Thread title should really be: What Naughty Dog and Santa Monica do differently.They aren't necessarily better than everyone else, but objectively speaking, one would be hard pressed to find a company that has a better grasp on their respective hardware when it comes to presentation. Rare and Epic are their closest counterparts in terms of graphicaI fidelity I would say and at that point I think the 360's hardware is the limitation, not the talent behind it. So even though I am admittedly ignorant to the actual technical development, it seems to me that the 360's hardware is the reason there arent as many standouts. It seems that in the right hands (albeit only a few), the PS3 has the edge when it comes to IQ and I am fairly cofident in saying that this is now commonly accepted among the masses. However, one point worth reiterating would be the 360's consistency which holds a lot of weight when considering the overall quality of hardware. I feel like these opinions are obvious and common now and the OP's query, although poorly communicated, is a resounding testament. Someone please correct me if this is untrue.
why so few graphically outstanding games on 360?
- Thread starter Shadow of the BEAST
- Start date
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
Typical fanboy hyperbole. Added to ignore list.
dragonelite
Member
He is trying way to hard.
I find the image quality in GEars 3 a bit better than Uncharted 3 myself
Just personal opinion based on the below pics, Uncharted 3 for some reason has a very fuzzy look
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/9223/amarectv201111111127549.jpg
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2411/geow32011100920591941co.jpg
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/5060/amarectv201111011323597.jpg
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/7559/avermediacenter20111024j.jpg
i dont know for sure, does Naughty Dog typically have a longer dev deadline than regular studios?
Death Dealer
Member
Comparing those pics, I think Uncharted 3's lighting looks much better.
Proelite
Member
If I didn't know better, I would have thought the games were made with the same engine, or maybe even the same game but different levels.
I do like the lighitng in U3 better too
Somebody rightly observed that it's proof that the architecture of the 360 is well designed and balanced. It's not a matter of having a select few distinguished games, as it is of proposing a large panel of impressive games, which the console's been known for.
RDR, RE5, Banjo and Kazooie, GoW3, Crysis2...are all beautiful looking titles.
RDR, RE5, Banjo and Kazooie, GoW3, Crysis2...are all beautiful looking titles.
Well, John Carmack did say 360 is best console he has ever worked on. Apart from little memory on eDRAM, its fantastic.
UC3 is the most impressive game of the two -Not that Gears is a slouch-, but that's more of a testament to ND technical wizardry...
By the way, judging from various reactions, Halo4 is manifestly a powerhouse and could very well steel the thunder from other 360 developers.
Debates, debates....
my list of top graphical games on the 360:
Batman: Arkham Asylum,Batman: Arkum City
Final Fantasy 13
Resident Evil 5
Bayoneta
Just Cause 2
Red Dead Redemption
Split Second
Mass Effect 1,2,3
Dead Space 1,2
Gears of War, 1,2,3
Castlevania: lords of Shadow
Mirrors Edge
BulletStorm
Modern Warfare 1,2,3, blackops
De Blob 2
Fight Night Champion
Crysis 2
Portal 1,2
Rayman Origins
Rage
Whether or not they are graphically competent to the PS3 is your choice, but I wouldn't say the 360 is lacking in good looking games.
my list of top graphical games on the 360:
Batman: Arkham Asylum,Batman: Arkum City
Final Fantasy 13
Resident Evil 5
Bayoneta
Just Cause 2
Red Dead Redemption
Split Second
Mass Effect 1,2,3
Dead Space 1,2
Gears of War, 1,2,3
Castlevania: lords of Shadow
Mirrors Edge
BulletStorm
Modern Warfare 1,2,3, blackops
De Blob 2
Fight Night Champion
Crysis 2
Portal 1,2
Rayman Origins
Rage
Whether or not they are graphically competent to the PS3 is your choice, but I wouldn't say the 360 is lacking in good looking games.
Yea, UC3 is still better looking game. Apart from lighting, there is also serious advantage in animations and overall artistic look of the game. Gears 3 is still UE3 game, albeit best looking one.
Yap, Halo 4 seems to be pretty damn amazing judging by those two journalists impression that posted in GI thread.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Didn't you post this same crap on Teamxbox?
