wipeout364
Member
Amir0x said:
Well Said
Xbox2 hardware: good, yet disappointing at the same time [from a developer]
- Thread starter doncale
- Start date
Well Said
Thompson said:
You say that as if there's some 60fps switch that developers just flick and magically make the game run twice as fast. There isn't, it takes lots of hard work and comes at the cost of something else, whether it be polish, development time or any other element of the game. It's simply not worth it for those who can enjoy a game despite a lowly 30fps, and those people happen to be the vast majority (See: gta:sa, halo 2 sales).
eso76
Member
doncale said:eso76:
this image
I believe is System12 Tekken 3. well, PS2 emulating System12. not PS1. but not like it makes a difference. System12 was only like 50% (1 1/2) stronger than PS1.
but anyways, I do agree with your sentiments
Yeah, that's from tekken 5 (well, the tekken 3 included in tekken 5).
I missed the thread about it being the ps1 or the arcade system 12 version, but having played it today i can confirm it is the psOne version, NOT the system 12 one.
Anyway, yes, there's not a huge difference : )
Ridge Racer vs. Ridge Racer(Hi-spec) from RRT4...'NUFF F'ING SAID!
It's SMOOTHER...and yes, while 30fps "gets the job done", 60fps is without a doubt a "sweet spot". I used to love going to the arcades and seeing the super-smooth Model2/3(and other boards) games. That said, it's definitely better suited for certain genres than others. And yes, as has been mentioned before, they'll ALWAYS be a tug-of-war(or see-saw if you will) between High Fram Rate and High Level of Detail/Effects...it's simple math. The less frames you have to process per second, the more resources you have for detail/complexity/effects. 60fps is not a "feature" like texture filtering or something. The only change is that as hardware progresses, the level at which most people think something "looks awesome" is easier to achieve, so that something at 60fps will still look pretty detailed(For example, F-Zero X for N64...lots of vehicles and 60fps, but VERY barren trackside detail...F-Zero GX for Gamecube however, since the GC is a lot more powerful, it has the same high number of vehicles and 60fps, yet very good trackside detail and complexity...for the most part, it doesn't look "compromised" for it's high frame rate in the same way F-Zero X for N64 looks compromised).
It's SMOOTHER...and yes, while 30fps "gets the job done", 60fps is without a doubt a "sweet spot". I used to love going to the arcades and seeing the super-smooth Model2/3(and other boards) games. That said, it's definitely better suited for certain genres than others. And yes, as has been mentioned before, they'll ALWAYS be a tug-of-war(or see-saw if you will) between High Fram Rate and High Level of Detail/Effects...it's simple math. The less frames you have to process per second, the more resources you have for detail/complexity/effects. 60fps is not a "feature" like texture filtering or something. The only change is that as hardware progresses, the level at which most people think something "looks awesome" is easier to achieve, so that something at 60fps will still look pretty detailed(For example, F-Zero X for N64...lots of vehicles and 60fps, but VERY barren trackside detail...F-Zero GX for Gamecube however, since the GC is a lot more powerful, it has the same high number of vehicles and 60fps, yet very good trackside detail and complexity...for the most part, it doesn't look "compromised" for it's high frame rate in the same way F-Zero X for N64 looks compromised).
Odnetnin said:
Questioning the guy's resume is valid. Doncale posts comments from someone who claims to be a Xenon developer. Okay, so how do we know if this guy really is a developer, and if he is a developer what are his qualifications and experience, which would determine how much credence to give to his comments. So Blimblim posts the guy's resume. The only job he lists on there looks like an indie project using Torque, which I am assuming he did trying to build up a portfolio to get a job at a real development studio. Nothing wrong with that, and perhaps he did get a job after that. Perhaps he didn't and he's just blowing smoke up everyone's ass.
Community Forum
Member
Mike Works said:
Pardon me for not taking into account the "business" side of gaming. You know, I can find plenty of examples of 30 FPS games that sell like ass, and 60 FPS games that sell well, and vice versa.
