Xbox 2 == Gc2

[___]

Why does photorealism have to be the benchmark for a system's capabilities?

[Andy_Tanner]

not just photorealism. the game must perform physically correctly aswell i.e. the console would have to be able to render a real life scene and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. after that there is nowhere left to go.

[kensei]

Why does photorealism have to be the benchmark for a system's capabilities?

OFMG! U like Teh GAY K3dd1e CEL-DA!!!!!!

[Jammy]

but would queezing another 10% out of PS2 or XBox really make that much of a difference? every platform has it's limits. advances in hardware make it easier for developers to achieve these results more quickly. a single format if it ever happens is still way off, until we reach a point where games are physically and photo real, and today's or tomorrow's hardware just isn't there yet.

It's a very lazy (and probably less expensive) way of doing stuff though. Generally they aren't utilising even 60% of the capability of machines before leaping to the next gen, both on console and PC. I'm pretty sure that there is a lot of flabby coding going on in PC circles just because there's a new hardware standard every 6 months.

Look at the way they suddenly tapped the PSX to produce Gran Turismo, which I think was the first piece of software produced with the optimiser. The SNES and N64 also got pushed pretty hard near the end, after everyone thought they'd topped out.

[___]

not just photorealism. the game must perform physically correctly aswell i.e. the console would have to be able to render a real life scene and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. after that there is nowhere left to go.

Once again, why does "realism" have to be the focus?

OFMG! U like Teh GAY K3dd1e CEL-DA!!!!!!

What can I say, I appear to be a gayer

[Andy_Tanner]

let the hardware do the work i say, let the developers concentrate on making games. why should they have to slave away for ages wasting valuable man hours for such small returns ?

[Andy_Tanner]

Once again, why does "realism" have to be the focus?

Whan can I say, I appear to be a gayer

you're missing the point entirely. think of a film director. he/she might decide to make a computer animated movie, they might decide to go for hand-drawn animation or maybe live action. the point is that they choose. game developers cannot choose. they have to play to the hardware's strengths and weaknesses. they do not truly have a blank canvas to work with.

whether the game ends up looking photo real or not isn't the point. the point is that it can. the console can achieve anything visually all of which acts physically correctly too. at this point there will be no need to develop hardare any further and we may be able to establish a single format. until then the hardware race will progress whether we like it or not.

[kensei]

let the hardware do the work i say, let the developers concentrate on making games. why should they have to slave away for ages wasting valuable man hours for such small returns ?

Separation of the technology from the game design is perfectly possible, if desired.

An ad addedum to all that would be "let the consumer pay".

Is ANYONE listening to what I said about hardware gens and diminishing returns? Anyone?

[JPickford (retired mod)]

but would queezing another 10% out of PS2 or XBox really make that much of a difference? every platform has it's limits. advances in hardware make it easier for developers to achieve these results more quickly. a

Well it's not about squeezing 10% extra performance (although the unrealisized potential is a LOT more than 10%) it's about using the hardware more creatively. Something we just don't get to do as a new generation comes along too quickly. I've given an example of this already.

single format if it ever happens is still way off, until we reach a point where games are physically and photo real, and today's or tomorrow's hardware just isn't there yet.

No no no. The hardware needs to be able to create images which MOST PEOPLE CONSIDER to be photo real. Not geeks, normal people - which includes the people who put NFS & Fifa in the charts; and your mum. We are VERY close to that.

As to realistic physics, well the hardware is capable of that right now. A generation or two and there will be ample CPU power for CONVINCING physics.

Genuinely, 100% real physics will never happen in games, it's simply not desirable or practical. For the same reason that genuine real physics and science are not generally present in movies; it's about entertainment.

CPU power has not been a limiting factor in games for a long time. Graphics and development time have been holding us back; we've had plenty of CPU power for a looong time. PC's in particular have tons of processing power (separate from graphics stuff) and yet it's barely utilised.

I believe that one of the NEXT gen consoles will form the basis for a standard. It won't BE the standard, but the beginnings of one.

The thing several people are failing to grasp here is that we are talkng about CONVINCING graphics and physics; not 100% perfectly real-world accurate. That isn't necessary. If 90% of the audience are convinced then we are 'good enough'. There are several games out there that look photo real to most people now. (Football games, and F1 games fool a lot of people walking into the room). Multiply the polycount by 10-100 and we will be there.

[Andy_Tanner]

we'll have to leave it at that because i can't add anything to further my argument other than that i don't believe next gen hardware will be as powerful as you claim. until i see the forementioned LOTR game i remain unconvinced.

