Xbox 2 == Gc2

[Sprite Machine]

Let's take Sprite's ideas and apply it to something else: bump-mapping. Bump Mapping is cheating! You should use the extra polys and lighting calculations to do it properly! Of course, in the end it will look identical, but you ahve the satisfaction of knowing that it's all being done properly.

It'd look identical until you wanted to do more with it, then you'd need to have it properly modelled. Work-arounds are great, if you can fool the audience, then fine. My point (that you missed) was that if you want to DO more with it, the same work-around techniques simply won't work anymore.

..a machine that produces the EXACT same game, with the difference that it can zoom into the skin of orcs where the previous gen couldn't. To all intents and purposes, and to 99% of the population, there is no discernable differnce.

Not the same, no. Use the technology to make it more immersive. Do new things with it. Could you zoom in before it was all 'high-detail' and stuff? No? Well, now you can - Ta-da!!

Hell, if its the 'exact same game', then lets do it all in 2D still. The core gameplay is no different! It'd be spectacularly missing the whole point though.

That dinosaur thingie on the PS1... Dino Crisis 1 and 2 did better than that, and they were in game with me shooting them. Pah!

No way did they look better than that!

[Andy_Tanner]

i understand what Sprite's saying. a LOTR RTS game (for example). battle of Minas Tirith and you're in control of 100,000 orks. you can pan,zoom, rotate etc and it all looks *exactly* like the film. now that's good enough to me.

[Sprite Machine]

Also;

Nothing will ever be photorealistic, mainly due to our crap TV systems,

Eh?

If I watch something on telly, it looks real (assuming it's not a cartoon or something). When I put a game on, it doesn't.

Yet.

[The Liberal Elite]

Nothing will ever be photorealistic, mainly due to our crap TV systems, but also everything is digital in a gaming world, such as pysics, in the real world its analogue.

bibble bobble bibble

ACtually, you're right, i was watching the Eastenders yesterday on my TV and everyone looked celshaded!

[squirtle]

That dinosaur thingie on the PS1... Dino Crisis 1 and 2 did better than that, and they were in game with me shooting them. Pah!

No way did they look better than that!

Did to me. Looked better in fact, especially in Dino Crisis 2.

[Csikszentmihalyi]

Regarding Pickfords "idea" about reaching a plateau of "good enoughnes": Take a look at some of the current AV standards, like PAL, NTSC and CD audio.

They were all introduced decades ago, yet they have had upgrades to them in the meantime, while still remaining forward and backwards compatible (like colour, better picture tubes, better DACs, improved recording techniques etc.). Why shouldn’t something similar be possible with consoles? After all, it is done today on PC games.

It would get even easier when procedural techniques get standard, in all aspects of development. Then it would just be a matter of letting the routines run more cycles on faster machines, thus generating more detail, not only graphically, but also AI and physics detail.

[Csikszentmihalyi]

I reckon Nintendo and MS will release different looking machines that are compatible with the same software (& GC1\GBA games).

Your forgetting two things:

1. microsoft are control freaks

2. So is Nintendo (albeit in a more sympathetic way).

Another thing, the GPUs is designed by completely separate teams within ATI. One of them has parts of the old REAL3D team in it (SEGA Model 2 and 3 arcade boards and various flightsimulators) the other has former ArtX and SGI employees.

Both seemingly very competent teams that could very well end up with very different products.

[JPickford (retired mod)]

Your forgetting two things:

1. microsoft are control freaks

2. So is Nintendo (albeit in a more sympathetic way).

Another thing, the GPUs is designed by completely separate teams within ATI. One of them has parts of the old REAL3D team in it (SEGA Model 2 and 3 arcade boards and various flightsimulators) the other has former ArtX and SGI employees.

Both seemingly very competent teams that could very well end up with very different products.

I'm not forgetting any of that. I'm suggesting these things can be overcome as there are bigger advantages to cooperation.

Why do you put idea in quotes? Are you trying to be offensive in some way?

[Csikszentmihalyi]

Why do you put idea in quotes?  Are you trying to be offensive in some way?

Not at all. It’s just that it's hardly a new idea. It just the first time it has appeared on this board.

I guess I could have wrote "thoughts about" instead of "idea"

By the way, are you the John Pickford that made that made PLOK on the SNES?

If you are, I just want to say that I really like that game! (although the first levels are a bit boring).

[mattkhan]

Another thing, the GPUs is designed by completely separate teams within ATI. One of them has parts of the old REAL3D team in it (SEGA Model 2 and 3 arcade boards and various flightsimulators) the other has former ArtX and SGI employees.

Both seemingly very competent teams that could very well end up with very different products.

I don't think that is the case with respect to the latest GPUs ATI are producing, the current GC chip is an ArtX design and the R3x0 is heavily influenced by ex-ArtX people - I've not heard any mention of the other team you mention with respect to what ATI are producing (PC or console).

SCEE has recently finished a 2 year study that used the Performance Analyzer to review how much of the potential of the PS2 each title was using.

