Support NeoGAF

[Pachinko]

Okay, for the last 8 months there has been countless bitching pissing and moaning about next gen games not living up to personal graphical expectations and seeing as many developers read this forum I think it's hightime we have a thread where they can read what us huge nerds think on this issue.

Reply by answering these 3 simple questions-

1- What is more appealing, a title that looks like gears of war/naughty dogs new game/MGS4 but runs at 15 fps/ 30fps -w- slowdown or a game that looks like an xbox 1 title running at an unfaltering 60 FPS in full 1280X720P ?

Personally, finding a nice medium is best. Give me special effect crazed content if you can get the game running at a constant 30 FPS , lower the detail level if you have to to maintain this framerate.

2- If you had the choice between buying a game that looks like gears of war but is all choppy framerate wise in 1 month or waiting 6 months for it get cleaned up and have a stable framerate, what would you rather have ?

I realize there are deadlines and all that but going with my first responce, developers should value a stable constant framerate more then anything. 30 FPS , if sacrifices have to be made to hit a deadline then turn off some bloom filters and tone down the bump mapping to make it work. In other words I'd rather wait for a proper finished product then have a rushed inconsistent game. Tomb Raider legend 360 is a good example of this, it's a decent game but with another month or 2 development I'm sure they could have had it running at 60 FPS.

3- Describe briefly through comparisn to existing products what you think a next gen game should look like, post a screenshot if you have to.

I find alot of GAFFers have unreasonable expectations of a next gen videogame. Call it dimishing returns or lacking eyesight , whatever. Stuff that's coming that I feel perfectly lives up to an acceptable standard- Naughty dogs game for ps3, almost any unreal engine 3 games. Again though, stable framerate guys. 60 is smooth and looks fantastic sure but a stable 30 with lots of special effects is also great. Right now the minimum bar for a next gen title I think is stuff like Kameo, anything less then that is kind of lazy.

So have at er gaf. Any developers out there post more questions if this thread doesn't dive into obscurity.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

i expect NEXGEN to have a "T".

 

[Oblivion]

Right now the minimum bar for a next gen title I think is stuff like Kameo, anything less then that is kind of lazy.

I dunno, dude. Kameo may have been a launch title, but Rare are amazing tech whizzes. It's a pretty lofty feat to match that.

 

[Fatghost]

I want rock solid 1280x720p, 60 fps, 4xAA and AF as a minimum starting point.

Although frankly, for many genres I can accept 30 fps, but not for racers, shooters, or fighters. Those must be 60fps.

 

[Mrbob]

Why settle for 15FPS? We are only 8 months into next gen, developers are still figuring out multi core archetectures.

Gears of War/MGS4 quality at 30FPS minimum is acceptable. Why accept less? Next gen hasn't even fully come to fruition yet.

 

[castle007]

New innovative IPs

 

[Calidor]

Why settle for 15FPS? We are only 8 months into next gen, developers are still figuring out multi core archetectures.

Next gen starts when Sony says so

 

[Striek]

1) Both. I don't think there has to be a middle ground.

2) Game should be delayed. Sub-30fps is a no-no.

3) Eight Days in-game portions from the CG(? - common consensus) trailer is about what I expected from next-gen. I don't think anything I've seen comes close to that level of detail whilst maintaining that level of image quality (not that it was perfect) from a gameplay part. IQ is a huge issue next-gen.

 

[SonnyBoy]

1. MGS4 at 30 FPS

60 FPS is NOT needed for every genre.

2. Wait 6 months.

3. I simply want games to follow the current path they're going down.

Grand Turismo - Real-time damge

Madden - dynamic physics

Ace Combat - Terriffic enviroments. I want to be able to fly through an entire city, weaving inbetween buildings. I'd like to see building reflect damage of planes that collide with them and possibly some sign of life in the streets below.

GTA - Online GTA. I want an online world where people can just do whatever they want. I want GAF to form a gang and walk the streets.

 

[Wario64]

i expect NEXGEN to have a "T".

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=110348

 

[IAmNude]

1. MGS4 at 30 FPS


GTA - Online GTA. I want an online world where people can just do whatever they want. I want GAF to form a gang and walk the streets.

