Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

So the Xbox could be best described as a set of unrealized possibilities? I'd like to think the hardware was used to its fullest.

I think Xbox can be best described with the phrase "Great potential, but not going to end up living to all of it." The fact that Xbox360 comes out this year pretty much assures this. The fact that the majority of the third party support was on PS2 was just the nail in the coffin in this regard.

That's again, just to be clear, not a dismissal of Xbox - it's just that there are certain things that a dominate power can offer us that someone who isn't in the lead may not be able to do in terms of third parties going at it trying to exploit a system to its fullest.

 

[Speevy]

That's again, just to be clear, not a dismissal of Xbox - it's just that there are certain things that a dominate power can offer us that someone who isn't in the lead may not be able to do in terms of third parties going at it trying to exploit a system to its fullest.

It seems to me that the third parties you're talking about aren't ambitious in a way that would have exploited the Xbox's power anyway. Square games with Halo-esque bump-mapping, Capcom games with Splinter Cell-ish lighting, Namco games with Riddick-esque normal mapping. Team Ninja, perhaps the most technically well-rounded console-specific developer in existence, didn't even try for the same things as Bungie. Clearly different developers have different priorities.

 

[Amir0x]

It seems to me that the third parties you're talking about aren't ambitious in a way that would have exploited the Xbox's power anyway. Square games with Halo-esque bump-mapping, Capcom games with Splinter Cell-ish lighting, Namco games with Riddick-esque normal mapping. Team Ninja, perhaps the most technically well-rounded console-specific developer in existence, didn't even try for the same things as Bungie. Clearly different developers have different priorities.

Speevy, I'm not trying to, uh, change your mind about your clearly defined position on Xbox (you rated it your #2 favorite system of all time).

In the end, Xbox had much less developer support than PS2 and this significantly hindered the advancement and progression of titles (and to a lesser degree genres) in various ways, and the final point of it being around for two less years than PS2 puts the final push off the wagon imho. Your mileage, naturally, will vary.

 

[Red Scarlet]

Exactly what it's meant since after the SNES/Genesis days. Nothing at all.

 

[Kleegamefan]

You know, I think parts of RE4s graphics just SMOKE Halo2, Riddick and SC3 and the game has exactly ZERO Bump mapping and normal mapping...


That said, I think RE4 could have looked even *better* had it been developed exclusively for the Xbox....

 

[monkeyrun]

it means some fanboys will be digging up technical details trying to defend their console(s).

 

[Idioteque]

It doesn't mean much to me I'll most likely get all of the systems.

 

[Speevy]

You know, I think parts of RE4s graphics just SMOKE Halo2, Riddick and SC3 and the game has exactly ZERO Bump mapping and normal mapping...

Specificity is your friend. Like? The thing about all those games is that they are uniformly great, and some of RE4 is just average-looking. Not to mention the fact that one of those games you mentioned is terrible looking on RE4's home console(s). Halo 2 is also much less confined and has no black bars on the screen. Parts don't cut it. Presentation is about a whole package. Just like Halo 2's silly pop-in during cutscenes.

 

[Pimpwerx]

HW power matters for the run up to console launches, and for a few months after the last system comes out. After that, the awe and shock wears off, and it's about the games. It's only if the difference is HUGE that it matters. All IMO. PEACE.

 

[demon]

You know, I think parts of RE4s graphics just SMOKE Halo2, Riddick and SC3 and the game has exactly ZERO Bump mapping and normal mapping...


That said, I think RE4 could have looked even *better* had it been developed exclusively for the Xbox....

Then again, if the RE4 engine had to do some of the stuff in Halo2, it would not look as good. Halo2 is not what I would call one of the graphical crown jewels of the Xbox, unfortunately.

 

[Wellington]

This is stupid, it's going to be like the difference between Nvidia's high end card and ATI's high end card at any given time. Not really noticeable at all, friends!

 

[Socreges]

And it's going to get worse.

Much worse.

Oh no, what do you have planned!

Spoiler

 

[MetalAlien]

It seems to me that the third parties you're talking about aren't ambitious in a way that would have exploited the Xbox's power anyway. Square games with Halo-esque bump-mapping, Capcom games with Splinter Cell-ish lighting, Namco games with Riddick-esque normal mapping. Team Ninja, perhaps the most technically well-rounded console-specific developer in existence, didn't even try for the same things as Bungie. Clearly different developers have different priorities.

