Uh oh.
why so few graphically outstanding games on 360?
- Thread starter Shadow of the BEAST
- Start date
Uh oh.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
this thread is only about comparing games on the same platform.
Infernal Monkey
Member
Monumental
Banned
It's like I said before, much of it has to do with art style of the game.
Look at all thegames you listed...Riddick, Chaos Theory, Doom 3, God of War 2, Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, God of War 3, GT5....what do they all have in common?
Now look at Microsoft's output...Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, Fable, Banjo, Viva Pinata, Perfect Dark, Kameo, Crackdown...
Quite literally, the games Microsoft commissioned from it's first party devs and 3rd party partners have more stylized aesthetics.
The other reason is that pretty much eery single Microsoft studio has released games in a timely manner, and supported the system since launch.
How long did Killzone 2, God of War 3, and GT5 take to come on to the PS3? Sony has had a BIG issue with managing its studios and to get timely releases. Sony launched a year later with games that weren't as impressive as Gears 1 and every multiplatform game performed worse on the system, not to mentioned the embarassment from all the previous boasting over tech specs. They literally poured millions of dollars to save face with the whole Killzone CGI debacle and got hundreds of people over half a decade with an insane budget to develop Killzone 2 (which got the ball rolling on Sony's tech side). Microsoft never felt that overwhelming pressure to prove their hardware. Their teams were consistently pushing out games that looked great and 3rd party devs were leading on the system with great results.
So yeah, now we've come to a point where people will always point to a handful of first party Sony games, and this is how we got here.
If you still don't get it why there are no specific standouts for the 360 from Microsoft while there are from Sony then here's the short version: stylized aesthetics, consistent multiplatform superiority, less pressure to prove hardware.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Then the explanation I offered (twice) is a plausible one.
here's the problem its basically comes down to how you make the distinction which console is more capable in visuals
when you compare apples to oranges, ps3 exclusives to 360 exclusives yes the ps3 has some visually impressive exclusives. (small bucket of stand out games)
but when you compare apples to apples, multiplatform games they come out time and time again better on 360. (large bucket of many many examples)
you can always make the justification depending on which side you stand on. honestly i'd peg both pretty evenly because of their architecture and their own set of limitations.
when you compare apples to oranges, ps3 exclusives to 360 exclusives yes the ps3 has some visually impressive exclusives. (small bucket of stand out games)
but when you compare apples to apples, multiplatform games they come out time and time again better on 360. (large bucket of many many examples)
you can always make the justification depending on which side you stand on. honestly i'd peg both pretty evenly because of their architecture and their own set of limitations.
Windom Earle
Member
Wut.
ZanzibarBreeze
Member
Halo: Reach and Gears of War 3 look pretty good.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
Funny how many of the games people mention are a few years old.
that is also an anomaly for the platform.
if you asked the same for any other system through history, the top tier games graphically would have been released in the last years or late in the generation.
360 really has a good base level but no real peaks.
that is also an anomaly for the platform.
if you asked the same for any other system through history, the top tier games graphically would have been released in the last years or late in the generation.
360 really has a good base level but no real peaks.
That's the sign of a good architecture.
phosphor112
Banned
Out of curiosity, how many games is Gears of War 3? Is it more than a few?
He's not denying they are great looking games but he said "why so few?" not "why aren't there any?"
this is to Monumental, when the PS3 launched it had many true 1080p games...from first and 3rd parties.
Madden on the PS3 had 3D grass and gang tackles animations....where as the Madden that released that same year for 360 didn't.
NBA 2k7 on the PS3 was legit 1080p compared to the 720p version of the 360.
as much as some like to bash Resistance, it had 40 players running with special effects everywhere.
and when it comes to exclusives that pushed the hardware even more...before "Killzone 2"..in the first year of the PS3's lifetime they were games like
and more....these games were pushing the system.
Madden on the PS3 had 3D grass and gang tackles animations....where as the Madden that released that same year for 360 didn't.
NBA 2k7 on the PS3 was legit 1080p compared to the 720p version of the 360.
as much as some like to bash Resistance, it had 40 players running with special effects everywhere.
and when it comes to exclusives that pushed the hardware even more...before "Killzone 2"..in the first year of the PS3's lifetime they were games like
and more....these games were pushing the system.
I personally think that's because Microsoft's first party strength has waned in recent years compared to Sony and Nintendo.
i wonder where is this gif from?
phosphor112
Banned
God no
LOL no
More has to do with art style
No objection
don't know.