You can do that in Saints Row

 

[Campster]

I'd expect "OMG NEXT GEN" to have the ability to provide new experiences and designs not previously possible. So far, I've seen exactly zero of that. It's an overblown, expensive, unnecessary graphical upgrade for people who have forsaken gameplay and mechanics in favor of a fetish for painfully banal realism in their graphics.

Even the most potentially revolutionary aspect of your "NEXT GEN," XBox Live Arcade/Sony Online/Nintendo Virtual Console, is pretty pathetic. We have for the first time a digital distribution for games that would allow independent developers, garage coders, casual game developers, and professional studios alike to release small innovative experiments to the mass market. Instead, we get Smash TV, Street Fighter, and Frogger. Not that there's anything wrong with old games - I think that if this medium is to survive it certainly need to know its heritage and history - but wasting an entire distribution platform on rehashed junk seems like a shame.

 

[IAmNude]

I'd expect "OMG NEXT GEN" to have the ability to provide new experiences and designs not previously possible. So far, I've seen exactly zero of that. It's an overblown, expensive, unnecessary graphical upgrade for people who have forsaken gameplay and mechanics in favor of a fetish for painfully banal realism in their graphics.

Even the most potentially revolutionary aspect of your "NEXT GEN," XBox Live Arcade/Sony Online/Nintendo Virtual Console, is pretty pathetic. We have for the first time a digital distribution for games that would allow independent developers, garage coders, casual game developers, and professional studios alike to release small innovative experiments to the mass market. Instead, we get Smash TV, Street Fighter, and Frogger. Not that there's anything wrong with old games - I think that if this medium is to survive it certainly need to know its heritage and history - but wasting an entire distribution platform on rehashed junk seems like a shame.

A Garage game is coming out on Wednesday. They're coming

 

[BigBoss]

Before nextgen had officially started, this is what I expected:

I've brought my expectations way down since then.

 

[Mrbob]

Next gen starts when Sony says so

Well of course the PS3 helps usher in next gen when the market leader brings their new system to the market. Plus 3rd parties can sell games on two platforms so we get better product overall.

This thread is flawed overall. Gears of War is only the beginning, and things will get better. Having to choose between GoW quality and 15 fps is ridiculous.

Before nextgen had officially started, this is what I expected:

I've brought my expectations way down since then.

Why? Gears surpasses this.

 

[WalkMan]

Before nextgen had officially started, this is what I expected:

I've brought my expectations way down since then.

Holy Sh*t. Killzone keeps getting better and better.

 

[SonnyBoy]

You can do that in Saints Row

But isnt the sandbox restricted in some way? I didn't think you'd be able to wander the entire map with 100 or so people on it at a time? That would be astonishing.

In addition...

Madden:

-dynamic physics

-padding seperated from the bodies of the players

-mild cloth physics

-IMPROVED collision detection! WR's do not have vacuum hands.

-it'd be great if the field could deteriorate like in motor storm!

-stop wasting polygons on crowd! the sprites in NCAA are all we need.

-improved ball physics. Id like to see the elements effect the ball trajectory not only during kicks.

 

[FightyF]

I expect sports games to have photorealistic graphics.

But I've noticed that the barrier to that is not technology, but rather art direction and skill.

In Madden, a goal was set to to painstakingly recreate real life stadiums into virtual counterparts. They have succeeded as it looks like the people who modelled and textured them did some research, and came with a product that looks extremely close to the real-life counterpart. Unfortunately, this goal and research isn't extended to the entire game's look.

I'm not saying that they must focus on player models and that's it. It's a process that begins early and affects every part of the (graphical) development to the game, including animations and use of the game cameras.

 

[Campster]

I expect sports games to have photorealistic graphics.

But I've noticed that the barrier to that is not technology, but rather art direction and skill.

In Madden, a goal was set to to painstakingly recreate real life stadiums into virtual counterparts. They have succeeded as it looks like the people who modelled and textured them did some research, and came with a product that looks extremely close to the real-life counterpart. Unfortunately, this goal and research isn't extended to the entire game's look.

I'm not saying that they must focus on player models and that's it. It's a process that begins early and affects every part of the (graphical) development to the game, including animations and use of the game cameras.

You expect photorealistic graphics? Nevermind the fact that it's basically impossible. What does this add to the game, really? It's an insane cost for nearly no benefit. It's like expecting D&D miniature figures to be modelled and painted such that they're entirely lifelike. It's a massive undertaking that adds nothing to the game.