Some of that has to do with developers wanting each version of their game to look similar. 3 games coming to 3 consoles, they program to the lowest common denominator. Noit saying that's the best idea, but it seems to happen. Companies like Sony with the PS3 are going to be in a postion to demand they make the games look better than the other systems. So XB360 better be comparable to the PS3 or Sony is going to make every effert to point out it's not.

 

[trmas]

I think Xbox can be best described with the phrase "Great potential, but not going to end up living to all of it." The fact that Xbox360 comes out this year pretty much assures this. The fact that the majority of the third party support was on PS2 was just the nail in the coffin in this regard.

It is a shame that those who bought an XBox this year will not be getting much in new software for it. MS focus is now elsewhere. Knock Sony and Nintendo all you want, but at least they support the current hardware for a good amount of time. Sometimes to a fault.

 

[Speevy]

It is a shame that those who bought an XBox this year will not be getting much in new software for it. MS focus is now elsewhere. Knock Sony and Nintendo all you want, but at least they support the current hardware for a good amount of time. Sometimes to a fault.

Yeah, I can't keep up with all the Gamecube software Nintendo has released over the past 4 months. And it just keeps coming!

 

[GhaleonEB]

In thread after thread, we see posts relating to the PS3 and Xbox 360. One's supposed to have a pretty substantial advantage over the other in terms of graphics, and I see the celebration of this idea pretty frequently.

So what does it mean to you?

Is there any way to express this difference in screenshots, videos, renders, etc.?

You could possibly find two upcoming PC games which represent the difference. Maybe an engine that does something another engine does not?

Or perhaps, just detail the graphics techniques/features that are meaningful to you for the next generation. Then tell why <insert console> will or will not have them.

It means if there is a game released that runs at anything less than 60 fps, I boycott it on general pricipal.

Forza, here's looking at you, kid.

 

[Odysseus]

It is a shame that those who bought an XBox this year will not be getting much in new software for it. MS focus is now elsewhere. Knock Sony and Nintendo all you want, but at least they support the current hardware for a good amount of time. Sometimes to a fault.

That's flawed logic. I don't feel sorry for anyone buying an Xbox this year. If someone launches a complaint, that someone better be from near launch. Not to go too far to the other extreme, but who cares what late adopters have to say about the matter? If companies had to follow their lead, no one would ever release a new product.

And, for the record (on the second point), Nintendo has hardly supported the GameCube at all this generation. It's like they aren't even trying.

 

[trmas]

Nintendo doesn't really seem to care anymore. Of course, they have to support the system basically on their own...

 

[MetalAlien]

I expect the next gen to be super bomb ass like this hardware! That'd be kewl!

EDIT: seriously, we need the death of jaggies! See? We were promised this in pictures almost a decade ago, make it happen!

http://www.angelfire.com/al/metalalien/pictures/M2_1.JPG

 

[Flynn]

It means less good games will come out.

 

[DCharlie]

i keep seeing PS3 being linked with great AI

Given how the PS3/Cell is built, is it really that well suited for AI calculations?

 

[kaching]

i keep seeing PS3 being linked with great AI

Given how the PS3/Cell is built, is it really that well suited for AI calculations?

Considering that every next-gen console is likely built around multi-core CPUs, I guess they're all going to be poorly suited for AI, eh?

 

[DCharlie]

"Considering that every next-gen console is likely built around multi-core CPUs, I guess they're all going to be poorly suited for AI, eh? "

lol - please have a think about it - they aren't exactly the same.

so, to answer your question, NO they won't all be poorly suited (i never said poorly suited)

 

[evil ways]

I couldn't give a shit about graphical power and visuals, I just hope we get better framerates and little to no load times.

 

[etiolate]

The difference in graphical power and tech this gen was the smallest I can ever remember it being. If you go back to the three previous gens you can see that the n64 could do real 3d and 3d enviroments while the PSX had much smaller 3d enviroments, more like 3d rooms than worlds. In the 16bit era, the SNES could display a lot more colors and the sound chip was superior to the Genny. In stuff like the SF2 games this was quite obvious. In the 8bit era, SMS games looked much better than NES games. These days none of the differences tech wise are stuff most people will experience right out of the box. Maybe if you had composite cables and a TV that can do progressive scan, plus a sound system with 5.1 and a reciever THEN you might really feel a difference. But with a normal TV setup, differences are trite. I imagine it will be even more minimal next gen. This won't keep people from behaving like there is a huge difference though.

