To answer the OP's question, it's just because there are fewer teams working on focused 360 development than there are on PS3. Sony has a bigger first party lineup of studios and they all are in closer contact than Microsoft's teams so tricks from one of Sony's group can be put to use by the others. If Microsoft had a larger first party lineup and more studio contact then there would be a higher number of stunners on 360. It isn't a technical issue at all. Being the go to console for most multiplats this gen has been a pretty huge boon for the 360 anyway.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
why so few graphically outstanding games on 360?
- Thread starter Shadow of the BEAST
- Start date
Correctomundo
Member
I slaughtered a sack of puppies because of this post.
There are many factors involved when looking at the graphical output of a game. Art direction and asset pipeline usually play a bigger part than specific bells and whistle tech for example.
with games that impress you [versus those that don't], ask yourself: is there something game A does that game B does not? Is there something with the design of game B that may introduce limitations? Comparing exclusives or different games in general is usually all about putting things in perspective IMO.
IIRC certain GPU calls need to run through the API, however assembly is in use on the 360. According to a thread at B3D the work usually isn't worth the performance gains outside of vector optimizations.
Edit:
Found the thread
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=61031&highlight=assembly
with games that impress you [versus those that don't], ask yourself: is there something game A does that game B does not? Is there something with the design of game B that may introduce limitations? Comparing exclusives or different games in general is usually all about putting things in perspective IMO.
IIRC certain GPU calls need to run through the API, however assembly is in use on the 360. According to a thread at B3D the work usually isn't worth the performance gains outside of vector optimizations.
Edit:
Found the thread
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=61031&highlight=assembly
NullPointer
Member
No need.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
The sequel will be 'why are there so few games on the PS3?'
And then... "How is the PC so goddamned good at everything?"
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
Na, it'll be 'Do you need a $20k PC to run Crysis?' or 'Why are there no games on PC besides Minesweeper?'
CamHostage
Member
Oh, I think it helps a lot in brand loyalty. (Which may be fading as the "hardcore gamer" audience is seemingly dissipating, but it's still a factor.) Sony got off to a rough start at first after its "Death Star" showing at E3 2005 proved to be more promise than could be delivered and its high price tag could not be justified right away with software, but they recovered with continued wow-factor in LBP and Uncharted and GT5 and Heavy Rain and such. PlayStation has seen previously-exclusive franchises go multiplat, they've seen markets they previously reveled in (Japanese RPGs, UK party games, all-ages action games) dry up, they've seen countless PS360 games released to unfavorable reviews on their platform, and yet they still maintained a steady build. PlayStation still has cache even though Microsoft had plenty of opportunities to crush. I think a lot of that came from the promise every year that something mindblowing was still around the corner whereas on the other system there was Halo and another of those dudebro games by Bleszinski and then a bunch of other stuff already on the other system (albeit worse, but there was always faith that it was just a matter of time before -POW- the cell processor would be mastered and the system's power unlocked.) Even as Microsoft amassed a strong library (there are some awesome games only on Xbox 360,) nothing stood out, whereas Sony could show the Kara demo, something they're not even planning on EVER shipping (or even show/release a realtime demo of, by the way,) and get long-standing recognition.
Not to mention, the end of a gen is when historically you see the most 100%-110% effort put into games. All the technical hurdles are mastered, and a lot of eyes are starting to wander towards new hardware, so usually you pull out all the stops because you know what you're doing and what the stakes are. Think God of War 1+2, Black, GTA:SA (for scale), Zelda:TP on Cube, Halo 2, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Donkey Kong Country, Super Mario RPG, stuff like that.
Just today, a thread popped up about the Best Graphics on PS2. That was a system that was clearly outclassed by Xbox 1, even by GameCube, but people want to talk about it for half a dozen pages. I don't think that happens if you don't build culture around the "wow" factor. And I'm worried that without unchallenged wow in a large portion of the Xbox library, Microsoft could be setting up a paper tiger for next-gen. The reasons they're still the killer box is because A) they have a great online service, and B) the competition blew it in hardware design and now still developers struggle to create multiplatform games that achieve even parity. {*And maybe C) Achievements, but that hasn't helped Windows Phone or Xbox Live for Windows.} If they don't have the best hardware next-gen, what's keeping people tied to their current champion? Do people love their Xboxes, or do they just love what their Xboxes are doing for them right now?