As a gamer, I am totally impressed by 60 FPS games. Dropship and Turbo Prop each had +1 sales from ME because of this... I would not have purchased them if they had not been so. Is this the graphics whore in me coming out? Perhaps. I play games for different reasons, sometimes for gameplay, sometimes to be impressed. Like at the movies... Jerry Bruckheimer movies might not be movie-of-the-year material, but damn if they aren't big budget impressive explosion filled orgazms, and this is why I continue to go see them.
To me, graphics do mean something. And by graphics, I mean the kind that impress the fuck out of you. DOA:U, Ninja Gaiden, etc... these are made all the more impressive by their framerate.
Here's an example. Doom 3 on Xbox. I probably won't buy it. But what if I was walking by a demo unit, and saw it was running at 60 FPS... there's SOMETHING 60 FPS that would make my jaw drop. Perhaps it goes back to the great console war of the SNES and Genesis... I remember buying games to impress my friends... sometimes Genesis games that looked great that were not available on any other console. Holy shit, don't get me started on multiplatform publishing... the bane of my existence...
I guarantee you Ys would sell better if it was 60. And GT4 would sell less if it was 30. By a significant amount? No. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to see Ys run at 60 FPS, which is a joke that its not... PS3, Xbox 360, and Revolution better not dick us around likewise...
Okay no more rambling... need more coffee!!!
To be honest with you Pimpbaa, I think today gamers aren't anal enough.
Anyway, some sensitive Sony peeps in the place. The Next gen is wide open & its all down to software & budgets to market. It matters little how games sell this gen & at the tail end of this gen. Its what they did & how they performed this gen on your tv that will affect the minds of consumer buying into the next gen.
Let me explain.
GT4 looks nice, It offers little in real terms above GT3, no damage, no online, no AI. On the other hand PGR2 offers online but suffers (because of its 30fps) in the looks dept (I'm not interested in taking this point any further). to the consumer, casual consumer Sony still have the best racer & most capable console on the market. Its the same game they sold you 3 years ago, but it looks nicer. But that does not matter now.
Graphics have that subconcious effect on the normal consumer, regardless of resistance to the frame rates of game. All I'm saying is MS would be in better shape than they are, if their last few games on Xbox looked stunning & all ran at a solid 60FPS, from Fable to KOTORII... to the fourth coming Forza.
I mean what exactly are you arguing or seeing as disillusional Amir0x.
OmniGamer said:
not only does the 1998 Ridge Racer Hi-Spec run at 60fps on PS1, twice the framerate of the original 1994 PS1 conversion, but Hi-Spec also has much better texture-mapping, shading, and slightly improved car models. just compare. it so totally kills the original PS1 version, its not even funny
MS is very conscience about making a viable piece of hardware that will turn profitable in its generation. To do that some hard decisions have to be made its all related to costs. People who expect MS Xbox division to go all out on hardware just because they're parent company has billions to spare is fooling themselves. They want there Xbox division to stop operating at a loss and without a Halo title releasing every year it will be hard to accomplish that without making a few sacrifices in hardware bells and whistles wether its a hardrive here or extra GPU dedicated ram there. They want a powerful hardware but not one that will send them in the hole again.
segatavis said:
I tend to agree with this post, and posts like it, myself. will i refuse to buy a game that is not 60fps ? depends. for Doom3, i'm not buying Xbox version because of that true. but then, the 30fps of RE4 did not stop me from buying and enjoying such an outstanding game. the same will be for the new Zelda on Cube. i will be first in line to get it even though its sure to be ~30fps plus or minus a few frames per second.
other games, like Forza and the older PGR2, i am specifically avoiding for their framerates. even GT4 which is 60fps, i am still concidering that purcase. I didn't buy Saturn Daytona either (any version) but did get Dreamcast Daytona. 60fps. I also did buy Sega Rally 2 DC even though it has horrible framerate problems (though for brief times it does go at 60fps).......