I'm all for better art direction, god knows we don't see enough of it. But extreme attempts at photorealism come at a huge cost while adding next to nothing, especially for a sports game.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Why? Gears surpasses this.

:lol

 

[sprsk]

I want games with 4 colors and shit.

 

[soul creator]

to go with the killzone thing again, the reason that I immediately thought "fake!" was not because it was so detailed and had some nice effects...but just the fact that it ran with zero slowdown and perfect animations. In screenshots, it's not "omg that will never be done"...so yeah, I don't think it's a stretch to say that gears/mgs4 approach it. In motion it's a different story...

 

[Systems_id]

Before nextgen had officially started, this is what I expected:

I've brought my expectations way down since then.

Pretty much. Gears of War was the minimum I expected while the Killzone render was what I expected from high end developers like Square, Konami, and Namco which is why I find it hilarious that people think games like Dead Rising and Lost Planet look "incredible". Sure they look decent but I expect much, MUCH more from these consoles when it's all said and done, especially with the price hikes.

 

[Ponn]

1- MGS4 constant 30fps with no slowdown


2- uh...broken game or not broken game. I'll take the unbroken game

3- depends on the game and what they are doing and who they are from. I probably would have been a bit depressed if Square showed up to next gen with anything less then what they showed. MGS4 and Gears of War are about right for their respective genres in graphics. I don't expect that level of graphics in a sandbox game though trying something different like Dead Rising or GTA4. Truthfully right now Assassins Creed is really the standard of what i'm truly expecting out of next gen. The graphics, the advanced physics, the advanced AI, the new idea for controlling, just the whole package.

 

[Striek]

I certainly was naive and thought KZ was going to be done next-gen. Back then....the good hope time

In screenshots, it's not "omg that will never be done"...so yeah, I don't think it's a stretch to say that gears/mgs4 approach it. In motion it's a different story...

Maybe if you look at the super-high-renders of GOW, or very specifically placed captures of either from cutscenes WHILST nitpicking the smallest details of Killzone, they approach it.

However, that KZ render is meant to be 'gameplay'. And GOWs gameplay media certainly doesn't approach it - http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360...ew-gears-of-war-screens-20060509031018119.jpg

 

[BigBoss]

Nothing approaches the Killzone 2 CG trailer, its on an entirely different level.

 

[Ranger X]

I think my expectations are realistic, just not the same as game devs right now i guess.

I'd take MGS4 graphic quality at 60 fps. That's what i expect but there's a catch -- i can take it at 480p wich is big enough resolution for gaming. If they can make that 60 fps MGS4 at 720p fine, but any resolution beyond that is useless and use the power of the consoles for no valuable reasons. 1080p doesn't give ANYTHING to any game gameplay wise.

I'd wish devellopement cycles are longer. Less games, but more attention put into each one. I wish there would be more risk from the publishers and devs, especially on the Wii since it's its god damned purpose.

But mostly i wish games would be interactive beyond what we've seen so far. This gen is supposed to be the physics gen and the "nice animations" gen. Every genre is kind of hitting a plateau right now, devs need to focus on interaction and AI so they put their games experience on the next level for real.

 

[Otto]

Pretty much. Gears of War was the minimum I expected while the Killzone render was what I expected from high end developers like Square, Konami, and Namco which is why I find it hilarious that people think games like Dead Rising and Lost Planet look "incredible". Sure they look decent but I expect much, MUCH more from these consoles when it's all said and done, especially with the price hikes.

Seriously, anyone with any common sense knew from the beginning not to expect graphics reaching the level of the Killzone CG. Did you really expect $400-$600 machines were going able to produce those kind of results when it costs movie studios thousands upon thousands of dollars to producer similiar (if not the same) results?

 

[MMaRsu]

Seriously, anyone with any common sense knew from the beginning not to expect graphics reaching the level of the Killzone CG. Did you really expect $400-$600 machines were going able to produce those kind of results when it costs movie studios thousands upon thousands of dollars to producer similiar (if not the same) results?

I think these graphics are reachable at the end of next gen ( when Ps4 / Xbox 1080 are around the corner ).

Honestly

 

[FightyF]

You expect photorealistic graphics? Nevermind the fact that it's basically impossible.