No objection, though I think Forza is a lot more impressive. Much higher poly cars, higher frame rate..
Worst of the 3 versions.
I'm more impressed with PGR4 than GT5. PGR4 still blows me away. Gears 3 is easily up there with the best PS3 exclusives. Not really saying a whole lot though, both consoles are looking really aged right now.
Oh.. Forgot the RARE games.. Kameo may be one of the best looking launch games ever. Still looks better than games being released today
Oh.. Forgot the RARE games.. Kameo may be one of the best looking launch games ever. Still looks better than games being released today
chriskun
Member
i don't understand how Halo 3 blew you away, it was in my mind the most underwhelming of all hyped games on the 360, and not just graphics wise.
NemesisPrime
Banned
Keep on trolling OP...
OUTSTANDING!!!
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
we can definately say they have a different profile. i dont think ms firstparty really has graphics in its focus.
I was looking forward to alan wake to see if that would be the game. but no. And i was hoping for ryse, but then i heard they turned it in to a kinect game.
reading the tread i think these are the reasons why so few peaks.
1. ms first party is not graphics oriented
2. multiplatform development and middleware engine use
but this doesnt explain it fully, which ive given examples of.
what is ms policy on low level coding, like assembly and stuff like that?
manzo
Member
MS doesn't allow low-level, straight to metal coding. You have to go through their API's.
Seraphinianus
Banned
riddick on the 360 is much more next genny than riddick on xbox 1 OP i hoep that answers question thx plz subscribe to my poassts
gollumsluvslave
Member
Bugger all of the 'usual suspects', Geometry Wars Retro Evolved still to me is one of the most outstanding visual experiences, especially on longer (10million +) Pacifism runs.
Blew my mind, and still does.
Of course, maybe I just like bright lights and pretty colours!
Name me another console game with 4 player split screen local, 4 player co-op online, 4 player split screen online with separate profiles, theatre mode, forge (level creation) that looks as good as Halo 3 or Reach does or better. Also, can that game do the same things as Halo 3 with lighting and level sizes that Halo 3 does.
Please, because I'm dying to hear it.
Pretty sure I'll be waiting until next-gen starts at least.
Or until Halo 4 comes out.
I'd add LittleBigPlanet 1/2 to that list as well if only for its awesome per-object blur and lighting system. The Last of Us too... though we haven't seen much of it yet.
It seems as though developers came close to maxing out the 360 really early on, whereas on PS3 it took more time and resources, but first party studios where able to really push it. You can see that now with both first and third party games. For the first two or three years, third party games almost always had major problems on PS3. But now games tend to look pretty much identical most of the time, with some looking better on 360 and some better on PS3. Lead-platform makes a big difference as well. Criterion stated that it was much easier to develop for PS3 and then port to 360 to achieve an identical looking game. Now look at what happens when developers try to port their 360 games to PS3... You end up with Skyrim. It's a lot more even now for the most part though.
As for first party games, Sony's first party studios have been refining and sharing their tech with each other for years now, and as a result they've been able to dig more power out of the system. The Cell architecture is both the biggest strength and biggest weakness of the PS3. On one hand, first party developers have all but mastered programming for it, whereas on the other hand the obscure architecture makes it unpractical for third party studios to pursue the same level of fidelity as the first party guys, or even their own 360 version in many cases.
Halo Reach is one of my favorite games for multiplayer on consoles, but I gotta say... You crazy. The particle system is crazy good and the framerate is rock solid most of the time, but overall the dynamic lighting and geometry detail in Red Dead Redemption is a lot better. Yes, Halo can do split screen. But it makes a lot of compromises to do so.
Fess
Member
It lacks exclusives. That's why. It doesn't matter if the 360 almost always gets the best looking console version when most titles ends up on PC too, even if a game is super impressive you still compare it to the PC version, and you go back to the 360 version thinking "meh". You would think the same about the PS3 if Uncharted and Killzone was on PC too.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
wrong thread
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
interesting. Im no coder but this explains alot right?
previous generations coders and developers always used to boast about assembly usage and coding to the metal.
maybe this is on of the main reasons?
OP said there's no outstanding looking game. Gears 3 was brought up.
And he didn't say exclusive either, so Dead Space 2, Red Dead Redemption, etc can be added. Silly thread.
BeautifulMemory
Member
The game was obviously rushed, but I thought NG2 looked real good, even now
DefectiveReject
Banned
Shouldn't this thread have a [April Fool] at the beginning of the title??
