why so few graphically outstanding games on 360?

nib95 said:
But up close you generally don't have nearly as much to store in the memory hence why more of it can be afforded to such things as detailed guns on the floor. Not saying it's not a great little added detail, but it's not really a good example of the game being graphically "massively impressive".
Click to expand...
No, you don't understand. Those models are stored in the memory the entire time. Just because they're not drawn on the screen doesn't mean they're not in the RAM. And it's not just that, it's that, compounded with the massive draw distance, faraway mountains and ridges that are comprised of actual polygons, the massive amounts of enemies, and so on and so forth.


Van Owen said:
Reach couldn't even hold a steady 30fps. Sort of takes it out of the running.
Click to expand...
Reach is steady most of the time. Killzone 2 had some moments of significant frame dips, but very few people actually seemed to mind.
 
TUROK said:
No, you don't understand. Those models are stored in the memory the entire time. Just because they're not drawn on the screen doesn't mean they're not in the RAM. And it's not just that, it's that, compounded with the massive draw distance, faraway mountains and ridges that are comprised of actual polygons, the massive amounts of enemies, and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that whether the gun is up close or not, or even on screen or not, it's fully loaded in to memory either way? Why not just load it full quality all the time if it's already fully loaded in to memory? That doesn't make sense to me but I'm guessing I've misunderstood you.

Can't they just store the asset on the disc/HDD instead and just have it streamed and loaded to memory dependant on use and when it's actually needed?
 
nib95 said:
Are you saying that whether the gun is up close or not, or even on screen or not, it's fully loaded in to memory either way? Why not just load it full quality all the time if it's already fully loaded in to memory? That doesn't make sense to me but I'm guessing I've misunderstood you.

Can't they just store the asset on the disc/HDD instead and just have it streamed and loaded to memory dependant on use and when it's actually needed?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the mesh is always in the RAM. The highest LOD model isn't onscreen all the time because that would be too taxing in regard to onscreen poly count.
 
TUROK said:
Yeah, the mesh is always in the RAM. The highest LOD model isn't onscreen all the time because that would be too taxing in regard to onscreen poly count.
Click to expand...

Does it matter in the end when the gun models you hold in your hands look as underwhelming as they do? H4 seems to go into the Killzone direction model wise, so it seems they acknowledge the problem.
 
nib95 said:
Can't they just store the asset on the disc/HDD instead and just have it streamed and loaded to memory dependant on use and when it's actually needed?
Click to expand...
That's where many games are headed but that comes with its own bunch of problems. Main one is it takes time to stream stuff to memory, so if you're aiming at keeping just what you need then you'll always stream it too late. So you have to stream what you think you're gonna need in the next X frames, which means less memory available for what you actually do need, and implementing algorithms to predict what the player's gonna do, which is a whole class of technology in itself.
 
I thought Reach looked very pleasant, but probably not because it did anything spectacular. But it looked like Halo, which is different from everything else. Sort of the Ratchet effect I guess.

But then I felt that KZ 2 also looked spectacular for the same reason, due to the strong and unique art thread. You could spot shortcuts everywhere, but damn me if it didn't just blow me away.

The only console game I've played this generation that never had me even think about "the graphics" as such is Uncharted 2. And that's really the highest praise I can give any game. Such a beautiful balance between artistry, design and technology.
 
Demoncarnotaur said:
As others have said, Halo Reach is certainly a very good looking game, but I do agree the PS3 has the upper hand with games like Uncharted and Killzone. Uncharted particularly looks amazing, that games has made me expect a lot more when it comes to console games.
Click to expand...
Pretty unfair to compare those games directly without taking into consideration the differences in scale. They do matter.
 
Darknessbear said:
There is some merit to what the OP was saying. Not sure why everyone beat him down so quickly...
Click to expand...
I think it was mostly just misinterpretation and then knee jerk reactions. Though the OP was poorly worded.
 
It's threads like these that make me appreciate gaming from the Atari 2600 on upward, when graphics like this gen has pumped out aren't good enough for you...Idk I guess I pity you.
 
DarkChild said:
Those are all in game assets that you see, the lighting the shadowing, ALL in game. DOF is in engine. Unless you are asking why didn't they take screens with FRAPS and show it like that instead like all other developers do...
Click to expand...

Rockstar and Bethesda don't use bullshots, and Rockstar have some of the best tech on 360.
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
I was under the impression that Nintendo sold the most amount of hardware and has had a significant amount of exclusives during the time where they were leading (not so much recently).