 

[Fafalada]

i keep seeing PS3 being linked with great AI

I often wonder what people really mean by great AI. There are certain types of games where excessively smart AI would only serve to make the game less fun and more frustrating.
For example, if GT AI was built "truly" smart, it would use bouncing off your car to corner faster, try to ram you off the road every chance it'd get etc. And it's pretty obvious that the outcry at that kind of AI would be far worse then what we have now.

Given how the PS3/Cell is built, is it really that well suited for AI calculations?

In terms of single threaded AI - none of the consoles will really be a match for standard desktop CPUs. However, in the situations where there's no real room for paralelization (say, single opponent games) the AI is unlikely to be overly demanding in terms of processing time anyhow.
On the other hand - the larger scale the AI, the more possibility of paralelization.

 

[_Angelus_]

I expect both the PS3 and 360 to be around the same,with one doing a few more tricks. I'm Gonna own those consoles as soon as their released in North America,and enjoy them to their fullest.

Who cares if one does something the other doesn't. I've got better things to concern myself with-like grabbing myself a great HDTV for both systems.

 

[Lazy8s]

Fafalada:

There are certain types of games where excessively smart AI would only serve to make the game less fun and more frustrating.

Better AI doesn't have to mean "smarter" AI; it can be a more naturally behaving AI, and not in the way of being too predictable or too unpredictable. Programmer tuning always makes more of a difference than technology to our perceptions of course, but more processing resources could always be spent (but aren't always best spent) on something that has eerily life-like tendencies and a degree of spontaneity.

 

[DCharlie]

"On the other hand - the larger scale the AI, the more possibility of paralelization."

forgive my ignorance, but doesn't AI basically revolve round crunching through (potentially) large trees of data? Given the PS3 set up (vector units, chunking of data, no shared mem pool) isn't this going to be a bit of a problem when paralelization comes in?

 

[Lazy8s]

The set-up of the CELL architecture is suited for parallelization. It's serialization that wouldn't be as easy, and serial operation is important for AI. Fafalada mentioned AI at a large scale, however, which may imply a parallelizable workload depending on which parts are being scaled.

 

[Cormacaroni]

For example, if GT AI was built "truly" smart, it would use bouncing off your car to corner faster, try to ram you off the road every chance it'd get etc. And it's pretty obvious that the outcry at that kind of AI would be far worse then what we have now.

Well, people seem to like it in Burnout 3.

 

[Cold-Steel]

There's too much paranoia on these boards.

Xbox fans are doing damage control because 360 no longer has the one advantage MS had this generation.

PS3 fans are doing damage control because 360 fans are making them panic about the shortfalls of every tiny bit of bad news that emerges from Sony camp.

Nintendo fans are doing damage control because well, that's what Nintendo fans do.

 

[Lazy8s]

Err... I misread your comment DCharlie. I see now that you were in fact considering AI as being very serial oriented and the PS3 as being very parallel oriented. Sorry.

 

[rastex]

Why would it take a graphics hit ? Graphics quality and animation quality are not really linked.

But they are linked because you only have so much processing power. Using 100% baked animations with no blending won't take too many cycles, but that's not what you're talking about here. Realtime animation, IK all that stuff requires processing power, so the more processing power dedicated to those tasks, the less you have for doing rendering effects, drawing polygons, etc etc.

 

[Fafalada]

Better AI doesn't have to mean "smarter" AI;

In which case it also doesn't have to mean more processing intensive

forgive my ignorance, but doesn't AI basically revolve round crunching through (potentially) large trees of data?

IMO(I could still be wrong, I haven't done extensive work in AI lately) that still stays close to issues of single threaded AI - as number of your entities grows, the need for randomly accessing global memory space reduces, you can break things down to more locally coherent blocks.

And you're not completely helpless on low level - there's software caching schemes, and alternatives to standard tree data structures that trade off more bandwith for latency. Not saying there's some golden bullet solution but I think this is more a gray area then the black or white thing people keep trying to push it into.

 

[Jonnyram]

For example, if GT AI was built "truly" smart, it would use bouncing off your car to corner faster, try to ram you off the road every chance it'd get etc. And it's pretty obvious that the outcry at that kind of AI would be far worse then what we have now.