You can see the results at the following site:

http://www.technology.scee.net/sceesite/fi...arHaveWeGot.pdf

interesting PDF but there isn't enough data here to know whether or not moving to a new generation costs time or not. The law of diminishing returns will kick in from here - after 2yrs the PS2 is 50% utilised, after another 2 yrs then perhaps you get to 75% utilisation (figure made up, you get the point), another 2yrs and you're at 85% utilisation etc. It is more important to determine how those gains compare to those obtained by moving to a new design & architecture, the 2yrs spent getting the max out of the PS2 may well be completely trumped by the added power of the PS3. 100% utilisation of any given architecture would obviously be nice to have and it's blatantly obvious that if you put more time into a given architecture then you should get better results out of it. Blatantly obvious but also patently irrelevent, it is more important for any company to maximise what they get out given what they put in - if a new architecture arrives that allows you to get more out then why wouldn't you move to it?

[squirtle]

According to that, the best games on the PS2 are only shifting around 7.5million polys per second. Doesn't mean shit I guess but I always chuckle when I remember the 66million polys flouted at launch. Ho-hum.

[Chorlton]

I haven't read all this thread, so this may have already been said.

Whilst I like the idea of a single format, and am not arguing that it wouldn't happen, I think it is wrong to use television as an example of how a single format would last longer.

The reason (I believe) that television has lasted as long as it has is not because nothing better has come along, I think it has been through a combination of 2 things.

1) The Hardware (TV) does not limit advances made in its software(film). Take a look at Star Wars and then Return of the King, and tell me there have not been huge advances in the last 20 years. This obviously different from the current design of consoles where the power of the Software is dictated by the Hardware.

2) Its misleading to suggest that there have been no changes to television. We now have Colour, Remote Control, Scart Sockets, AV , Video Recorders, DVD, Satellite & Digital. All of these could be considered upgrades or add-ons to the original idea. If I tried to play my XBOX on my old portable I had as a kid, I would need to go out and buy additional hardware, as their was no scart socket, and I would be playing in black& white, and wouldn't have a PAL 60 mode.

Until Microsoft & Nintendo come up with a console that allows you to play software, but doesn't dictate the quality of the software (set-top Box?) I don't see a standard happening anytime soon.

[djezz]

2) Its misleading to suggest that there have been no changes to television. We now have Colour, Remote Control, Scart Sockets, AV , Video Recorders, DVD, Satellite & Digital. All of these could be considered upgrades or add-ons to the original idea. If I tried to play my XBOX on my old portable I had as a kid, I would need to go out and buy additional hardware, as their was no scart socket, and I would be playing in black& white, and wouldn't have a PAL 60 mode.

Is there not an RFcable for the Xbox?, you can get them for the cube and PS2.

Tv has got legacy support covered as far as i know.

[kensei]

It'd look identical until you wanted to do more with it, then you'd need to have it properly modelled. Work-arounds are great, if you can fool the audience, then fine. My point (that you missed) was that if you want to DO more with it, the same work-around techniques simply won't work anymore.

Or you might be able to find a better workaround, because now you have time for R&D.......

Not the same, no. Use the technology to make it more immersive. Do new things with it. Could you zoom in before it was all 'high-detail' and stuff? No? Well, now you can - Ta-da!!

Hell, if its the 'exact same game', then lets do it all in 2D still. The core gameplay is no different! It'd be spectacularly missing the whole point though.

The point is that within 2-3 generations the power probably won't be needed and diminishing returns kick in. So you end up with the same game but with slightly higher amounts of detail. This is everyone elses point which you have missed. The extra power is unneeded or cannot be harnessed because humans have a lower limit than machines. You are arguing for increases in power for arguments sake.

So now you can zoom in a further 5x. Great. That must be worth the fortune the new machine and software will cost.

Even if the PS2 was being utilized 100%, this does not mean that no improvements can be made. There might be more to be done algorithmically, using 100% of the power more efficently. But you'd need time, and R&D.

[Andy_Tanner]

The point is that within 2-3 generations the power probably won't be needed and diminishing returns kick in. So you end up with the same game but with slightly higher amounts of detail. This is everyone elses point which you have missed. The extra power is unneeded or cannot be harnessed because humans have a lower limit than machines. You are arguing for increases in power for arguments sake.

So now you can zoom in a further 5x. Great. That must be worth the fortune the new machine and software will cost.

are you saying in 2 - 3 generations time we'll have photoreal games which behave accurately physically to, capable of producing whatever we think up? i don't think so.

besides why struggle with dated hardware when newer hardware allows you to do what you were trying to so in the first place ?

[Chorlton]

2) Its misleading to suggest that there have been no changes to television. We now have Colour, Remote Control, Scart Sockets, AV , Video Recorders, DVD, Satellite & Digital. All of these could be considered upgrades or add-ons to the original idea. If I tried to play my XBOX on my old portable I had as a kid, I would need to go out and buy additional hardware, as their was no scart socket, and I would be playing in black& white, and wouldn't have a PAL 60 mode.

Is there not an RFcable for the Xbox?, you can get them for the cube and PS2.

Tv has got legacy support covered as far as i know.

I don't think it comes in the box though ( additional hardware was probably exaggerating, sorry) so you would have to buy it.