Identity has always been a challenge for whitebread Microsoft. They'll probably solve it in other ways, maybe they already have, but cutting-edge games exclusive to or markedly superior on the system historically were the way to create that face. Since every game superior on Xbox this gen is largely attributed to a screw-up on PS3 rather than an amazing effort on Xbox, MS cannot rest on that being their identity.
So why is this specific to 360? I mean maybe the PS3 has 3 or 4 games that are upper tier for the system, and 360 has maybe two. Then the Wii has, well zero.
This generation had a huge jump initially just by going HD. Then we had Gears of War which was amazing. And then IMO it took until Uncharted 2, I think about 3 years later before we really saw another jump.
I just do not understand why this question would be specific to MS?
This generation had a huge jump initially just by going HD. Then we had Gears of War which was amazing. And then IMO it took until Uncharted 2, I think about 3 years later before we really saw another jump.
I just do not understand why this question would be specific to MS?
mysticwhip
Banned
not trying to disprove your point but that is one of the first screens of UC2 that was in the gameinformer reveal. that area looks better than that, especially the lighting.Halo 3 was so much in sub hd that it was almost SD game, but that Chief model in first shot IS exactly the same as in gameplay. Second shot is from CGI...
Those photos where confirmed in game, with in engine dof. Those are in game assets and thats lighting thats you are going to see in the game, as well as shadows, nothing is changed. The fact that it was taken from particular POV from their engine just shows what parts they wanted to show to people.
UC2 is fine example...
Taken from engine, not part of gameplay or cutscene, but not in any case "photoshop" of what game actually looks like.
I just took first screenshot I could find. There are tons of these for every game. My point was, reveal of H4 was MP based, and SP part where only bits with MC to show of how he looks like.
Metro 2033 looks great on the 360. Rare's non kinect games also look great. And Max Payne 3 looks better than anything on consoles and is multiplatform.
A-A...no... It has best animations on anything ever released, but not graphics. Actually, RDR IMO looks better.
Fixed for exclusives. OP is talking games that push the systems limits. Not whether the 360 has better multiplatform games.
That was a damn fine level in terms of graphix. A lot of the MP maps look fantastic as well.I can't find a good pic of it for the life of me but the submarine level in Gears 3 was unbelievable looking.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
He only said "graphically outstanding games." He didn't say a word about exclusives.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
I was under the impression that Nintendo sold the most amount of hardware and has had a significant amount of exclusives during the time where they were leading (not so much recently).
And outside of a few quarters, PS3 has outsold the 360 since 2008.
I think the entire subject of the OP was lost in the system wars debating, but its pretty obvious he's asking why there aren't that many games being made that go "to the metal" of what the 360 can do.
And most folks who are paying attention to the question are saying "because they don't have enough 1st party devs". /thread
OverHeat
« generous god »
Are you sure about your ps3 vs 360 sales number.....
James Sawyer Ford
Member
Yeah, pretty sure. This forum focuses a bit on US sales, but world wide the PS3 has closed the gap between the 360 from 2008 onward, which means it's been selling better.
There's been a few quarters where the 360 has done better (Q1 2011 comes to mind following a breakout Q4 with Kinect's introduction), but subsequent quarters have seen the PS3 sell more.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
The point of exclusives isn't to dismantle the competition's own sales, just increase or sustain sales/awareness of your own platform.
And as long as they meet that objective while remaining profitable on the dev costs, I don't see how how it isn't worth the investment unless you consider the opportunity cost of using that money for other purposes that may have a higher return. But in Sony's situation I don't see a much better return on capital investment than bolstering their own first party studios.
KZ3 has some of the best IQ available today on consoles. Even in 720p screenshots it looks mind numbingly detailed. It looks even better in motion due to the insane post processing effects, so I don't really get this "known tactic" malarkey.
shinobi602
Member
Uno Venova
Banned
Reach isn't outstanding graphically, it looks good though, nice skyboxes.