It would be a dream come true if all Xenon, Revolution, Playstation3 development was done with game engines built around 60fps no matter what. I think that would be possible with some disapline. of course it wont happen because developer want prettier graphics that CANNOT be done a 60fps, and often not even at a consistant 30fps. because consumers, for the most part, dont give a fuck, as long as the game "looks awesome".
Pimpbaa
Member
On the topic of frame rates. Shouldn't the supposedly 10 MB eDRAM in the Xbox 2 ensure that more games are 60fps (by helping offload some bandwidth usage of the video chip to the main ram)? I always assumed most xbox1 games were 30fps because of bandwidth problems of sharing video and system ram.
Pimpbaa said:
I had similar thoughts about both Xboxen as well. Xbox1 not only does not have any eDRAM in its GPU, but its GPU also has to share the 6.4 GB/sec bandwidth with both the CPU and the MCPX. I was hoping that even though Xenon appears to have a shared bandwidth architecture again (22.4 GB/sec shared between CPUs and VPU) that the 10 MB of eDRAM would aleviate some of the strain on the main external bandwidth. thus allowing for potentially better framerates.
DopeyFish said:
I read every bit of it. He suggest that because MS is calling the shots with the overall design of 360 that they have made some decisions that as a developer seem to be constraining the hardware in resolution and FPS. Are you suggesting that the problem could be solved without elevating costs of the GPU architecture? He talked about 10mb edram in the GPU perhaps being the biggest constraint as if it should be more.
Did you read it?
Community Forum
Member
defjah said:
defjah said:
defjah said:
defjah said:
defjah said:
When defjah comes along, you must zip it. Zip it good.
Duckhuntdog
Member
Blimblim said:
Same here. MS pretty much states in every document concerning image output that they feel 10 megabytes is more than enough to comfortably fit a 720P frame buffer if not a 1080i image.
I know many of us here will benefit from HDTV gaming, but there is still a big feeling that average joe console buyer isn't a tech savy as us and still do their gaming at 480i.
Other than the Edram, pretty much everything mentioned has already been over a million times now around here and other places: PS3 will probably be the most powerful hardware next gen, while Xenon will have a very nice development environment and Nintendo at this point being an unknown.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Talk about hasty...the original quoted post at the topic's beginning seems to be a typical, 'I want a perfect piece of hardware' lament. Nothing is going to be as nice as this guy wants thanks to the reality of cost considerations that any business will have to deal with. I'm not even sure why he starts talking about frame rate when, as typical with a console release, the first gen games are invariably lacking in something...and this guy's something is 60fps. It's just like any first wave...for any console. Some games are gonna be incredibly 'next-gen,' while (hopefully not too many) others will look like last gen or something from the middle of last gen. It's still really early, though, to make statements that seem to indicate that it will not get better...as it always does throughout the course of the lifetime of a platform. Easier development is always better than the alternative and is the best way to ensure that second wave efforts more-fully consider the hardware they're working on while (hopefully) learning from past work on the system.
The whole thing just sounds silly, IMO. We'll see more 60fps stuff this gen than last, that much I am quite certain...but not everything will be locked at 60fps... Par for the course, I'd say.
The whole thing just sounds silly, IMO. We'll see more 60fps stuff this gen than last, that much I am quite certain...but not everything will be locked at 60fps... Par for the course, I'd say.
Pimpbaa said:
Come on. There's been a lot of circle-jerking about how this game is doing this processor intensive effect and that... and how game B isn't in the same league technically because it's faking it's effects and it's doing them like the technically impresseive A.
A lot of these effects are completely missed by the majority. If game B can "fake" an effect and look just as good to the eyes as game A, use the power gained to address things that actually have an effect (Like framerate).