And outside of a few quarters, PS3 has outsold the 360 since 2008.
Click to expand...

Xbox 360 outsold PS3 world-wide in 2011.
 
schennmu said:
Does it matter in the end when the gun models you hold in your hands look as underwhelming as they do? H4 seems to go into the Killzone direction model wise, so it seems they acknowledge the problem.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm definitely going to have to call bullshit on that.

Reach_MPBeta_FocusRifle.jpg


magnum.jpg


Assault_Rifle_right2.jpg


Reach_MPBeta_AR.jpg


DMR_left3.jpg
 
mxgt said:
which is downsampled like crazy which makes the game look a lot better than it actually does.
Click to expand...

The gif also isn't 60FPS which more than makes up for that ;)

1. Play at a normal viewing distance (this applies to everything lol, and the gif is only a little less than half the perceptible size of my TV from where I sit and considering I use a laptop)
2. Cockpit view on Spa, Nurb, SSR5, SSR11, Monza, Suzuka, LeMans, Toscana, Eiger, London... with weather and dynamic time of day day if available
3. Remove HUD
4. ?????
5. Shit bricks
 
Always surprised if people bring up games that are built on a multi-platform engine as an example of standout games, when the only thing that would have kept them from releasing on a different platform is the fact that Microsoft payed for the game. Would it have looked slightly worse? Probably, lower framebuffer effects and such, but not significantly. We've got plenty of multi-platform UE3 engine games to compare.

Anyway, here are three possible reasons:

1. Microsoft mandated limited 'crazy' use of hardware so that they could easily support these games on their next box, retaining backward compatibility. I've heard some rumors on this from devs.
2. Microsoft just doesn't have the studios that are capable/interested in pushing hardware, or those studios get too tight time budgets
3. The 360's hardware is relatively easy to get the most out of meaning that multi-plat games can get a lot out of the hardware easily, but there is relatively little to gain by doing more than that.

We can discuss endlessly what and why, and I personally have very clear opinions on some parts of this, but in the end I think we're much better off spending our time playing the games we like on the platform we like, and wait and see what happens next-gen. :)
 
mxgt said:
which is downsampled like crazy which makes the game look a lot better than it actually does.

It's a well known tactic often employed by Killzone fans

Yup. awful and completely put me off while playing the game.
Click to expand...

Yes, the shadows are much better now (they've done a pretty good job with updating the game since release), and yes, the SPA track which you won't have played (as it is recent DLC) does actually look like that. The whole game looks much more reastic when you have one of those tracks with dynamic weather (and hence, dynamic lighting) and day-night cycles. It's quite stunning, and for me, as someone who drives on the real Ring twice a year, it's pure gravy.

No the graphics aren't perfect, but man, so close already, and pretty much unrivaled as yet (and yes, I also have a 360, Forza 4, etc.)
 
TUROK said:
Yeah, I'm definitely going to have to call bullshit on that.
Click to expand...

What is it with Halo fans being so fixated on PR material? I clearly said "in your hands" in my last post. Anyway, those still look pretty bad compared to anything gun related in Killzone. Just look at the blurry texture on the handgun and how flat it is.

edit: The models aren't even that bad, the main problem are the plastic shaders and maybe also normal mapping. Reload animations do not help either, but that's more part of the general feel.
 
dragonelite said:
(regarding PGR4) Should helped that the game is only 30 fps.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because most console games run at 60fps. Particularly 5 years ago. *sighs*
30fps is the benchmark for consoles, nearly all titles run at 30fps. Therefore it is a fair statement to say PGR4 looked incredible. Hell, looks incredible.
 
schennmu said:
What is it with Halo fans being so fixated on PR material? I clearly said "in your hands" in my last post. Anyway, those still look pretty bad compared to anything gun related in Killzone. Just look at the blurry texture on the handgun and how flat it is.

edit: The models aren't even that bad, the main problem are the plastic shaders and maybe also normal mapping. Reload animations do not help either, but that's more part of the general feel.
Click to expand...

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/111/1119644/halo-reach-20100910094947158.jpg

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_killzone_3-14723-2035_0003.jpg

The metal shader is better on the Killzone gun, but poly-wise, you'd be hard pressed to say one is better than the other.
 
