why so few graphically outstanding games on 360?

Which is not correct.

Really isn't.
Click to expand...

I'm going off experience of the games i'Ve played on the platform - there's a load of good looking games, but i personally feel the PS3 has more of those "WOAH" moments. That's before we get to the PC which is a whole other beast.

I don't think it's particularly an issue - the machines benchmark for titles is high in terms of games looks. The machines strenght is it was the premium location for 3rd party best versions.

*shrug*
 
Cheesecakebobby said:
Don't forget how much of an investment in Kinect MS made in the last 2 years. That time and money could have spent on 1st and 2nd party non-Kinect exclusives which might have been up there with the Gears, Forzas and Banjos of this world, graphically at least. But I doubt they have any regrets, looking at sales figures for Kinect, Kinect + 360 bundles, and software such as Kinect Sports.
Click to expand...

how was Kinect Sports graphically? Never got a chance to spend time with it. Did it push the system, physics wise or anything?
 
Well every year the Xbox 360 has released a game which stands out compared to other games on the console. This does not mean that the game will hold the throne of the best looking game forever.
 
I feel relative to the psychological standard set by press bullshots, "in-engine trailers", and tech demos, it would be pretty hard for a current gen console game to really blow away a huge percentage of people, especially when they're looking back at games from a 2012 perspective.

I mean, let's take a quick hop over to Digital Foundry for some capture card shots of what the best looking games on the systems actually look like.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-gears-of-war-3
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-uncharted-3

Effects2.bmp.jpg


Effects4.bmp.jpg


DOTS_000.bmp.jpg


new_uc3_3d_2.bmp.jpg


I mean, they don't look terrible, but I don't think people are really going to fall out of their seats anymore over games at this level.

I think the best way to try and figure out what really counted as outstanding graphics on the platform would be to head over to the threads of the best looking games at the time they came out and just start counting the number of people who posted how impressed they were and try to make a general assessment of just how impressed they were by their comments. I think that's about the best portrait you could get while trying to avoid the factor of looking back with much higher standards.
 
I mean, they don't look terrible, but I don't think people are really going to fall out of their seats anymore over games at this level
Click to expand...


..... <transmits thread explosive thought telepathically>
 
This is interview with Corrine Yu, she mentions why 360 isn't really pushed to the limits. There was another programmer on B3D who said the same thing. He said that he was shocked at how many games, even in 2010, had GPU idle.

http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/tech...engine-architect-halo-team-microsoft-part-one

And its number of things...360 is very easy to develop for and hit your required goals so most of devs don't bother, plus, MS has very weak 1st party. Arguably best looking game on 360 is made on UE3. But there are Forza 4, RDR and ACR which are all very impressive IMO.
 
DarkChild said:
This is interview with Corrine Yu, she mentions why 360 isn't really pushed to the limits. There was another programmer on B3D who said the same thing. He said that he was shocked at how many games, even in 2010, had GPU idle.

http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/tech...engine-architect-halo-team-microsoft-part-one
Click to expand...

its been mentioned earlier in the thread that ms does not alow low level code or coding to the metal.

I think 360 would be able to do alot more if they changed this.
 
Shadow of the BEAST said:
its been mentioned earlier in the thread that ms does not alow low level code or coding to the metal.

I think 360 would be able to do alot more if they changed this.
Click to expand...

I remember reading that earlier in the thread, but was it discussed about why they don't allow it...or might not want to in the future?
 
Unregistered007 said:
seriously?

PHAIL! do you only have an xbox?
Click to expand...

VALKYRAY said:
Fail
One game does not defy the statement "360 has SO FEW graphically outstanding games"
Click to expand...

I applaud EvilLore's April Fool's filter that adds variations of "fail" to posts arguing about console graphics. Very subtle.

EDIT -

Also, I think it's a little rough saying that there aren't any graphically outstanding games on the system. Relative to PC (now, especially), perhaps not, but there have been a few stunners in their time. Project Gotham Racing 3 was a gorgeous launch title, and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter was pretty jaw-dropping when it first came out. These days those games are looking long in the tooth, but what isn't looking a little haggard on consoles these days? Even Uncharted 3 and Killzone have pretty ugly IQ problems.
 
hey_it's_that_dog said:
When you say "tremendous achievements" do you mean one console greatly surpassing everything on another console, or one game on a console surpassing everything else on that same console?