It's possible. Very possible. Easily possible. Heck, anyone with money can do it. Just throw money at the problem...it'll work out.

Seriously, it is something that we are getting closer and closer to, and you may never have something looking 100% realistic (just like with other forms of art, such as photorealistic paintings or photorealistic CG), this generation of technology has all the right elements to help get us there.

Unfortunately, things can't be done on a grandois scale, but games like hockey, football, soccer, are limited in some factors. Ie. Doing a photorealistic GTA game where weather, differing times of day, and multiple light sources all have an effect, it's really hard because there are so many factors. But doing a game such as a racer (that doesn't have any night racing), or a hockey game (every rink is pretty much lit in a similar fashion, and though there are intensity and colour variations, it's pretty much the same), there are less things to factor and it makes things easier. So yeah, I think it's definately possible. I'll go more into it at the end of this reply.

What does this add to the game, really? It's an insane cost for nearly no benefit. It's like expecting D&D miniature figures to be modelled and painted such that they're entirely lifelike. It's a massive undertaking that adds nothing to the game.

It will cost a bit, but the benefit is immersiveness. Another benefit is massive sales so the dev team can live like queens.

I'm all for better art direction, god knows we don't see enough of it. But extreme attempts at photorealism come at a huge cost while adding next to nothing, especially for a sports game.

For a sports game, it adds a lot. Sport, racers, they really benefit from realistic looking graphics. I can't believe I actually have to state this, really!

I see a problem with direction because it seems that some devs are interested in using things like bump/normal mapping, shaders, HDR, etc. but it has no real benefit towards the goal of attaining photorealistic visuals.

 

[MMaRsu]

It's possible. Very possible. Easily possible. Heck, anyone with money can do it. Just throw money at the problem...it'll work out.

Seriously, it is something that we are getting closer and closer to, and you may never have something looking 100% realistic (just like with other forms of art, such as photorealistic paintings or photorealistic CG), this generation of technology has all the right elements to help get us there.

Unfortunately, things can't be done on a grandois scale, but games like hockey, football, soccer, are limited in some factors. Ie. Doing a photorealistic GTA game where weather, differing times of day, and multiple light sources all have an effect, it's really hard because there are so many factors. But doing a game such as a racer (that doesn't have any night racing), or a hockey game (every rink is pretty much lit in a similar fashion, and though there are intensity and colour variations, it's pretty much the same), there are less things to factor and it makes things easier. So yeah, I think it's definately possible. I'll go more into it at the end of this reply.



It will cost a bit, but the benefit is immersiveness. Another benefit is massive sales so the dev team can live like queens.



For a sports game, it adds a lot. Sport, racers, they really benefit from realistic looking graphics. I can't believe I actually have to state this, really!

I see a problem with direction because it seems that some devs are interested in using things like bump/normal mapping, shaders, HDR, etc. but it has no real benefit towards the goal of attaining photorealistic visuals.

Yes but the minor setback you failed to calculate is the high dev costs, which cause the devvers to live like hobo's on the street and/or work 22 hours a day.

 

[Zonar]

Right now the minimum bar for a next gen title I think is stuff like Kameo, anything less then that is kind of lazy. .

QFT

Look at that. The polly count is low but everything is well made and looks better then anything last gen.

 

[Campster]

It's possible. Very possible. Easily possible. Heck, anyone with money can do it. Just throw money at the problem...it'll work out.

Seriously, it is something that we are getting closer and closer to, and you may never have something looking 100% realistic (just like with other forms of art, such as photorealistic paintings or photorealistic CG), this generation of technology has all the right elements to help get us there.

Unfortunately, things can't be done on a grandois scale, but games like hockey, football, soccer, are limited in some factors. Ie. Doing a photorealistic GTA game where weather, differing times of day, and multiple light sources all have an effect, it's really hard because there are so many factors. But doing a game such as a racer (that doesn't have any night racing), or a hockey game (every rink is pretty much lit in a similar fashion, and though there are intensity and colour variations, it's pretty much the same), there are less things to factor and it makes things easier. So yeah, I think it's definately possible. I'll go more into it at the end of this reply.

First of all, I think you're underestimating the price of art content these days. It's the number one factor driving game development costs up. And we're talking exponential, out of control, skyrocketing growth for what has been very little return so far.