Chittagong said:
This post is mindblowing. It's true, but I have never seen it laid out like this. Absolutely insane progress.
Click to expand...

seriously - gaming has moved on and on and on

on topic - i've advocated vocal criticism of all the major parties and MS are no different. They DO lack a number of strong premier looking titles. Yes, i know it's a vapid and shallow sentiment but if someone asks "what would make X720 better?" then if you CARE you tell them STRAIGHT: more games that push the system to the limit and impress upon people what the machine can do. I hand on heart think the X360 lacks those titles.
 
TUROK said:
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/111/1119644/halo-reach-20100910094947158.jpg

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_killzone_3-14723-2035_0003.jpg

The metal shader is better on the Killzone gun, but poly-wise, you'd be hard pressed to say one is better than the other.
Click to expand...

Wow, the lighting difference is like two different worlds.

I agree that the model itself is ok, but the game just fails to show it off properly. Just look how flat the gun appears. I really hope we'll be able to properly aim down the sights in the next Halo. This should help to show off the gun as well. The zoom function was a bit letdown for me in Reach, but it seems to be the accepted standard in Halo.
 
Combichristoffersen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Duke Nukem Forever (well it does!), Brink, LA Noire, Portal 2, Dirt 1 (although it is effectively Dirt 1.5 and was released months later), Battlefield 3, there are others, just can't think right now. And most of these are substantially better on PS3, DNF, Brink and Portal 2 in particular.
 
TUROK said:
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/111/1119644/halo-reach-20100910094947158.jpg

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_killzone_3-14723-2035_0003.jpg

The metal shader is better on the Killzone gun, but poly-wise, you'd be hard pressed to say one is better than the other.
Click to expand...

You're right on the shader.

But i think Killzone general appeal has been the jumpy light as i like to cool it.
All those lensflares and stuff make the game feel really artsy. While that Halo reach shot looks more down to earth more flat.

But then Halo Reach one does has a more open feeling.



DarkChild said:
I'll just leave this here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhR-LzxH6pU
Click to expand...

Man had hoped R* would release a pc version.
 
Floex said:
Yep. Like you say, I was so disappointed playing GT5 in action. Seeing the incredible photoshots then playing the actual game. Urgh... actually thought it was an ugly game overall
Click to expand...
Forza 4 is consistently a very good looking game, and performs almost flawlessly. GT5 is an occasionally breathtaking game that can just as often look absolutely horrendous, and it doesn't particularly run well.

GT5 attains higher highs, but lower lows, and is just way too inconsistent. Plus, it appears the menu design and optimisation was handled by a blind, one-armed five year old with only one finger left.
 
-NinjaBoiX- said:
GT5 is an occasionally breathtaking game that can just as often look absolutely horrendous, and it doesn't particularly run well.
Click to expand...


It does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5QjeeodlBY and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM4cJmiCKtU

I also wouldn't say that F4 is a "very good looking game", considering GT5 exists. It looks okay but not "very good". This video isn't F4 (and yes I did try F4 so I know there isn't too much of a difference in overall visual quality) but Laguna Seca is in theory one of the worst looking GT5 tracks. Yikes. The difference is so big it's not even funny.
 
-NinjaBoiX- said:
Duke Nukem Forever (well it does!), Brink, LA Noire, Portal 2, Dirt 1 (although it is effectively Dirt 1.5 and was released months later), Battlefield 3, there are others, just can't think right now. And most of these are substantially better on PS3, DNF, Brink and Portal 2 in particular.
Click to expand...

While most of the game you mentioned are better on the PS3 (Portal 2 looks like crap on 360 for example, maybe the worst IQ I've seen on a console game) Battlefield 3 is almost identical on both platforms with each platform having it's pros and cons - both versions run at 1280*704 with PPAA with some differences in shadowing, SSAO and have almost identical frame-rates IIRC.
 
Risk Breaker said:
It does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5QjeeodlBY and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM4cJmiCKtU

I also wouldn't say that F4 is a "very good looking game", considering GT5 exists. It looks okay but not "very good". This video isn't F4 (and yes I did try F4 so I know there isn't too much of a difference in overall visual quality) but Laguna Seca is in theory one of the worst looking GT5 tracks. Yikes. The difference is so big it's not even funny.
Click to expand...

GT's lighting is more natural looking but once ingame there's not that much between them.

I prefer GT5's real world tracks, even PS2 ports to Forza's though. T10's reluctance to redo old Forza 1/2 tracks and models creates a noticable divide, not as much as Premium/Standard but it's there.
 
schennmu said:
Wow, the lighting difference is like two different worlds.