MightyHedgehog
Member
OT:
I love this game. I'd always get a decap on my bro within 5 seconds of nearly every match. Barbarian/Death Sword rocks.
I love this game. I'd always get a decap on my bro within 5 seconds of nearly every match. Barbarian/Death Sword rocks.
anotherworld
Banned
if every game is 30fps then a good reason not to get it...save me the money..
Thompson said:
I watched this thread with amused detachment, but that is honestly one of the absolutely most braindead things I have seen anyone on this board ever say.
You do realize that high sales expose your game to a larger base and primes the pump for a sequel.
Maybe it is that they are two entirely different kind of games. Maybe it is the sales juggernaut called GT has pretty much a built in audience of fans from previous games.... maybe, just maybe, it is a better game.
Selling updates to a brand hits a critical mass point where the sales just begin to sustain sales. See Madden. Crap games can sell well just because of their brand status, and the average gamer doesnt really care if a game runs at 60fps or 30fps. See GTA series.
MS would be in better shape if Fable had not been a disappointing game, regardless of framerate. I think you have this idea that some developer just types in a number and poof, that is the framerate. It doesnt work like that. Im sure they would have loved to have KOTORII at 60, but this isnt an infomercial, and you cant just "set it and forget it" with framerate.
Im guessing you are in your early to mid teens, as someone has yet to let you know two very important things:
1) It is delusional, not disillusional. (You made that mistake twice in this thread, and if disillusional were a word, it might mean something like not an illusion, aka "based in reality," so I am not sure if you really got a good zing on Amirox there. Maybe you meant disillusioned which is "The condition or fact of being disenchanted."
2) About Forza. I am afraid I missed the first, second, and third comings. Ill have to give a shot on the fourth. You mean the forthcoming Forza....
Not to be an orthographical bitch, but if you sound like an idiot, think like an idiot, and act like an idiot.....
Virgin Wii
Banned
tetsuoxb said:
Harsh, but fair.
I know, try argue with him. It really feels like hitting your head against the wall. He thinks developers are lazy and just need to buckle down and get those games up to 6o fps. Despite the fact that many are overworked to the point of exhaustion. Gotta have those frames per second.
I see people say 30fps is good because then they can make the games more detailed... Yet the best looking games are almost always 60fps.
60fps is also very important for realism, it`s the smoothest possible on a TV and the framerate television broadcasts usually run at (sports etc...). Casual gamers might not know or really care, but one of the reasons why they say "wow, that looks almost real" when they see GT3/4 is because of the 60fps. You will not hear the same when they see Forza that`s for sure.
60fps is also very important for realism, it`s the smoothest possible on a TV and the framerate television broadcasts usually run at (sports etc...). Casual gamers might not know or really care, but one of the reasons why they say "wow, that looks almost real" when they see GT3/4 is because of the 60fps. You will not hear the same when they see Forza that`s for sure.
Gregory said:I see people say 30fps is good because then they can make the games more detailed... Yet the best looking games are almost always 60fps.
60fps is also very important for realism, it`s the smoothest possible on a TV and the framerate television broadcasts usually run at (sports etc...). Casual gamers might not know or really care, but one of the reasons why they say "wow, that looks almost real" when they see GT3/4 is because of the 60fps. You will not hear the same when they see Forza that`s for sure.
FUCKING HELL! Thompson's contagious.
NTSC TV broadcasts are 480i 29.97fps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC
Gregory said:I see people say 30fps is good because then they can make the games more detailed... Yet the best looking games are almost always 60fps.
60fps is also very important for realism, it`s the smoothest possible on a TV and the framerate television broadcasts usually run at (sports etc...). Casual gamers might not know or really care, but one of the reasons why they say "wow, that looks almost real" when they see GT3/4 is because of the 60fps. You will not hear the same when they see Forza that`s for sure.
Pwned!
jesus. what's with teh stupid. Time to move on from this thread. Thanks for teh funny
Similar threads
- Locked