[mattkhan]

we'll have to leave it at that because i can't add anything to further my argument other than that i don't believe next gen hardware will be as powerful as you claim. until i see the forementioned LOTR game i remain unconvinced.

you'll have to leave it at that because you're blatantly ignoring or not accepting the point being made repeatedly and forcefully by the JPickford side of the argument, that makes this something less than a discussion

there's nothing inherently wrong with wanting a 100% accurate representation of the real world, I just don't think 99% gives a toss about that though - they are called video games for a reason. All graphical representations are about approximations of something, they just don't need to be 100% realistic - besides your eyes & brain don't need things to be 100% realistic, if you encounter things you don't understand or that don't make sense in the current context then your brain is liable to make it up anyway!

[Andy_Tanner]

you'll have to leave it at that because you're blatantly ignoring or not accepting the point being made repeatedly and forcefully by the JPickford side of the argument, that makes this something less than a discussion

i'm not ignoring him i do however remain unconvinced by his argument that hardware will be sufficiently powerful enough to halt any further advances in hardware. i could carry on but i'd end up repeating myself.

there's nothing inherently wrong with wanting a 100% accurate representation of the real world, I just don't think 99% gives a toss about that though - they are called video games for a reason. All graphical representations are about approximations of something, they just don't need to be 100% realistic - besides your eyes & brain don't need things to be 100% realistic, if you encounter things you don't understand or that don't make sense in the current context then your brain is liable to make it up anyway!

and Return of The King (the movie) doesn't need to look like it does but it does nonetheless.

[JPickford (retired mod)]

i do however remain unconvinced by his argument that hardware will be sufficiently powerful enough to halt any further advances in hardware.

Good because that's not what I'm saying.

[Andy_Tanner]

so we establish a new videogame 'standard' - a single format, and you seriously expect that standard to remain for, what 10 -15 years ? won't happen because 5 years after the standard is put in place a new manufacturer will come along with hardware x times as powerful and capable of much, much more both visually and in other terms.

[JPickford (retired mod)]

so we establish a new videogame 'standard' - a single format, and you seriously expect that standard to remain for, what 1- -15 years ? won't happen because 5 years after the standard is put in place a new manufacturer will come along with hardware x times as powerful and capable of much, much more both visually and in other terms.

My whole point is that the 5-year-later tech won't look any different to most people, once we reach a certain level. And we are close to that.

If the tech is 'good enough' improvements aren't striking enough to make the upgrade worthwhile. Hence my comparisons with CD, TV etc.

Anyway, I won't repeat myself any more. It's a shame the thread has focused on this aspect. A potential link-up between MS & Nintendo was the more important point.

[Luke]

5 years after the standard is put in place a new manufacturer will come along with hardware x times as powerful and capable of much, much more both visually and in other terms.

And it will sell to hardcore gamers, spoilt rich kids, technophiles and very few other people.

It'll be more expensive.

It'll have much fewer games.

The games will be more expensive.

It will have no affect on the Standardised Console's market.

[Andy_Tanner]

Anyway, I won't repeat myself any more. It's a shame the thread has focused on this aspect. A potential link-up between MS & Nintendo was the more important point.

well yeah that's what i said before but was accused of ignoring you which i wasn't, just different pov's that's all.

[Andy_Tanner]

And it will sell to hardcore gamers, spoilt rich kids, technophiles and very few other people.

It'll be more expensive.

It'll have much fewer games.

The games will be more expensive.

It will have no affect on the Standardised Console's market.

so why is PS2 the biggest selling console? what can it do that PSone can't, apart from play DVD's?

[dam_aks]

And it will sell to hardcore gamers, spoilt rich kids, technophiles and very few other people.

It'll be more expensive.

It'll have much fewer games.

The games will be more expensive.

It will have no affect on the Standardised Console's market.

so why is PS2 the biggest selling console? what can it do that PSone can't, apart from play DVD's?

The PSone was never at a point at which things would never drastically improve. The next generation is.

[Luke]

so why is PS2 the biggest selling console? what can it do that PSone can't, apart from play DVD's?

Umm, that question just so misses the point that I can't even understand why you're asking it.

It's also impossible to answer (in the context of this debate) due to it's complete irrelevance.

If you can explain the relevance of your question to this debate I'd be happy to answer it.

[ChrisN]

The problem with having a single, fixed format for any length of time is (for me) it'd get to the point where there are so many available games you'd not know what the hell to buy. Imagine this scenario:

"As the market becomes saturated with thousands of bog standard titles written by companies seeing a vast market you get less innovation, and more 'band wagon' games. More and more games you buy are tired and boring, and slowly you go off the machine because its harder and harder to find great titles. There are still a small minority who follow the gaming press who buy the good games, but your average punter gets more and more annoyed."