The ease of development wasn't really the point of my argument. The 360 is the lead platform for most games, right? So third party games look their best on 360. They aren't being held back by PS3 development. On the other hand, PS3 ports are not optimized for the PS3, so in a sense they are being held back by the 360. This results in PS3 exclusives often looking better than the best 360 exclusives, and also looking way better than most 3rd party games on the PS3. In other words, PS3 exclusives stand out. The 360 has a higher average graphical quality across all games, so the range from worst looking to best looking is reduced. Hence fewer standouts.
Click to expand...
Not really.
 
Shadow of the BEAST said:
its been mentioned earlier in the thread that ms does not alow low level code or coding to the metal.

I think 360 would be able to do alot more if they changed this.
Click to expand...
Thats not even a problem. MS just wanted games till 2009-2010. They didn't care about custom engines and tech. Problem is where PS3 developers put so much time and money into just say facial animations, MS 1st party(which are rare) or 3rd party just don't do it. Its not something thats impossible to do, its just that it takes time, talent and money. And while MS had money, and talent was pretty good, there wasn't time.

Look at KZ2 for example. You have team working on game for 4 years just to match CGi trailer. No need for vast experience like GTA or Skyrim, just put out game that looks amazing. There wasn't any similar examples on 360 side...

And to end this, I think this year is going to be very good in terms of pushing both consoles. Even more so from 3rd party.
 
It's because of 360's strict DirectX API's. Xbox Durango or whatever is gonna be backwards compatible, PS4 otoh is a big question mark.
 
This thread is giving me nostalgia. I'm lovin' it!
 
Shion said:
First of all, this thread needs more Crysis 2, the game just looks amazing.
Click to expand...

I still haven't played Crysis on 360 but Crysis 2 should stay away from this thread due to it's horrendous frame-rate...It's a beautiful looking game but it runs like crap in almost every enemy encounter of the first half of the game.

Now about all these people saying that Gears 3 can't compete with the best looking games this gen they either haven't played the game at all and only saw screens & videos on youtube at 480p or they are just trolling - game looks absolutely amazing & runs great on top of that.

Besides Alan Wake: American Nightmare which looks amazing I think that almost every awesome looking game on the system is already being mentioned.
 
Feindflug said:
I still haven't played Crysis on 360 but Crysis 2 should stay away from this thread due to it's horrendous frame-rate...It's a beautiful looking game but it runs like crap in almost every enemy encounter of the first half of the game.

Now about all these people saying that Gears 3 can't compete with the best looking games this gen they either haven't played the game at all and only saw screens & videos on youtube at 480p or they are just trolling - game looks absolutely amazing & runs great on top of that.

Besides Alan Wake: American Nightmare which looks amazing I think that almost every awesome looking game on the system is already being mentioned.
Click to expand...
Interestingly for Crysis 2, Cryteks lead engineer said CPU was the problem of slowdowns in 360 case, not GPU. He actually said they can get more out of GPU...
 
I think it's because most of the best looking PS3 games are by Sony's first person development studios who share a lot of technology. Also, games like KZ2 have had enormous budgets and development cycles. MS has presumably felt that none of these things are really worth it when they know that all they have to do is make a 'good enough' looking game and it'll still sell (or not).
 
Feindflug said:
I still haven't played Crysis on 360 but Crysis 2 should stay away from this thread due to it's horrendous frame-rate...It's a beautiful looking game but it runs like crap in almost every enemy encounter of the first half of the game.

Now about all these people saying that Gears 3 can't compete with the best looking games this gen they either haven't played the game at all and only saw screens & videos on youtube at 480p or they are just trolling - game looks absolutely amazing & runs great on top of that.

Besides Alan Wake: American Nightmare which looks amazing I think that almost every awesome looking game on the system is already being mentioned.
Click to expand...

Crysis is a work of witchcraft i'm still baffled how Crytek did it. I'll agree with Gears 3 the game looks absolutely amazing playing through it.
 
It's not like MS exclusives are technical slouches. Halo 3/Reach are impressive but people might disagree with the decision to sacrifice resolution for what else they do. And Forza might not be as flashy as other racing games but it has a far greater commitment to 60fps than most others.
 