TUROK
Member
Yeah it is. Great graphics aren't just about a bunch of post-processing effects and overblown lighting. What Reach lacks in those it makes up for in massive poly counts for the environments, enemies, and guns. Hell, the weapon model you see in your hands is the exact same one that lies on the floor as a pickup. That right there is massively impressive.
Uno Venova
Banned
But still, what I'm seeing on screen doesn't stand out greatly from other games or really wow me, besides the aforementioned skyboxes.
Not really if it uses a LOD system that ups poly counts the closer things are. If it doesn't use such an LOD system for details such as weapons on floors, I'd say it was pretty un-optimised and inefficient coding.
Though I agree, for a sandbox style shooter, whilst not mind blowing, Reach looked very impressive indeed.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
Reach isn't technically impressive at all. It's a good looking game, sure, (complimented by good artistic design) but it doesn't even strike me as one of the best looking 360 games. There's nothing that really stands out about it - lighting, environments, textures all seem fairly average. But as a package it comes together nicely, just isn't what I'd consider outstanding.
TUROK
Member
Obviously it uses LOD, all games do. But LOD isn't some magic technique that lets you throw a million polys at something while it's close. Those models still have to be stored in the memory.
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
But up close you generally don't have nearly as much to store in the memory hence why more of it can be afforded to such things as detailed guns on the floor. Not saying it's not a great little added detail, but it's not really a good example of the game being graphically "massively impressive".
James Sawyer Ford
Member
All this says is that the game looks better than Halo 3, which wasn't a very good looking game to begin with. Halo Reach is a big improvement, but it's a far cry from an outstanding looking game. Gears of War 3 and Banjo Nuts and Bolts look far better on the 360. Halo Reach looks drab and sterile in comparison.
shinobi602
Member
Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Downsampled or not Killzone 2/3 are amazing looking games, there's no need to try and make them out to be anything less, it only makes you look like some over bias fanboy.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
This thread fails. It should be filled with eye candy GIFs and youtube videos. I'm disappointed.
Lion Heart
Banned
Halo is a colossal disappointment this gen. CE blew me mind and made me buy an Xbox in 2002, the graphics were up there with the best imo. Before this generation started, I was dying to see what the next Halo would look like...well they didn't come through.
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
That's fine if you don't find it good looking. It's just game design; Bungie wanted it to look like a Halo game. Basically my point is, you cannot say its not technically impressive for what it does on consoles.
I think they look like shit. Really detailed, high definition shit with excellent lighting and particle effects.
This.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
I actually think the art looks good and in general I like the Halo universe, but the technical aspects are pretty unimpressive. The lighting in particular is generally flat, the textures aren't anything special, and the world geometry looks a bit low poly compared to other games. For instance I think Gears 3 and Banjo have better technical aspects in practically every single area.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
As others have said, Halo Reach is certainly a very good looking game, but I do agree the PS3 has the upper hand with games like Uncharted and Killzone. Uncharted particularly looks amazing, that games has made me expect a lot more when it comes to console games.
I went and took a few pics from Halo Reach from the level The Package but forgot the online screenshot feature is not available right now, ah well. That said, that level looks really good during the beginning part. Another good looker on the 360 would be Gears 3, and of course while we haven't seen much Halo 4 looks phenomenal.
While I think the criticism of Warthogs dashboard is a little ridiculous, you also have to realize you really never see that thing close up as you drive in first person. Also, MC looks amazing in that shot, armor, visor, lighting etc.
I do agree the BR's textures are really underwhelming though, and while Im hoping they are placeholder, I'm gonna guess thats not the case.
I went and took a few pics from Halo Reach from the level The Package but forgot the online screenshot feature is not available right now, ah well. That said, that level looks really good during the beginning part. Another good looker on the 360 would be Gears 3, and of course while we haven't seen much Halo 4 looks phenomenal.
While I think the criticism of Warthogs dashboard is a little ridiculous, you also have to realize you really never see that thing close up as you drive in first person. Also, MC looks amazing in that shot, armor, visor, lighting etc.
I do agree the BR's textures are really underwhelming though, and while Im hoping they are placeholder, I'm gonna guess thats not the case.
Similar threads
- Poll