I was just trying to show that whilst, like the PC, the basic architecture of a TV is the same, it has constantly evolved over the years, into a much more powerful beast.

[Sprite Machine]

So you end up with the same game but with slightly higher amounts of detail. This is everyone elses point which you have missed.

Again, why would it be the same?

There will always be limitations on what you can do. Fact.

New hardware reduces these limitations, and always will. This will always be the case.

I'm not denying that efficient programming cannot help either, just that there are always limitations.

There will never be a time when you can do 'anything' with a game engine - ever. I'm not concerned with if it's 'anything relevant' however. That's up to the game designers. I'm merely pointing out the facts.

[Fondue]

besides why struggle with dated hardware when newer hardware allows you to do what you were trying to so in the first place ?

Because of the massive installed userbase?

To try and pay off some of your current R&D costs?

It's cheaper to use the 'old' console dev kit rather than buy an (overpriced) one for the new console.?

[kensei]

The point is that within 2-3 generations the power probably won't be needed and diminishing returns kick in. So you end up with the same game but with slightly higher amounts of detail. This is everyone elses point which you have missed. The extra power is unneeded or cannot be harnessed because humans have a lower limit than machines. You are arguing for increases in power for arguments sake.

So now you can zoom in a further 5x. Great. That must be worth the fortune the new machine and software will cost.

are you saying in 2 - 3 generations time we'll have photoreal games which behave accurately physically to, capable of producing whatever we think up? i don't think so.

besides why struggle with dated hardware when newer hardware allows you to do what you were trying to so in the first place ?

What I'm saying is that we'll be close enough.

It's the difference between Toy Story and Finding Nemo. To the average dude on the street, it is not going to be a big enough jump to justify spending more money. Diminishing returns kick in. Why then upgrade, save for the sake of it. To say you can now push x more polygons, or have x more objects on the screen?

[Sprite Machine]

It's the difference between Toy Story and Finding Nemo.

So quite a bit then?

[Jonathan_Kerr]

What if TV stops being the standard to play games on. If we're talking 2 or 3 generations ahead - whats to stop games being played with the cliched 'headset' or some sort of projection device (flat or 3d)?

[Sprite Machine]

Holodecks!

[Cyhwuhx]

.::: May I drop in?

- How do you think games will evolve going forward?

Iwatani (Namco) : I don't believe hardware specs need to improve anymore. We have the equipment to paint colorfully on a white canvas. We would like to go in the direction of creating something for the user's imagination to expand.

Miyamoto (Nintendo) : Yes. High spec hardware is good to have, of course, but if the game creators can relax and create, I don't see the necessity to concentrate on selling high specs. There will always be a computer in between the player and monitor. Programmers ask me "What is going to happen to my job in the future?", and I've answered that there would always be a job if you can program. For the past 25 years I've managed to not be a liar (laughter).

Source GameScience

It felt fitting for this thread.

[Harlen Quinn]

What if the game hardware was identical apart from the way in which the respective machines read the discs?

Theoretically the game code would work on both machines but game production would require licensing by both hardware manufacturers, attractive to them cos they could still levy their own per unit software charges. Ok, exclusivity deals may still exist this way but reprogramming for the other platform would be negligible, nil?, when the time limit expires.

[Andy_Tanner]

What I'm saying is that we'll be close enough.

It's the difference between Toy Story and Finding Nemo. To the average dude on the street, it is not going to be a big enough jump to justify spending more money. Diminishing returns kick in. Why then upgrade, save for the sake of it. To say you can now push x more polygons, or have x more objects on the screen?

R&D in software and hardware are not mutually exclusive though, you cannot truly progress in one without the other. they form a symbiotic circle.

take a moment to look around you. can you imagine that scene rendered in a game in realtime where everything in it behaves correctly physically? in other words an exact digital replica. only once we can do that have we arrived at a true blank canvas in gaming and it certainly won't be in 2 - 3 generations time. it won't even be close.

[kensei]

So quite a bit then?

If you are a geek. If you are a dude on the street, they are both CG animated movies and they both look pretty nice. Why would anyone want to pay for slightluy better. It's as simply as this anyway: if people don't see the difference they aren't buying anything new, and the answer is made up for us.

In 2-3 gens we might not be at pure photo realism and physics but

i) we'll be close enough for 99% of the population

ii) The impotant point you all need to get in your head is that an additional generation is not going to be quatum leap that we are used to, because of diminishing returns. It might take 3 gens, or 5 gens to be at that stage, so in the emantime it makes a lot of sense to have a standard.

R&D in software is perfectly capable of continuing without additional hardware. New hardware might open more avenues with new architecture, but it is not going to harm current research in any way shape or form. FFS the basis of computer science was done without any computers.

[JPickford (retired mod)]

R&D in software and hardware are not mutually exclusive though, you cannot truly progress in one without the other. they form a symbiotic circle.

Rubbish. There's an infinite amount of R&D possible with a fixed hardware base.

[Andy_Tanner]

like the PC?

[JPickford (retired mod)]

like the PC?

No.

A fixed hardware base is far better for software innovation. Currently a new machine comes along before developers have really mastered the last.

[Andy_Tanner]

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.