Additionally, photorealism really, really isn't possible. Even if we get photorealistic screenshots (which we're still decades away from, if ever), sports games require jerky animations and impossible momentum changes and turns in order to play well. In motion, Madden 06 on the 360 doesn't look that much better than Madden 03 on the XBox.

It will cost a bit, but the benefit is immersiveness. Another benefit is massive sales so the dev team can live like queens.

See, that's just totally out of touch. Skyrocketing development costs from content creation woes are really really hurting this industry, not saving it. If we saw an exponential growth in sales from each pixel shader or bump map we added, that would make sense. But we don't. Our market is expanding, but nowhere near as quickly as costs are increasing. We're still running a hit-driven, one-great-game-makes-up-for-four-other-failures business model.

And 'immersion' is as much of a red herring for games as 'fun' - a subjective and entirely useless design goal.

For a sports game, it adds a lot. Sport, racers, they really benefit from realistic looking graphics. I can't believe I actually have to state this, really!

The graphical presentation can no doubt add to a game. But there's a difference between great art direction and rendering the cloth physics of a player's jersey or having pixel shaders approximate sweat as a game goes on.

I see a problem with direction because it seems that some devs are interested in using things like bump/normal mapping, shaders, HDR, etc. but it has no real benefit towards the goal of attaining photorealistic visuals.

Actually, HDR, bump/normal mapping, and shaders all can contribute immensely to a photorealistic image. Without these technologies you'd be looking at stuff pretty close to Unreal Tournament with nicer textures and higher polycounts these days.

 

[PantherLotus]

My nexTgen expecTations

Graphical Upgrades:
I love sweet graphics just as much as anyone probably, even if I don't quite have the ultimate gamer setup yet. However, I am one of those people that believe we are reaching a threshold of graphical capabilities until another medium of visual transference is discovered...like "retinal processing" or something. And no, HD doesn't count but it's a good start.

I think we're on the right track with Blue-Ray, more RAM, nice shaders and bloom lighting of course, but I'm not sure how much it's worth to get what I consider marginal upgrades in graphical power at the cost of other improvements. I'm confident that excellent graphics can improve the atmosphere in gameplay, but not more than other specific elements, namely control & interaction with the environment.

Control/Interaction
I would have put this first but I think it should be noted that I'm not only a Nintendo fan, but a gaming fan in general. With a BUT! bigger than j-lo's, though, I'm going to say that the Wiimote is what I expect from next gen. This is based entirely on initial and gameplay impressions, but I believe that this is what next gen means. A new way to interact with the game. Something tangible. Nintendo may not get my vote for best way to present their games (graphics), but they take something that is acceptable and make it fun by giving a new, more immersive way to interact with the entire experience...and I think this is important.

Saying this, everybody knows --or at least they should-- that the DualShock pad might very well be the best controller ever invented. And given time, the 360 might take that crown for MS. I can't comment on the PS3 controller (although I kinda liked the boomerang) until i feel its weightiness and 6-motion control in effect. (Weird that it feels like a gimmick when Sony does it, but genius when Nintendo does it so much better? I could be wrong.) Anyway, they both might have the best controllers ever made, but it's honestly more of the same...and more of the same never means next gen. Sorry.

Bells & Whistles
How the system looks- I want something sleek, and something that will fit in my cabinet...like every system before now. The 360 and the PS3 both look like are desktop cpu's made in funny shapes. They really both look quite cool, but would look entirely better sitting on a marble pillar than they would in my crappy entertainment center. I love the white 360, and the PS3's looks are growing on me. The Wii looks like a glowing set of 3 DVD's.

DVD/Blue-Ray player- I would be more likely to think this was extremely important if BR was where DVD was when the PS2 came out. It's kinda how I justified the purchase of a $300 console, y'know? But now with HD-DVD and Blue Ray, and it's so early in the life cycle it's so ****in expensive, it feels like the PS3 is coming out a year too early. And I already have a PS2 and a corollary DVD player, so you can keep that regular crap out of my Nintendo thank you very much.

Sound- I was happy with last gen's sound, including Nintendo. However, I love to see improvements, but not at a cost greater than its worth. I believe it's another one of those diminishing returns thing. Last gen was completely fine. An interesting idea that i've seen so far for next gen has been the speaker in the wiimote. As the wiimote acts like (insert any object here) it will be cool to see how that object might produce a sound in a 3d space in context to the rest of the normal stereo sound. This might be the largest audible leap this gen-placing the player in a 3d audible space by giving the feel that their hand/body/head is in a different world. Or the speaker might suck and I could be too excited for it.