Your complaint is that not enough games truly were huge leaps graphically over the others to be outstanding... maybe that's not a sleight against the 360 but to say that there was a certain bar of quality from 360's graphics, to not have something below par, instead of saying everything looks about the same as a bad thing.
CamHostage
Member
It is a weird conundrum. There are hundreds of bleeding-edge games that run better on Xbox 360, yet there's almost no game (especially ones compared to others in their class; the latest Forza looks great but GT5 is a constipator) that dedicately showcases the system.
Halo Reach has a lot to like if you're into pure technical design (Halo 4 is going to be very pretty according to the video, but it's not looking to be a technical blockbuster, more like it uses all the crowd-pleasing effects it can.) Kameo is an early one that at the very least will hold that place of "killer launch effort" bested in some areas but still adventurous beyond any successor. (I haven't played Banjo, but I see lots of love.) Fable doesn't seem to have as much to crow about as maybe it should, and Alan Wake isn't inconceivable. Crackdown and Too Human, obviously no. There was Kindgom Under Fire COD but that didn't get a lot of talk so I assume it wasn't Bluepoint at its best? Same with 99 Nights 2? Most everything else like Gears 3, Forza 4, PGR4, Halo Reach, people have mentioned...
I don't think they need it, but it'd sure be nice to see Xbox have at least one more "Only on Xbox" jawdropper. If anything else, this thread makes me want more Rare.
Halo Reach has a lot to like if you're into pure technical design (Halo 4 is going to be very pretty according to the video, but it's not looking to be a technical blockbuster, more like it uses all the crowd-pleasing effects it can.) Kameo is an early one that at the very least will hold that place of "killer launch effort" bested in some areas but still adventurous beyond any successor. (I haven't played Banjo, but I see lots of love.) Fable doesn't seem to have as much to crow about as maybe it should, and Alan Wake isn't inconceivable. Crackdown and Too Human, obviously no. There was Kindgom Under Fire COD but that didn't get a lot of talk so I assume it wasn't Bluepoint at its best? Same with 99 Nights 2? Most everything else like Gears 3, Forza 4, PGR4, Halo Reach, people have mentioned...
I don't think they need it, but it'd sure be nice to see Xbox have at least one more "Only on Xbox" jawdropper. If anything else, this thread makes me want more Rare.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
If there were tons of graphically "outstanding" games then wouldn't that just be considered the new graphical norm? Outstanding means a game has to stand out from its peers, as a rule.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
well put. It doesnt give answers but it definitely puts a finger on what im trying to say.
Monumental
Banned
At what point did I dispute that Sony wasn't pushing the PS3? If anything, my entire point has been that Sony has always felt the pressure and took it upon itself to push it. But let's not forget here, Microsoft and it's partners were also pushing the 360. Say what you want but Gears was the undisputed king. The stuff about Madden is a joke since the 360 version ran at 60 FPS while the PS3 version was only 30 FPS. And stuff like PGR4 and Bioshock was being done on the 360.
Sony really took the "lead" when Killzone 2 launched. Before that, every few months a different game was coming out and fighting over the crown on the PS3 and 360.
Make no mistake though, Sony has always put a lot of focus on the graphics side, I'm not taking that away from them. If anything, my points show the reasons why it's always been Sony putting more of a focus on visuals than Microsoft, and why the PS3 ended up with 4-5 clear standouts while Microsoft only has 1 or 2.
Fess
Member
When did you get the 360? And do you play on PC too?
I got the 360 on day one and don't play on PC and almost everything blew me away the first 1 or 2 years, and I didn't even have an HD TV at first.
Kameo, still blows me away in some scenes, I remember thinking that Lost Planet and Dead Rising were super impressive too with the awesome explosions and crazy amount of stuff on the screen, Capcom actually ruled next gen back then, and when Gears of War finally arrived it destroyed everything and the 360 was the King of graphics.
JordoftheDead
Member
Red Dead looks amazing, particularly given the scope of the game and the 360 version looks a quite a bit better than the other console version available.
Games like Bullet Storm, Halo Reach, Gears 1 & 2, Forza 4, as well as upcoming games like the Witcher 2 (admittedly based off pre-release footage) look amazing.
Games like Bullet Storm, Halo Reach, Gears 1 & 2, Forza 4, as well as upcoming games like the Witcher 2 (admittedly based off pre-release footage) look amazing.
TacticalFox88
Banned
No the fuck it doesn't. Let's not get carried away now.