I agree that the model itself is ok, but the game just fails to show it off properly. Just look how flat the gun appears. I really hope we'll be able to properly aim down the sights in the next Halo. This should help to show off the gun as well. The zoom function was a bit letdown for me in Reach, but it seems to be the accepted standard in Halo.
Click to expand...
The day they add down the sight aiming to Halo is the day I quit the franchise forever. Fuck that noise.
 
I think a lot of the major Sony exclusives have that "look" to them, a softness and pleasantness that you don't see in the 360 games.
 
-NinjaBoiX- said:
Duke Nukem Forever (well it does!), Brink, LA Noire, Portal 2, Dirt 1 (although it is effectively Dirt 1.5 and was released months later), Battlefield 3, there are others, just can't think right now. And most of these are substantially better on PS3, DNF, Brink and Portal 2 in particular.
Click to expand...

I knew DNF had shorter load times on PS3 (they're still terrible compared to the PC version though), I didn't know it looked better than the 360 version. The more you know.
 
Truant said:
I think a lot of the major Sony exclusives have that "look" to them, a softness and pleasantness that you don't see in the 360 games.
Click to expand...

Yeah i notice both Uncharted and Infamous have it.

interestingly Crysis has the same sort of soft 'look' going on.
 
drugstore_cowboy said:
GT's lighting is more natural looking but once ingame there's not that much between them.

I prefer GT5's real world tracks, even PS2 ports to Forza's though. T10's reluctance to redo old Forza 1/2 tracks and models creates a noticable divide, not as much as Premium/Standard but it's there.
Click to expand...


LOL, I forgot to include the third video on my original post, I meant this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb2rJb3bkgg

You can also compare with the Zonda R at Nurb but yeah, my opinion is pretty much what you said above :).
 
Risk Breaker said:
It does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5QjeeodlBY and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM4cJmiCKtU

I also wouldn't say that F4 is a "very good looking game", considering GT5 exists. It looks okay but not "very good". This video isn't F4 (and yes I did try F4 so I know there isn't too much of a difference in overall visual quality) but Laguna Seca is in theory one of the worst looking GT5 tracks. Yikes. The difference is so big it's not even funny.
Click to expand...
So the fact that that certain aspects of GT's graphical make up surpass Forza disqualifies Forza as a "very good looking" game? You seem to suggest that the mere fact that GT exists means that Forza can't be classified as such. Just a curious justification, especially given GT's decidedly uneven presentation.

Surely you must agree that Forza has the more consistent cohesive aesthetic? And it actually runs properly? Neither of which can be said for GT5's wildly uneven graphics, fluctuating frame rate and pervasive tearing. Forza, while not displaying GT's aptitude for lighting and car models, is nigh on rock solid, from pretty much any angle. And the tracks are far prettier too.
 
Risk Breaker said:
LOL, I forgot to include the third video on my original post, I meant this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb2rJb3bkgg

You can also compare with the Zonda R at Nurb but yeah, my opinion is pretty much what you said above :).
Click to expand...

While this video is from Forza 3, it seems GT5 also has a much better FOV in the cockpit. Kind of important.

Really need to play the game again, it seems it's rock solid 60fps now judging by the videos you posted.

Also posting this again because it's just that amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQO6JHZl-Cs
 
Sho_Nuff82 said:
The day they add down the sight aiming to Halo is the day I quit the franchise forever. Fuck that noise.
Click to expand...
This.

Not every game needs it.

schennmu said:
What is it with Halo fans being so fixated on PR material? I clearly said "in your hands" in my last post. Anyway, those still look pretty bad compared to anything gun related in Killzone. Just look at the blurry texture on the handgun and how flat it is.

edit: The models aren't even that bad, the main problem are the plastic shaders and maybe also normal mapping. Reload animations do not help either, but that's more part of the general feel.
Click to expand...
Pitting Killzone against Halo is so unnecessary.
 
kingkaiser said:
Well, i don't know what games the OP played on the 360 but PGR4 really blew my mind back in 2007.
Click to expand...

Yeah.... this is what we don't want to see.
Game looked fine. But not like this in gameplay. I hope you can tell the difference. Actually, i hope you can't cause that would mean you are blessed beyond imagination.
 
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
702
tr1p1ex replied
So what happened to games releasing on a friday?
37
99
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
400
Walliwallipaloo replied
Top Bottom