imagine stylised graphics that had the detail that photorealistic graphics would need, imagine the possiblities. Imagine playing a shmup that had visuals similar to that of the visuals you might get on acid or mushrooms. Which believe me are way beyond the capabilities of todays computers/consoles

U K Narayan · Post by **U K Narayan** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:35 pm

jp wrote:^^^^^

Halo 3 = PS3 launch. I highly doubt we'll see it at the Xbox 360 launch.

You're right; Bungie (owned by Microsoft Game Studios) is making it for the PS3, you're absolutely right.

jp wrote: I've heard:
Ninja Gaiden 2
Dead or Alive 4
Halo 2.5
Project Gotham 3
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

But nothing has been confirmed, so I assume those are simply rumors.

And I would probably buy a Xbox 360 on launch day if it had Ninja Gaiden 2.

Seeing as how Tecmo is very pleased with Microsoft, I wouldn't doubt that the next Ninja Gaiden, and DOA games will be coming on Microsoft's next console. Also, I think there's been confirmation from Bethesda for ESIV:O.

jp · Post by jp » Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:40 pm

U K Narayan wrote:
jp wrote:^^^^^

Halo 3 = PS3 launch. I highly doubt we'll see it at the Xbox 360 launch.
You're right; Bungie (owned by Microsoft Game Studios) is making it for the PS2, you're absolutely right.

I meant that Halo 3 would come out the same day the PS3 came out smart ass. Not on the PS3.

U K Narayan · Post by **U K Narayan** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:45 pm

jp wrote:
U K Narayan wrote:
jp wrote:^^^^^

Halo 3 = PS3 launch. I highly doubt we'll see it at the Xbox 360 launch.
You're right; Bungie (owned by Microsoft Game Studios) is making it for the PS2, you're absolutely right.

I meant that Halo 3 would come out the same day the PS3 came out smart ass. Not on the PS3.

Oh. . . .

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:38 am

mannerbot wrote: Of course it's perfectly fine to complain about the how photorealistic games are becoming; after all, don't we hate everything else about gaming nowadays anyway?

Not really.

jp · Post by jp » Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:42 am

mannerbot wrote: Of course it's perfectly fine to complain about the how photorealistic games are becoming; after all, don't we hate everything else about gaming nowadays anyway? These games are made for a consumer that's not you, that's all.

If they'd go back to putting gameplay in games I might not complain. But... such is not the case, but at least some have really spifftacular plots!

MovingTarget · Post by **MovingTarget** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:46 am

did you just say.. spifftacular?

spectacluar and spiffing at the same time.... Neat!!!

jp · Post by jp » Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:55 am

MovingTarget wrote:did you just say.. spifftacular?

spectacluar and spiffing at the same time.... Neat!!!

I thought it was quite spiffy.

Actually, inserting "spiff/spiffy" into other words seems to be my new thing, as I do it all over the place at work. Spifftacular, Spifftastic, Spiffalicious... my boss even said spifftacular once.

MovingTarget · Post by **MovingTarget** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:59 am

As long as your taking the piss, all is well

jp · Post by jp » Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:01 am

Taking the piss?

MovingTarget · Post by **MovingTarget** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:07 am

your american? ... so I assumed you were taking the piss out of the posh english way of speaking.

jp · Post by jp » Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:14 am

Now I'm just confused.

MovingTarget · Post by **MovingTarget** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:17 am

taking the piss = taking the mickey = ripping the piss out of = making fun of I suppose...

Where did you first here a word that contained spiff?

ps check your pm

jp · Post by jp » Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:25 am

Oh, yes indeed. I get what you're saying now. ^_^

Some chick I dated always said spiffy, this was a loooooong time ago, and for some reason it has recently resurfaced.

MovingTarget · Post by **MovingTarget** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:36 am

Did she sound like a posh english person at all? If not she musta been taking the piss LOL!

jp · Post by jp » Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:40 am

Na, I think she was just taking the piss. *And damn you, cause I'm probably going to start using that phrase now and cofuse the shit out of everybody*

MovingTarget · Post by **MovingTarget** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:42 am

And what a great phrase it is.

Specineff · Post by **Specineff** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:56 am

jp wrote:

Actually, inserting "spiff/spiffy" into other words seems to be my new thing, as I do it all over the place at work. Spifftacular, Spifftastic, Spiffalicious... my boss even said spifftacular once.

Woo. Then you can call me "Spiffyneff" then.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:52 am

dave4shmups wrote:Right now, all I can say is that if all, or most, games are going to look this photorealistic in the next line-up of consoles, then 128-bit is where this gamer's gettin' off!