I think you could improve the AI in Gran Turismo without making the cars cheat Good AI introduces natural errors as well. The way cars drive in GT is wholly unnatural and not representative of AI in any form. I could say the same about a lot of driving games, but it would be nice to see some changes next gen. Hell, it would be nice to see proper framerates too, but you just know developers are going to put all this power into something else, rather than fixing the basics.

 

[Gek54]

Hell, it would be nice to see proper framerates too, but you just know developers are going to put all this power into something else, rather than fixing the basics.

MS's stance on framerate is my biggest concern regarding their next gen development. Forza's 30fps is making me sick.

 

[Lazy8s]

Fafalada:

In which case it also doesn't have to mean more processing intensive

No one said it did; the assertion was simply about great AI. More processing could always improve that without changing the dynamic of the game (though, you'd hit diminishing returns, especially in games where you're not exposed to the AI long enough to see a wide range of responses.)

 

[Bauer Action Hour]

HW power matters for the run up to console launches, and for a few months after the last system comes out. After that, the awe and shock wears off, and it's about the games. It's only if the difference is HUGE that it matters. All IMO. PEACE.

I agree w/ this. As long as the graphical difference isn't more than PS2->Xbox, I won't care. If it's DC->PS2 (or worse yet; DC->Xbox), it could be a problem.

 

[shpankey]

One of my biggest hopes for this next generation, believe it or not, is sound improvement. I am a HUUUUGE believer in sounds and music making or breaking something. Or taking something good and making it great. Movies are a most excellent example. Movies like Last of the Mohicans, Lord of the Rings, The Mummy and Stargate are good movies made spectacular by incredible soundtracks.

But that example is a bit off point for this console gaming discussion... it was just to let you know how I think and what sounds mean to me personally.

Anyhow... a great example is current generation racing games with their absolutely ABYSMAL car engine sounds that inspire nothing. As a real life racing fan I can testify to the impact of a great sounding car being throttled. It's just hard to explain how much it excites me. Just pure adreniline rushing through my veins. I want that sound in my home, on my game. I want that adreniline on demand!

I truely hope next generation blows our minds with music and sounds like we've never heard from gaming before; and I am expecting great things.

P.S. Better Physics and A.I. would be my next most welcomed thing.

 

[kaching]

lol - please have a think about it - they aren't exactly the same.

so, to answer your question, NO they won't all be poorly suited (i never said poorly suited)

Not being "exactly the same" doesn't really quantify the magnitude of difference and since you're not willing to go so far as to say poorly suited, then I'm not sure what was the point in trying to make a distinction in the first place.

 

[seismologist]

My only disappointment with the PS2 is framerate. Alot of multiplatform games especially EA games seem designed to barely run on the PS2 and the extra power of Xbox is enough to boostr it to an acceptable level.

I'm glad that'll be fixed next gen.

 

[Fafalada]

Well, people seem to like it in Burnout 3.

But objective in BO3 isn't racing - it's smashing up other cars If they didn't hit me back, the game would become boring.

I think you could improve the AI in Gran Turismo without making the cars cheat

There's nothing in the game that constitutes hitting other cars as cheating - it's just logically exploiting the game mechanics - in the same way human players do. In the end if you played online, there would be people doing this to you also - so it's "natural" as well. Yes, we'd have some players scoff at it as "cheap" driving and what not but in the end this comes back to game mechanics itself.
The problem is more complex then AI just being "smarter" and using more processing power.

Anyway, one of my favourite game AIs is likely the first Master of Orion, which is over 10 years old now, hardly a processing power showcase. It also cheats blatantly - but it maintains a level of challenge&balance that almost every other strategy game out there lacks (most strategy game AIs are a pushover once you've learned their patterns).
For instance, the sequell has a far more complex AI (that still cheats) but even at highest difficulty it's trivially simple to beat it.

 

[Cormacaroni]

But objective in BO3 isn't racing - it's smashing up other cars If they didn't hit me back, the game would become boring.

well, it would become a racing game :lol

Anyway, my point is: the AI behaviour you described can be a benefit for gameplay....in the right game.

and...hey, faf! remember me from the Dubliners in Shibuya?

 

[shpankey]

In the end if you played online, there would be people doing this to you also - so it's "natural" as well. Yes, we'd have some players scoff at it as "cheap" driving and what not but in the end this comes back to game mechanics itself.

