Xbox 2 in game shots!

neorichieb1971 · Post by **neorichieb1971** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:11 pm

Can't say i'm overly impressed. Mind you I don't like American Football either.

MovingTarget · Post by **MovingTarget** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:15 pm

Its almost as if the snow has been put in to cover up the overall quality of the screen.. ya know what i mean? To make it look as though theres more detail than there really is...

Specineff · Post by **Specineff** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:19 pm

These pictures have been shown alrady. I doubt that this is more than a representation of what the system will be capable of, as we saw a few years ago with the dancing robot and the girl when the Xbox was going to be launched. Just a tech demo. Don't hold your breath. I still have to see an Xbox game that looks like the dancing robot and girl demo.

captain ahar · Post by **captain ahar** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:19 pm

time and money shouldn't be wasted on developing sports games. honestly, given the releases available today, how much more can they tweak?

although, i don't play them either, so i shouldn't be speaking.

iatneH · Post by **iatneH** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:24 pm

Girl demo. NOW.

neorichieb1971 · Post by **neorichieb1971** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:58 pm

These are not the same pictures shown before. They were renders, these are in game shots.

U K Narayan · Post by **U K Narayan** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:44 pm

RalliSport Challenge 3 & Project Gotham Racing 3 screens:

yuljo · Post by **yuljo** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:54 pm

Games are going to take so much longer to make unless they start scanning the football player bodies or using the models that the car manufacturars use. That doesn't leave much hope for more independent games to compete on the same graphical level..

U K Narayan · Post by **U K Narayan** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:14 pm

yuljo wrote:Games are going to take so much longer to make unless they start scanning the football player bodies or using the models that the car manufacturars use. That doesn't leave much hope for more independent games to compete on the same graphical level..

Keep in mind that the software used to create games on such a graphic caliber are becoming more streamlined every month.

Look at Microsoft and XNA, that serves as a perfect example. Of course, you cannot blame the software being used though, because it's the person that makes the game. If they aren't willing to improve themselves, why release a game anyway?

alpha5099 · Post by **alpha5099** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:27 pm

I hate photorealism. It's the worst thing to happen to games. Because everything has to be photorealistic these days. The only way to do anything with any style is either do it 2D, or with cel-shading. There's no charm left. I fucking hate it.

If I want things that look like those pictures, I'll start watching football and car racing.

Neon · Post by **Neon** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:29 pm

These will be liek teh best Madden games evar lol

Valgar · Post by **Valgar** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:29 pm

You guys hate on 3D too much. Wind Waker is an example of unique style, I also think S&P is really good.

joshschw · Post by **joshschw** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:55 pm

U K Narayan wrote:RalliSport Challenge 3 & Project Gotham Racing 3 screens:

Microsoft did release one, but those are not them. http://www.max-realms.com/modules/xcgal ... =10&pid=33

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:06 pm

"I hate photorealism. It's the worst thing to happen to games. Because everything has to be photorealistic these days. The only way to do anything with any style is either do it 2D, or with cel-shading. There's no charm left. I fucking hate it.

If I want things that look like those pictures, I'll start watching football and car racing."

Couldn't have said it better myself. And the current 3D games that don't look photorealisitc get lower ratings then those that do.

U K Narayan · Post by **U K Narayan** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:12 pm

joshschw wrote:
U K Narayan wrote:RalliSport Challenge 3 & Project Gotham Racing 3 screens:

Microsoft did release one, but those are not them. http://www.max-realms.com/modules/xcgal ... =10&pid=33

Huh, I wonder why those shots appear on Ourcolony then?

mannerbot · Post by **mannerbot** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:16 pm

Obviously, being fans of 2D gaming, we are a bit biased. While stylized 2D graphics are best for the games I prefer (shmups, fighters, platformers), they're not the best choice for everything. For a game like Gran Turismo, photorealistic graphics are the way to go since it's supposed to be a realistic racing simulator. Likewise, first-person shooters are traditionally the ones to push the boundaries of photorealistic graphics.

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.

jp · Post by jp » Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:22 pm

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.

joshschw · Post by **joshschw** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:26 pm

U K Narayan wrote:
joshschw wrote:
U K Narayan wrote:RalliSport Challenge 3 & Project Gotham Racing 3 screens:

]http://members.cox.net/gek54/gek54/imag ... ony9pi.jpg[/img]

http://img49.echo.cx/img49/4605/ourcolony4pi.jpg[/img] http://members.cox.net/gek54/gek54/imag ... ony5pi.jpg[/img]
Microsoft did release one, but those are not them. http://www.max-realms.com/modules/xcgal ... =10&pid=33
Huh, I wonder why those shots appear on Ourcolony then?