Seriously, can you imagine (or would you want to?) a shmup with a ship, stages, and enemies that looked photorealistic?! *gagbarfpukehurl*

Once again... where are you getting this from?

Most games aren't pretending to be photorealistic. Sports games are, for obvious reasons. Sims are, for obvious reasons. Some FPS are, depending on the theme. Some fighters are stylized. Most RPGs are stylized. Most action games are stylized. All shooters are stylized. All puzzle games are stylized. All platformers are stylized. Most niche genre games are stylized.

The sky is not falling. Really. The only genres that are becoming photorealistic are the ones that 1) have always strived for realism, and 2) you've never cared about anyway. So what's the issue? The PS2 was hyped with a demo of a human face, but Katamari Damacy still exists, Jak is still one of the biggest franchises on the system (whether you like the series or not, it is cartoony), and it's been quite a decent system for shmups, including some of the best in years (DDP:DOJ and Gradius V among them). Your favorite genres aren't going to lose their artistry because Madden exists.

WarpZone · Post by **WarpZone** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:30 am

sethsez wrote:But that was my point: these developers who aren't really doing innovative things with new technology aren't going to do innovative things with current technology or past technology, either.

Right- and there's a problem with that, that's all I'm saying. The mentality behind what the technology should be used for seems "off" for a large portion of the industry.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:57 am

But they'd be bad devs no matter what. I agree that some fresh blood in the industry would be nice, but that's a completely different issue and has no real bearing on the next line of systems. Advancing technology is a good thing, uncreative devs are a bad thing, and there's no real correlation between one and the other.

In any case, the majority of any medium sucks. Most novels are trash, most movies are worthless, most comics are riding on the coattails of whatever happened to be successful most recently, most bands are generic ripoffs of generic ripoffs, and so on. It's not unique to gaming, but a fact of any creative field: there will be more hacks than visionaries. Period. So tools are developed to make things easier for the visionaries to bring their ideas to life, and the hacks use the tools to make ripoffs of whatever was originally good.

Don't get me wrong, I used to think like you, but frankly it's just easier to ignore the hacks and just focus on the good stuff, which there's still plenty of (though I have a relatively broad taste for games... no real favorite genre or style, so I'm just as entertained by a shmup as I am a turn-based world building game as long as the quality is there). It saves a lot of frustration over something that will never, ever change.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:55 pm

sethsez wrote:But they'd be bad devs no matter what. I agree that some fresh blood in the industry would be nice, but that's a completely different issue and has no real bearing on the next line of systems. Advancing technology is a good thing, uncreative devs are a bad thing, and there's no real correlation between one and the other.

In any case, the majority of any medium sucks. Most novels are trash, most movies are worthless, most comics are riding on the coattails of whatever happened to be successful most recently, most bands are generic ripoffs of generic ripoffs, and so on. It's not unique to gaming, but a fact of any creative field: there will be more hacks than visionaries. Period. So tools are developed to make things easier for the visionaries to bring their ideas to life, and the hacks use the tools to make ripoffs of whatever was originally good.

Don't get me wrong, I used to think like you, but frankly it's just easier to ignore the hacks and just focus on the good stuff, which there's still plenty of (though I have a relatively broad taste for games... no real favorite genre or style, so I'm just as entertained by a shmup as I am a turn-based world building game as long as the quality is there). It saves a lot of frustration over something that will never, ever change.

Thank god, someone with some sense.

dave4shmups wrote: Right now, all I can say is that if all, or most, games are going to look this photorealistic in the next line-up of consoles, then 128-bit is where this gamer's gettin' off!

Seriously, can you imagine (or would you want to?) a shmup with a ship, stages, and enemies that looked photorealistic?! *gagbarfpukehurl*

I could definitely see Strikers, Bakraid or Garegga with photorealistic (barring that which is impossible, atleast high res modeled versions of their enemies, backgrounds and ships) graphics and it would definitely be very bad ass.

neorichieb1971 · Post by **neorichieb1971** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:18 am

I think the biggest problem with the industry right now is that everyone wants a piece of somebody elses pie.

EA started the whole sports thing I think, Sega tried to steal a market share and came out limping. But in the process Sega gave up alot of its identity in the process and spent countless millions of $$$$ on a customer base that just doesn't appreciate them.

Well, in the mean time the people that care about Sega start caring less and less.

Be yourself, create your own niche/identity.. Thats where you win.