Online Service- This is where next gen is at. Nothing less than an easy way to play whoever I want whenever I want, and I nice set of rankings available too. Make it both regional, personal, and worldwide. I want to DL a bunch of demo's that I don't have to keep, and I think episodic gaming might be the biggest potential of content delivery ever. But **** horse armor. That will piss me off.

Other crap- Microphones, Cameras, etc: only if it increases interaction, immersion and believablity. Eye-toy shit sucked. Guitar Hero rocked. Peripherals are cool if they make the player what they want to be.

Wireless- EVERYTHING must be wireless, including the console itself. And I want mult-outs, too. I mean, I want to be able to hook one console up to several TV's in the same house from one location. And then be able to play the same game with several people each on a different TV...like WiiTennis? WiiFPS? w/e. Make it cool, and make it easy.

COST
The elephant in the room. Yes, high costs should be expected. No, I shouldn't have to choose between a present for my wife (a new Coach purse and some bling diamond earings?) and a present for myself. And if I have to get an HDTV to "really see" the graphical difference, then it wasn't that big of a graphical jump. Sounds like bullshit to me personally. Are you making me pay for shit I don't want/aren't ready for? Are you making me pay for trojan horse format war? **** you. I'll wait until the price goes down.

Oh yeah. I expect it to work for at least 3 years, if not 10. I pay next-gen price and I get a piece of trash and I'll be ****in pissed.


That's all I can think of at the moment. Expect edits.

~PL~
voice of mainstream consumer

 

[Allen]

I'd expect "OMG NEXT GEN" to have the ability to provide new experiences and designs not previously possible. So far, I've seen exactly zero of that. It's an overblown, expensive, unnecessary graphical upgrade for people who have forsaken gameplay and mechanics in favor of a fetish for painfully banal realism in their graphics.

Even the most potentially revolutionary aspect of your "NEXT GEN," XBox Live Arcade/Sony Online/Nintendo Virtual Console, is pretty pathetic. We have for the first time a digital distribution for games that would allow independent developers, garage coders, casual game developers, and professional studios alike to release small innovative experiments to the mass market. Instead, we get Smash TV, Street Fighter, and Frogger. Not that there's anything wrong with old games - I think that if this medium is to survive it certainly need to know its heritage and history - but wasting an entire distribution platform on rehashed junk seems like a shame.

++

As a ‘garage developer’. Or at least one who is banking on Microsoft and Nintendo investing on small development I can tell you support is slow. I’ve been working on a game for a few months now and have received not only no support but no promises or motivation that Microsoft or Nintendo will push outside of the current development system.

Extremely frustrating. Especially considering Microsoft does an admirable job of courting small developers outside of its game division.

I’d like to agree that small development will be a large part of the this generation but I’ve yet to hear any strong evidence to support this. What’s it going to take for me to get a peak inside Wario World?

 

[Amir0x]

To quickly answer points 1 and 2, always priority on 60fps (especially for racing, FPS and fighting games), and always delay the game for a better product.

As to what is acceptable...

For anything next-gen on any platform, there are two paths to take.

If you lack the power such as Wii, I will not accept anything less that artistic mastery.

For PS3/360...

^ this is next-gen. Amazing. If they get the framerate right, how can one complain? This is the next-gen standard. An astonishing jump from current gen, and everything games are about.

 

[Fafalada]

This thread is flawed overall. Gears of War is only the beginning, and things will get better. Having to choose between GoW quality and 15 fps is ridiculous.

Last we've seen it, GoW WAS about 15fps.

 

[brandonh83]

Last we've seen it, GoW WAS about 15fps.

I saw a video of this beast a few days ago that was most definitely not 15fps. :lol

Not 60, mind you, but it looked good enough.

 

[Kleegamefan]

Last we've seen it, GoW WAS about 15fps.

OH SHIT HE WENT THERE!