I still consider RDR a pinnacle of 360 visuals. From artistic and technical point, and I think that game can go head to head with any other game on any system and hold its own. It has phenomenal visuals, technically and artistically, amazing attention to detail and some of the best animations and weather effects you can get. Not one game (except GOW III) has wowed me so much this gen.
And what R* has in store with GTAV is even more mindblowing...
I'd say R* has done the best work with 360 this generation (except maybe 343i).
/sry for gifs and big pictures
And what R* has in store with GTAV is even more mindblowing...
I'd say R* has done the best work with 360 this generation (except maybe 343i).
/sry for gifs and big pictures
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
That's what I was referring about the HDR. The lighting in that shot is just horrible.
I don't think people should be allowed to use ME1 as an example of the 360's horsepower just because that game ran like absolute dogshit. Yes it looked pretty....after the textures finished streaming in, the camera wasn't moving (holy tearing), and you were in an area where framerate wasn't tanking.
Maybe I was spoiled by the PC version, but watching a friend play it on 360 was almost unbearable. From what I've seen/heard, ME2 and 3 are much more improved in that regard.
Maybe I was spoiled by the PC version, but watching a friend play it on 360 was almost unbearable. From what I've seen/heard, ME2 and 3 are much more improved in that regard.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Flares in Alan Wake are spot-on, it's maybe the most impressive lighting effect I've seen so far.
mickcenary
Member
Coming in here just to say that Killzone 2 & 3 have the best weapon models ever created. Shaders, movement, viewing angle... EVERYTHING. Crysis 2 comes close, but the inferior design on the whole is a detractor.
polyh3dron
Banned
Exactly. This is why I love first party Sony games, they hit the metal and don't use UE3 or anything like that.
dragonelite
Member
You can still use assembly on 360 Kagumaru mentioned it already multiple times and if im not mistaken im pretty sure i have followed a tutorial on hlsl with xna that used assembly(was preshader but it still speed up the code with a factor 10).
edit:
Looked around a bit and it seems only till directX 9 they seems to allow assembly code HLSL.
Newer version of directX seems to use a JIT compiler when they load a new shader. Mostly because then gpu venders can use their own internal language.
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
The answer to this question is a combination of priorities, scalability, marketing and budget.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Priorities
From the beginning of this console cycle, I remember Sony pushing for new technology and hyping the PS3's graphical capabilities. But to meet those expectations, they needed their firsy party to be committed to new ways of rendering. Big budget titles on both the PS3 are lacking behing feature wise (compared to the mainstream) but excelling in graphical quality. Sony has to deliver the graphics, it's what they wanted to. The PS3 has gotten more attention in the graphics department than the 360.
First Party
Sony's first party is also a research group. There are dedicated teams at Guerilla Games and Naughty Dog who work full time on engine technology.
Hardware/ Scalability
Probably the most important reason. I know that the Xbox 360's architecture is more familiair with developers compared to PS3's hardware. In common terms, "it's easy to develope for the 360". Which is exactly why dev's don't need to put an effort. There are a lot of engines to licence that are scalable to the type of game you want to create becouse of the 360's hardware. The PS3's hardware is more challenging, needing custom workarounds sometimes, spawning various post processing techniques of which the gaming community took advantage of (Post processing effects, post processing AA).
Also, devs have to develope with the 360 Arcade in mind.
That said, I could have never expected that games today would look so good. What they're doing with outdated hardware is amazing.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Priorities
From the beginning of this console cycle, I remember Sony pushing for new technology and hyping the PS3's graphical capabilities. But to meet those expectations, they needed their firsy party to be committed to new ways of rendering. Big budget titles on both the PS3 are lacking behing feature wise (compared to the mainstream) but excelling in graphical quality. Sony has to deliver the graphics, it's what they wanted to. The PS3 has gotten more attention in the graphics department than the 360.
First Party
Sony's first party is also a research group. There are dedicated teams at Guerilla Games and Naughty Dog who work full time on engine technology.