Actually I don;t think they did, someone just stuck the little spider onto them. also I think people can upload images to ourocolony, that may also have been it.

Ganelon · Post by **Ganelon** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:18 am

Specineff wrote:I still have to see an Xbox game that looks like the dancing robot and girl demo.

Yeah, and remember the N64's Project Reality future city demo? Looks way better than any game actually made for the N64.

Just some less shine and more bump mapping on the skin and more polygons for the eyes and everything could probably look realistic.

U K Narayan · Post by **U K Narayan** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:38 am

joshschw wrote:
U K Narayan wrote:
joshschw wrote: Microsoft did release one, but those are not them. http://www.max-realms.com/modules/xcgal ... =10&pid=33
Huh, I wonder why those shots appear on Ourcolony then?
Actually I don;t think they did, someone just stuck the little spider onto them. also I think people can upload images to ourocolony, that may also have been it.

Ah, you're right.

alpha5099 · Post by **alpha5099** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:25 am

mannerbot wrote:Obviously, being fans of 2D gaming, we are a bit biased. While stylized 2D graphics are best for the games I prefer (shmups, fighters, platformers), they're not the best choice for everything. For a game like Gran Turismo, photorealistic graphics are the way to go since it's supposed to be a realistic racing simulator. Likewise, first-person shooters are traditionally the ones to push the boundaries of photorealistic graphics.

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.

Fair enough. But the problem is that the kind of games that dominate the video game industry are the kind that befit photorealism. Their influence is seen everywhere. Everything is expected to be photorealistic.

And yes, I hate the gaming industry. I am here solely because I am trying my hardest to impress all the other non-conformists. It's all just a shallow attempt to create an identity for myself by latching onto an elitist group/

joshschw · Post by **joshschw** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:48 am

alpha5099 wrote:
mannerbot wrote:Obviously, being fans of 2D gaming, we are a bit biased. While stylized 2D graphics are best for the games I prefer (shmups, fighters, platformers), they're not the best choice for everything. For a game like Gran Turismo, photorealistic graphics are the way to go since it's supposed to be a realistic racing simulator. Likewise, first-person shooters are traditionally the ones to push the boundaries of photorealistic graphics.

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.
Fair enough. But the problem is that the kind of games that dominate the video game industry are the kind that befit photorealism. Their influence is seen everywhere. Everything is expected to be photorealistic.

And yes, I hate the gaming industry. I am here solely because I am trying my hardest to impress all the other non-conformists. It's all just a shallow attempt to create an identity for myself by latching onto an elitist group/

nah there are plenty games that don;t go for photorealism, for sports its expected and would be incredibly stupid otherwise

check out Okami: http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/o ... index.html

WarpZone · Post by **WarpZone** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:11 am

There's nothing wrong with "3D" or "photorealism". What's troubling, and what I think is closer to the root of a "problem" that some of you touch on- is the general mentality that is often seen in the industry- the perspective that somehow the technical feats of some games are a means to an end in themselves. They shouldn't be. The new technologies should be used to expand on the possibilities of game design. A lot of designers don't understand that though, and it's also something that's hard to explain or sell to a general consumer. But our computers just keep getting more powerful, so we have no choice but to just keep beefing up our polygonal models and effects, even if we're getting a little ahead of ourselves...not really slowing down and taking a look at what we can do with some of this before we move on.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:03 am

What games strive for photorealism outside of sports games and realistic racers? I mean, certainly graphics are getting more and more detailed all the time, but just because something isn't cartoony doesn't mean it's photorealistic. Half-Life 2 is detailed, and I'd argue that it's convincing, but there's also a hell of a lot of artistic ingenuity going on there as well. Dog (for those who haven't played it, Dog is a huge robot made of scraps that... well... acts like a really smart bipedal dog) is very convincing, but it's also wonderful from an artistic design perspective.

Hell, for an example of the same thing in movies, look at the crashed spaceship in Alien. It's "realistic," but amazingly artistic.

Besides, there are still plenty of cartoony games out there as well. They're not going anywhere any time soon, and I'll bet that most games people consider "photo-realistic" actually contain plenty of stylization, even if they're not quite Rez.

WarpZone wrote:There's nothing wrong with "3D" or "photorealism". What's troubling, and what I think is closer to the root of a "problem" that some of you touch on- is the general mentality that is often seen in the industry- the perspective that somehow the technical feats of some games are a means to an end in themselves. They shouldn't be. The new technologies should be used to expand on the possibilities of game design. A lot of designers don't understand that though, and it's also something that's hard to explain or sell to a general consumer. But our computers just keep getting more powerful, so we have no choice but to just keep beefing up our polygonal models and effects, even if we're getting a little ahead of ourselves...not really slowing down and taking a look at what we can do with some of this before we move on.