DarkChild said:
This is interview with Corrine Yu, she mentions why 360 isn't really pushed to the limits. There was another programmer on B3D who said the same thing. He said that he was shocked at how many games, even in 2010, had GPU idle.

http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/tech...engine-architect-halo-team-microsoft-part-one

And its number of things...360 is very easy to develop for and hit your required goals so most of devs don't bother, plus, MS has very weak 1st party. Arguably best looking game on 360 is made on UE3. But there are Forza 4, RDR and ACR which are all very impressive IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm not gonna watch a 35mins video again but from what I remember Corrine talked about the CPU being idle in most games and not GPU, correct me if I'm wrong.

Shadow of the BEAST said:
its been mentioned earlier in the thread that ms does not alow low level code or coding to the metal.

I think 360 would be able to do alot more if they changed this.
Click to expand...

MS doesn't allow code to the metal but that didn't stop Dice for example to exploit the Xenon to match parity on BF3 which was using extensively the SPU's...that may be the first time that I've read that a dev bothered with using the CPU that much for graphics and that's kinda part of the problem that Corrine talked about in the above video.
 
Games that probably count as graphically outstanding to me.

Gears of Wars 3
Rayman Origins
Red Dead Redemption
Crysis
Crysis 2
Witcher 2 on Xbox 360 when it comes out.
That Banjo nuts and bolts game from screens I have seen looks pretty good.

Also is Battlefield 3 one of the best graphically looking games on the 360 that is outstanding in comparison to most of them? I am sincerely asking I haven't really played the game in any platform but I have seen some screens, videos, probably of the PC version.
 
reach and gears 3 are right up there with anything on consoles. but i agree that microsoft doesn't prioritize dedicated development as much as i would like.
 
DarkChild said:
Look at KZ2 for example. You have team working on game for 4 years just to match CGi trailer. No need for vast experience like GTA or Skyrim, just put out game that looks amazing. There wasn't any similar examples on 360 side...
Click to expand...

Pretty much, it's a matter of different priorities. For example, take a look at the package that is Halo 3 or Halo Reach and everything that went into those games, both from the technical and content perspective. Visuals only matter to a certain point, if your game looks "good enough", most people won't be able to differentiate between it and more impressive titles, or they simply won't care. That's why you don't see Microsoft pushing for it all that much internally (Epic has an engine to sell so it's in their interest to make Gears as impressive as possible), whereas Sony had a more expensive machine (not anymore, obviously) whose main draw was that it was allegedly the most powerful on the market so they had to drive that point home. Whether it ever did much for them in the grand scheme of things is debatable.
 
godelsmetric said:
I think it's because most of the best looking PS3 games are by Sony's first person development studios who share a lot of technology. Also, games like KZ2 have had enormous budgets and development cycles. MS has presumably felt that none of these things are really worth it when they know that all they have to do is make a 'good enough' looking game and it'll still sell (or not).
Click to expand...

I was just going to reply to you before your edit, but now I actually agree with you (when you added the last part). Still, seeing as how many resources MS has, it would be nice if they used some of it to make something mindblowing, technologically speaking.

Hopefully Halo 4 will be something to behold.
 
DarkChild said:
This is interview with Corrine Yu, she mentions why 360 isn't really pushed to the limits. There was another programmer on B3D who said the same thing. He said that he was shocked at how many games, even in 2010, had GPU idle.

http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/tech...engine-architect-halo-team-microsoft-part-one

And its number of things...360 is very easy to develop for and hit your required goals so most of devs don't bother, plus, MS has very weak 1st party. Arguably best looking game on 360 is made on UE3. But there are Forza 4, RDR and ACR which are all very impressive IMO.
Click to expand...

This is a very cool interview. It's always interesting to watch someone who's excited by what they do (even though I don't follow a lot of it).
 
Maybe it's down to the Devs, so MS just doesn't have Santa Monica Studios, Guerilla Games and Naughty Dog. I do also think that the best looking 360 games don't touch the 1st party sony games but the differen isn't that huge. Compared to PC both are lacking though...
 
DarkChild said:
Interestingly for Crysis 2, Cryteks lead engineer said CPU was the problem of slowdowns in 360 case, not GPU. He actually said they can get more out of GPU...
Click to expand...

Well when playing the game it's almost obvious that GPU is not the case here but rather their AI routines since there will be heavy slowdown instantly after enemies are alerted either you see them or not...most of the times when you get rid of them the frame-rate magically goes back to ~30fps.