Hardware/ Scalability
Probably the most important reason. I know that the Xbox 360's architecture is more familiair with developers compared to PS3's hardware. In common terms, "it's easy to develope for the 360". Which is exactly why dev's don't need to put an effort. There are a lot of engines to licence that are scalable to the type of game you want to create becouse of the 360's hardware. The PS3's hardware is more challenging, needing custom workarounds sometimes, spawning various post processing techniques of which the gaming community took advantage of (Post processing effects, post processing AA).
Also, devs have to develope with the 360 Arcade in mind.
That said, I could have never expected that games today would look so good. What they're doing with outdated hardware is amazing.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Is there something wrong with UE3 or is it the developers capabilities?
I agree and I dont have a 360. Compare to PS3, RDR, Crysis 2, Bulletstorm, Gear Of War and Halo Reach are all incredible looking titles imo
Weeeeh Godrays are pretty!
Crysis 2 has a bit better lightning imo, but UE3.5 is damn good.
I have yet to play Bulletstorm on my PC but it uses the same engine right?
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
Rage blew me away when I first saw it running on the 360, it's amazing what that engine can achieve at 60 fps, it honestly felt like I was playing the game on PC with a controller, taking the frame rate into consideration I'm temped to say that Rage is the most impressive console game I've seen this gen.
Synless
Member
I picked it up for $5 and started it yesterday. My jaw hit the floor when I started playing it. Stupidly beautiful game. I agree with you 100%, it is the best looking console game I have seen.
Yep, I bought the PS3 version to avoid 3 discs, and I regret it.
PS3 version compares horribly to the 360 version. Texture loading on the PS3 version is horrific. Horrific is actually an understatement.
Phonomezer
Banned
....OH?
abracadaver
Member
Rage eh ?
The most impressive thing about it is its 60fps. But its lacking in texture detail, lighting, shadows, physics and other effects for that. For me Gears 3 or RDR are a lot more impressive.
The most impressive thing about it is its 60fps. But its lacking in texture detail, lighting, shadows, physics and other effects for that. For me Gears 3 or RDR are a lot more impressive.
Windom Earle
Member
Some areas in Rage look horrendous (hospital section) in terms of texture resolution. I played the 360 version, and pop in was still a bit problem.
toddhunter
Member
I think in some way the engine running much better/easier on the 360 has ironically been a limiting factor.
Bulletstorm was a jaw dropping moment for me, I couldn't believe some parts of that game were running on a 360. At the time of their release plenty of older 360 games amazed me too. If Bioshock Infinite looks anything at all like what has been in the trailers it will be another example. This thread is kind of dumb.
NinjaBoiX
Member
EDF 2017 looks and runs better on PS3 according to DF. Just picked it up the other day.
Edit: I'm thinking of EDF:Insect Armageddon. My bad.
NinjaBoiX
Member
What a perplexing sentence. I can neither read it, nor discern it's intention.
nelsonroyale
Member
Crysis 2 hardly had much interactivity...that game was one of the most disappointing this gen...just left me apathetic.
dragonelite
Member
Show me a game where i could use a mailbox as a shield or storming ram to hit enemies with?
Synless
Member
I don't see it lacking in much of anything. It has a lot of pre-baked lighting and shadows, but the textures are good and it runs at 720p (most of the time). I don't see how it is any less technologically impressive then something like Killzone, Gears, or Uncharted.
Escape Goat
Member
That made me laugh as well. This whole thread has been an entertaining read.
astroturfing
Member
what, really? i only tried the demo on PS3 and thought it looked incredible. i think i saw maybe one or two textures load visibly, which isnt any worse than in most other games... the pros FAR outweigh the cons, even in the PS3 version in my opinion.
unless the full game looks much worse than the demo, lol.
i only downloaded the ps3 demo and i thought the game looked fine on ps3. people exaggerate the shit out of things on here.
HocusPocus
Member
These are the threads to make the bitter NPD threads a little less hard to take.
I haven't played the 360 version, but the PS3 version was pretty bad with texture loading. Even zooming in with a sniper would cause textures right next to you to reload. Once everything was loading things looked fine but most of the larger cities even turning your head 30 degrees would cause textures to pop out.