By having a 5 year cycle you can keep the band-wagon publishers out of the running for a while. Only a few (relatively speaking) companies bother to put the money into making games, which limits the number of titles available, and consequently forces these companies to strive to make the best games they can because they don't have the luxury of knowing theres a userbase of 50 million consoles and they're bound to sell a bunch just by having a fancy box. This is what happened with the PSX. Toward the end there were a few companies making killer games because they'd been using the hardware for years, but the number of really crap games released went up practically exponentially with the lifetime of the console. The same is true of the PC. There are companies producing fantastic games, but there are far, far more producing unplayable, clone-of-last-years-hit pap. And what are the fantastic games companies using to innovate? The latest and greatest features of DirectX, not innovative game design ideas.

[Andy_Tanner]

The PSone was never at a point at which things would never drastically improve. The next generation is.

why do you think this, i agree that one day it will happen but not next gen nor the one after that. think of what's possible now then think of the stuff going on in LOTR or Attack of The Clones. do you really think we'll make that jump in quality next gen cos i don't?

[Luke]

(in reply to Onion)

I think the 5 year cycle discourages innovation.

Developers just update all their franchises for the new generation; there's no time to innovate and come up with something new.

Also, the film industry is huge, the music industry, there a huge number of books released each year - yet people still manage to find the good ones amongst all the crap, and people who're less fussy just enjoy the crap that's easy to access.

[dam_aks]

The PSone was never at a point at which things would never drastically improve. The next generation is.

why do you think this, i agree that one day it will happen but not next gen nor the one after that. think of what's possible now then think of the stuff going on in LOTR or Attack of The Clones. do you really think we'll make that jump in quality next gen cos i don't?

There is little difference. Compare a PSone game to movies released at that time.

Its all closing up. The difference is diminishing.

[Andy_Tanner]

Umm, that question just so misses the point that I can't even understand why you're asking it.

It's also impossible to answer (in the context of this debate) due to it's complete irrelevance.

If you can explain the relevance of your question to this debate I'd be happy to answer it.

the point is that PS2 was well marketed. it's launch games were not that great nor different to PSone titles.

market dominance will determine a videogame standard and i can see Microsoft and Sony battling it out for some time to come.

back to the original debate; MS would love to work with Nintendo, but only when they own them

[ChrisN]

Also, the film industry is huge, the music industry, there a huge number of books released each year - yet people still manage to find the good ones amongst all the crap, and people who're less fussy just enjoy the crap that's easy to access.

When you're buying a £5 cinema ticket, or a £10 CD its easy enough to put up with it just being 'ok', but when you're buying a £30 game?

And I'd actually argue that the film industry in particular have realised that people don't want to go and see rubbish, but they're tackling it in an interesting way. Rather than stopping making rubbish films, they've started this 'cinema club' idea of paying a set amount a month for unlimited access to films. The effect this is having is not to discourage crap films, quite the opposite. They're slowly heading toward knowing that whatever shite they churn out they'll still get their bums-on-seats money. They'll still make a few big movies to draw the occasional cinema goers, but the subscribers will end up funding The Fast and the Furious 3.

[Luke]

the point is that PS2 was well marketed. it's launch games were not that great nor different to PSone titles.

But it was the natural succesor of the PS1. It wasn't competing against it.

A new iteration of the Standard would take over from the standard (especially if it offered backwards compatibility). It would be very difficult for someone else to take over from the standard - especially as the standard would have developers on it's side, cost benefits and a huge back catalogue.

[Luke]

When you're buying a £5 cinema ticket, or a £10 CD its easy enough to put up with it just being 'ok', but when you're buying a £30 game?

Well, I also believe that game prices would be driven down by a standard, especially as developers would spend more time on the machine and so would become quiker at developing for it, and because they wouldn't have to spend time porting it to 2 other machines.

And I'd actually argue that the film industry in particular have realised that people don't want to go and see rubbish

Hmm, Box Office charts would generally make me disagree with the "people don't want to go and see rubbish" comment.

[Andy_Tanner]

There is little difference. Compare a PSone game to movies released at that time.

Its all closing up. The difference is diminishing.

PS2 games don't look that much different to PSone titles yet the suff going on in RoTK is waaaay beyond this or, imo, the nest generation of consoles.

[Andy_Tanner]

But it was the natural succesor of the PS1. It wasn't competing against it.

A new iteration of the Standard would take over from the standard (especially if it offered backwards compatibility). It would be very difficult for someone else to take over from the standard - especially as the standard would have developers on it's side, cost benefits and a huge back catalogue.

precisely. Sony want Playstation to become the standard, PS2 strenghtend the brand and fought off rivals. but Microsoft want Xbox to be the standard too. therein lies the problem.