Actually, that's not necessarily always true. Some of us race in leagues and we weed out poor drivers. The only stuff that happens is accidents or mistakes. Nothing intentional.

First-Racing will also change a lot of that as well. What they are doing (I can't say via NDA) is going to be HUGE.

Not to mention other games already out (Nascar Racing 2003 Season) which has a bunch of it's own statistical tracking which rates all your areas on the track and filters racers to classify them; which then only allows them to race online against similar racers with similar skills.

Hell I race in a lot of 7 rated races (out of 10) and the skill level is so tremendously high that I almost never see any kind of accidents. Racers guard their rating's closely and will even give in on the track to protect from getting into an accident which will bring down all their statistics which could slow down their progress into a higher rating... or worse, drop their rating.

My point is... one doesn't have to have that kind of attitude about online racing being a bunch of shitty drivers wrecking everyone. None of that has to apply anymore.

 

[DCharlie]

"Not being "exactly the same" doesn't really quantify the magnitude of difference and since you're not willing to go so far as to say poorly suited, then I'm not sure what was the point in trying to make a distinction in the first place."

well, for a start i won't say poorly suited because i have no coding experience with AI on a PS3, where as others at least have the dev kits.

From what knowledge i have of AI, which is all based on "regular" sequential CPUs, most AI solutions are tree based solutions, requiring look ups and large amounts of memory access.

The magnitude of difference? Well, it's not just down to CPU set up - there are memory differences and the _way_ in which that memory is accessed and how processing occurs in both machines.

So , finally, my point is - why is Cell being constantly linked to improving AI beyond anything else when (on paper) it looks like it's not particularly suited to AI processing?

There is no need for the word poor as i'm sure there is a whole school of thought on how to do things on a parallel set up.

 

[kaching]

So , finally, my point is - why is Cell being constantly linked to improving AI beyond anything else when (on paper) it looks like it's not particularly suited to AI processing?

There is no need for the word poor as i'm sure there is a whole school of thought on how to do things on a parallel set up.

You answer your own question - not being suited for current methodologies of AI processing built on existing architectures doesn't bar it from being well-suited for AI. Adjust the methodologies to suit the architecture and between that and the on-paper performance of Cell, it shouldn't be hard to see why it's linked to improving AI beyond anything else in these days prior to full disclosure of system specs for any next-gen hardware.

 

[ActionMan]

One more thing. If the difference is big enough, every improvement over what is at the moment being considered standart will take more manhours to develop. Games pushing the limits of consoles this gen have all been in developement for a fwe years and involved dozens of people (coders, artists etc.). This is the best Konami could do with PS2, the staff and the budget - MGS3. An amazing game. To make better AI, better animations, better graphics, physics and better everything, it would take more manhours than it did to make MGS3 (i suppose).

That translates into more people involved or longer developing time plus more money in both cases. The games themselves are not gonna get 10 times more expensive in retail. So the developer will have to draw a line, how much innovation and improvement does he want to leave out (even if the hardware permits those improvements) to keep the project within a reasonable budget.

So far, games ar not yet movies and game industry is nowhere near that of filmmaking. 100mil budgets are not around yet for games. That means that soon enough, the hardware itself will not be the limiting factor. This happens each gen. Only the third wave of blokcbuster titles on each new console starts to scratch it's full potential (not the case with 1st and 2nd party developers, as they have more time with kits than anyone).

I'm not involved in game development in any way, but this seems logical. In the SNES or even PS1 dayds a team of less than 10 people could make a game that pushes the hardware and raises the graphics bar. Now I think that's impossible and on PS3, X360, Revolution it will be even more so.

The power difference between PS2 and XBOX is not that significant to me. Most of the cases, better art and gameplay are a lot more important to me than more polygons or better lighting. I suppose it's not gonna be that different with PS3 vs. X360. Only this time arround, Microsoft might not have it's only advantage, so they will have to try that little more and come up with something original to keep people careing.

 

[Fafalada]

and...hey, faf! remember me from the Dubliners in Shibuya?

Now I do, the nickname didn't ring a bell by itself. I heard they serve Pitchers of gintonic now as well?

 

[DCharlie]

"Now I do, the nickname didn't ring a bell by itself. I heard they serve Pitchers of gintonic now as well? "

I can neither confirm or deny this, as i simply can't recall what happened the last time i was in dubliners....