It was pretty clear that the game needed more optimization, there was no point in making such an impressive looking game just to see it run at 15-20fps at spots IMO.
 
BeeDog said:
I was just going to reply to you before your edit, but now I actually agree with you (when you added the last part). Still, seeing as how many resources MS has, it would be nice if they used some of it to make something mindblowing, technologically speaking.

Hopefully Halo 4 will be something to behold.
Click to expand...
Reading through Halo forums its said that next cover of GI is most likely Halo 4. One user said that he was in Gamestop and noticed subscription wallpaper from GI with what looked like Master Chief contour behind it and when he asked if it is employee said "stay tuned". Couple days ago one guy from GI said that next cover story pictures where so good looking that his jaw is still on the floor. I hope its Halo 4, there is alot of talent in 343i and 360 just needs that one title to floor people.
 
Feindflug said:
Well when playing the game it's almost obvious that GPU is not the case here but rather their AI routines since there will be heavy slowdown instantly after enemies are alerted either you see them or not...most of the times when you get rid of them the frame-rate magically goes back to ~30fps.

It was pretty clear that the game needed more optimization, there was no point in making such an impressive looking game just to see it run at 15-20fps at spots IMO.
Click to expand...

And their PS3 version had the problem of running 20-25fps the entire time.
 
DCharlie said:
As time has went on the X360 has started to show it's age - quicker than most other gens, the thing is the baseline for graphics on X360 has been pretty decent but - i think the point the OP is getting at - there's not too many titles that blow away the rest of the titles (as on other platforms)

I dunno - that's pretty much a given isn't it? The X360 has made it's name but the fact that it's light on exclusive graphical power house games is a truism isn't it?
Click to expand...

Lol what? What gen pushed improved visuals like the 360 as time went on? Gears 3, Rage, Skyrim, Crysis 2, Red Dead Redemption pushed the visuals more than titles before. Visuals have improved more drastically than any gen ever in their life. Halo 4, Witcher 2 looks to continue this.
 
Majanew said:
Lol what? What gen pushed improved visuals like the 360 as time went on? Gears 3, Rage, Skyrim, Crysis 2, Red Dead Redemption pushed the visuals more than titles before. Visuals have improved more drastically than any gen ever in their life. Halo 4, Witcher 2 looks to continue this.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point - the visual standard did go screaming up - no argument there - but on the whole i don't personally think that that many single games on the platform significantly outclassed the baseline but *thats* a function of a higher baseline across the board (and based on the games i've played)
 
Majanew said:
Lol what? What gen pushed improved visuals like the 360 as time went on? Gears 3, Rage, Skyrim, Crysis 2, Red Dead Redemption pushed the visuals more than titles before. Visuals have improved more drastically than any gen ever in their life. Halo 4, Witcher 2 looks to continue this.
Click to expand...
Exactly, think what we might have seen on Xbox if it hadn't been abandoned after 4-5 years!
 
Games on the the 360 have improved a lot over the years.

Some said Oblivion was pushing the system to its limits running as poorly as it did and sub-720p. Compare it to Skyrim.
 
Yeah I'm sure it's MS policy to have poor quality games, smh.

Every game on the 360 is the same or better looking than the PS3 version. Only exceptions are God of War 3, Uncharted 3 and Heavy Rain- those three are just straight eye candy.
 
Square Triangle said:
Every game on the 360 is the same or better looking than the PS3 version. Only exceptions are God of War 3, Uncharted 3 and Heavy Rain- those three are just straight eye candy.
Click to expand...
FF XIII looks noticeably much better on the PS3 AFAIK, but that's about the only multiplat game I can think of that looks better on PS3 than on 360.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Why are people so focused on game popularity?
Opinion  2
73
2K
R6Rider replied
Why Nintendo Is So Expensive | So Expensive | Business Insider
Opinion Trailer Game Dev  2 3
113
690
tr1p1ex replied
So what happened to games releasing on a friday?
37
93
M.W. replied
So, Sony’s GaaS games are not doing so well huh?
2 3 4 5
245
2K
yurinka replied
Why are the CPU clocks of Switch 2 so low in docked?
2 3 4
173
384
Walliwallipaloo replied
Top Bottom