The new technologies should be used to expand on the possibilities of game design? Care to elaborate? Nothing is being taken away with the advance of technology, as far as tools available to developers go, and more powerful technology inherantly allows for more freedom in the creation of a game. I mean, how many times have you heard of games with ambitious plans that were cut back drastically because the technology they had just couldn't cope? My favorite example of this is Myst, which was conceived as a real-time 3D game, but computers at the time just couldn't handle it, and detailed graphics were integral to the game's design (after all, the entire thing is about environment manipulation and observation, and with the technology at the time it would have been impossible to create minute details as clues in a real-time 3D engine), so they were forced to make the game a slideshow if they wanted to portray the world they had in mind with any sort of accuracy. I'm sure many here would complain about Myst for exactly that reason ("it's just a bunch of pretty still images!") but the fact is, with better technology it could have been more.

I guess I just don't get this attitude. I've never seen a graphic designer complain about a new Photoshop feature because he hasn't gotten full use (whatever that means) out of the other features yet. This is because it's just an added tool that has three possibilities: either it will result in a better final image, it will streamline some of the more tedious or difficult aspects of creating said image, or it will be a useless feature and just won't get used. With more, better tools, we're just making the process easier for game designers while simultainiously opening more possibilities to them. The actual creation of a game, however, still comes back to good old-fashioned ingenuity, and the advance of technology isn't going to make the bad devs good or the good devs bad.

Finally, I doubt anyone here would complain for one second if a new arcade technology was announced that would allow for ultra high-res 2D graphics with no sprite limit at amazingly fast speeds with more then enough RAM for incredibly smooth animation at prices cheap enough for most arcades to invest in. In fact, I'm damn near certain everyone would celebrate. It might not make any huge strides as far as gameplay goes, but damn the new Cave games would be stunning. And I'd be celebrating right next to everyone else, because I think that'd be awesome.

neorichieb1971 · Post by **neorichieb1971** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:36 pm

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?

I mean you can tweak all you want but nobody is going to buy another game for $50-$60 when they already have the perfect game (in their eyes). That means the majority of purchasers for games will be us again and the casual gamers just fast forwarded time for us on the technology scale.

Super Laydock · Post by **Super Laydock** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:45 pm

dave4shmups wrote:"I hate photorealism. It's the worst thing to happen to games. Because everything has to be photorealistic these days. The only way to do anything with any style is either do it 2D, or with cel-shading. There's no charm left. I fucking hate it.

I'll happily agree with that! Only games benefiting from photorealism are simulators. But non-photorealistic 3D can have it's charm as well. It's the photorealistic part I worry about...

As for Xbox2/Xenon/Xbox 360 or whatever it is called: I will NEVER buy it (well unless Konami brings Parodius/Salamander/Gradius Next/ G.Rev supports the system and Cave caves in and swing over to the (even more) evil side

).

FatCobra · Post by **FatCobra** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:01 pm

You can't stop new technology, but you can sure as hell not buy it.

I am very sick of the sorry state that the industry is in. To me, the magic and wonder of videogames that got me addicted to this expensive hobby in the first place is GONE. There's no soul in the new games or consoles. Lifeless....BAH! I say!

Maybe it's because I'm fed up with the new games not giving me the experience of the old days, I don't even remember the last time a game truely blew me away. Or maybe just because I can't afford the new machines right now.

As for photorealism, bleh. Eventually graphics will get so realistic that what do game developers do from there? Make good games like the old days since graphics have been pushed to their absolute minute? Hardly.

It'll be a cold day in hell before there will be another golden age of videogames.

WarpZone · Post by **WarpZone** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:52 pm

sethsez wrote:The new technologies should be used to expand on the possibilities of game design? Care to elaborate? Nothing is being taken away with the advance of technology, as far as tools available to developers

Oh I agree with you. I didn't meant to say that new technologies are somehow bad. I was just saying I don't see many developers really taking advantage of that technology in ways it could be used.

Stormwatch · Post by **Stormwatch** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:01 pm

Food for thought:

Take a good look at the "information" section in Shenmue Passport. How incredibly detailed those faces are! And the Dreamcast is actually rendering them in real time. But why, then, isn't the rest of the game that detailed? Because all of the system's power is being used to draw a single character and a rather simple background.

So, when you see the tech demos, consider this. The system can draw those awesome images - probably because all of its power is being used exclusively to draw what you see.

That is also why I think most racing games nowadays look good by cheating - I mean, there's just a few cars in the race, that leaves a lot of processing power to make each one of them smooth and glossy. Well, fuck that. I want Daytona's 40 cars!

MovingTarget · Post by **MovingTarget** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:03 pm

I think you meant, most developers will be happy enough with very realistic physics and graphics but will forget about the word 'fun'?