Are you impressed? To answer you must give a brief description of why or why not.
One of very most apparent effect the 360 has had on many gamers here is that we are clearly reaching a point of "diminishing returns".
There are perhaps better phrases to describe the phenomenon, but I'm referring to how upgrades in visuals go almost un-noticed to the layman, and thus a jump in graphics isn't seen by most gamers. There are a few whores who will notice these differences, but there is much evidence on this very forum that people can't tell the difference between a real-time dynamically created shadow, and one that isn't.
Comments have been made (on this very forum) that it's simply [insert current gen title here] in high res. These are totally off the mark, yet the general public may feel the same way, most people simply may not see the difference. Especially when considering that they would be playing it on a standard 4:3 640 by 480 TV. It may look cleaner, but that's it.
My personal opinion is that most 360 games look like pre-rendered CG. The models are round enough, the multitexturing gives everything a seemingly endless amount of geometry, and the lighting is absolutely excellent.
Some games are absolute duds, and I fear that many developers won't know how to use this power effectively. Secondly, how do you make current games look better?
For example, if you were in charge of artistic direction, how would you make Burnout 3 look better? Of course, higher res, more particles, better lighting/shadows/reflections...but we're reaching a point where realism isn't being held back by hardware, but by the artists. More realistic colours is a given, but that could have been attained on current consoles.
I'm impressed by the developers who want to do more. As I predicted in many other threads (it was an obvious point), Visual Concepts would be leading the way in this manner.
On the other hand, games like Tony Hawk look horrible. A game like Dead Or Alive looks great, but as many saw Soul Calibur 2 on the GC on the same level as SC1 on the DC (there was a difference in graphical prowess, but because of the similar art style many people didn't see an upgrade), people will see the new DoA as a slight upgrade over the last one (again, due to the art). Again, the whores notice the difference, and the normals (thank you Warrior) don't see any.
I'm impressed by the power of the console, but I'm only being impressed by a handful of games. These games are visually ambitious, and do more than just look great, they move/animate great. But what I do notice is that the law of videogame graphic "diminishing returns" is out in full force, and people may not see this generation as a big leap over the last.
One of very most apparent effect the 360 has had on many gamers here is that we are clearly reaching a point of "diminishing returns".
There are perhaps better phrases to describe the phenomenon, but I'm referring to how upgrades in visuals go almost un-noticed to the layman, and thus a jump in graphics isn't seen by most gamers. There are a few whores who will notice these differences, but there is much evidence on this very forum that people can't tell the difference between a real-time dynamically created shadow, and one that isn't.
Comments have been made (on this very forum) that it's simply [insert current gen title here] in high res. These are totally off the mark, yet the general public may feel the same way, most people simply may not see the difference. Especially when considering that they would be playing it on a standard 4:3 640 by 480 TV. It may look cleaner, but that's it.
My personal opinion is that most 360 games look like pre-rendered CG. The models are round enough, the multitexturing gives everything a seemingly endless amount of geometry, and the lighting is absolutely excellent.
Some games are absolute duds, and I fear that many developers won't know how to use this power effectively. Secondly, how do you make current games look better?
For example, if you were in charge of artistic direction, how would you make Burnout 3 look better? Of course, higher res, more particles, better lighting/shadows/reflections...but we're reaching a point where realism isn't being held back by hardware, but by the artists. More realistic colours is a given, but that could have been attained on current consoles.
I'm impressed by the developers who want to do more. As I predicted in many other threads (it was an obvious point), Visual Concepts would be leading the way in this manner.
On the other hand, games like Tony Hawk look horrible. A game like Dead Or Alive looks great, but as many saw Soul Calibur 2 on the GC on the same level as SC1 on the DC (there was a difference in graphical prowess, but because of the similar art style many people didn't see an upgrade), people will see the new DoA as a slight upgrade over the last one (again, due to the art). Again, the whores notice the difference, and the normals (thank you Warrior) don't see any.
I'm impressed by the power of the console, but I'm only being impressed by a handful of games. These games are visually ambitious, and do more than just look great, they move/animate great. But what I do notice is that the law of videogame graphic "diminishing returns" is out in full force, and people may not see this generation as a big leap over the last.