 

[Pachinko]

Well so far this seems to be a successful thread. You guys may think its stupid to basically ask for either a broken or finished game but seriously it seems to be an issue, look how often games get shipped unfinished, perhaps if these people read this they may think twice and delay a month or 2. 15 FPS was kind of a joke statement but gears of war was running at that speed for quite some time , I'm sure it's cleaned up to 30 by now with the shipdate approaching but not every developer is gonna take the high road.

 

[Fafalada]

Ok ok, they didn't put a fp counters on it, but the E3 stuff looked mostly under 30 (which means 20 if it was VSync locked) range, and I could swear there were drops below that as well.

Then again MGS4 spent more time at 20(and lower) then not as well, in fact most of graphically lauded E3 demos were underwhelming in terms of fps. Maybe I am just having rose-tinted memories but from what I recall of early PS2 generation fps were much more consistent in showcase titles.

 

[threeball]

Campster is winning this topic left and right. But be careful, I went on about that and got banned for a week.

But I totally agree with him. As long as the games visuals don't take away from how much fun I get out of it, I could care less how it looks. As long as its artistically masterful(what Amir0x said).

Right now the next gen is just beginning so we are all excited over the visuals that are coming out for games. But that appeal will wear off after a while after we have actually played the games, and we will care less about what a game looks like and more of how much fun we get with it.

So, as long as the visuals don't suck, I am fine. And I have yet to see a game for any next-gen system that the visual's have sucked. So.. it will all come down to how fun the game is.

 

[threeball]

^ this is next-gen. Amazing. If they get the framerate right, how can one complain? This is the next-gen standard. An astonishing jump from current gen, and everything games are about.

Not to be nit-picky or anything, but what part of a game are you actually playing the game from that angle? It looks like a dialogue cutscene. The graphics may be real-time, but during those parts of the game, the poly counts and detail can be much higher since nothing else is going on.

I went to the Mass Effect images on IGN and it looked like there was nothing but target renders. Is there any gameplay footage screens yet?

 

[Amir0x]

Sorry, the appeal of amazing visuals never wears off except for people who hate games. I love my visuals, never can get old

trakball: Uhm, there's plenty of gameplay footage of Mass Effect. When he's in the one place shooting things, that's gameplay. And yes, that screen is from a dialogue exchange... which you have total control over.

 

[Operations]

Pretty much. Gears of War was the minimum I expected while the Killzone render was what I expected from high end developers like Square, Konami, and Namco which is why I find it hilarious that people think games like Dead Rising and Lost Planet look "incredible". Sure they look decent but I expect much, MUCH more from these consoles when it's all said and done, especially with the price hikes.

Phew, I thought I was alone here. Really, Dead Rising looks decent at best. At some point, GAF standards (generally speaking) were significantly lowered but why or when exactly I don't know.

 

[Amir0x]

people have to take into account scope. Dead Rising takes place in a huge mall and a small little town and has 100s of Zombies on screen at once. This is why, those visuals are much more attractive for what it does.

 

[sprsk]

to me games like dead rising and lost planet offer real next gen visuals. animation, framerate lighting, its all there and its all awesome. these games dont look like crap pc games on a console thus they are to me, next gen.

i hope for more but as for now they are the most next gen imo (excluding shit like gears of war and what not)

 

[Pachinko]

Exactly, Amirox gets it. Dead rising is a very impressive looking game that seems to have consistent visuals. Nothign specifically makes you say WOW as it were but it's a competently executed look.

Actual bad graphics on a nexgen system is stuff like the dynasty warriors XL portoff... or activisions launch lineup ... or GUN. That was barely acceptable crap at launch and now it's just very poor/cannot be bothered.

I'm not saying by making this thread that every developer should strive for X level of detail but moreso that there's a certain threshold we expect and in some ways I think developers thought every gamer wanted killzone renders and they've sacrificed stable framerate and proper playtesting. This isn't the direction I want to see my favorite pastime headed.

I should also note that I don't count Wii to the same level as a 360 or ps3 product. The bar is much lower visually there.

 

[PantherLotus]

Next gen isn't only better graphics. I think that point was missed from my post.

 

[GreggTheGrimReaper]

Pretty much. Gears of War was the minimum I expected while the Killzone render was what I expected from high end developers like Square, Konami, and Namco which is why I find it hilarious that people think games like Dead Rising and Lost Planet look "incredible". Sure they look decent but I expect much, MUCH more from these consoles when it's all said and done, especially with the price hikes.

.