|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:45 pm
The top pic probably doesn't look as good because it's at night. Anyways, from what I've seen, these games with HD textures and really advanced graphics are usually pretty short.
The Wii has no problem with this, as it doesn't offer as much as the other two graphically speaking. In fact, after working with the GC so long, they can probably do great things with their bigger format. I was amazed that they fit TP on one disc for the Gamecube.
The PS3 is also pretty well off because of Blu-ray. Yeah, people consider it a downside most of the time, but when it comes down to it, the massive space is going to be needed for really long games on the system.
The 360 is the only system I really worry about because of its media format. Yes, it plays HD DVDs with the player, but its actual software is still good old DVDs. It doesn't add up too well though, since it can run graphics that compete with the PS3. I've seen people beat Gears of War in one sitting, and while Halo 3 was a decent length (so I've heard), it sure wasn't pushing the hardware at all. The 360 can still do well when a balance is found, though. Games like Dead Rising definitely aren't short. I worry that the 360 will drag down some games like RE5 because of this, though.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:17 pm
Waynebrizzle The top pic probably doesn't look as good because it's at night. Anyways, from what I've seen, these games with HD textures and really advanced graphics are usually pretty short. The Wii has no problem with this, as it doesn't offer as much as the other two graphically speaking. In fact, after working with the GC so long, they can probably do great things with their bigger format. I was amazed that they fit TP on one disc for the Gamecube. The PS3 is also pretty well off because of Blu-ray. Yeah, people consider it a downside most of the time, but when it comes down to it, the massive space is going to be needed for really long games on the system. The 360 is the only system I really worry about because of its media format. Yes, it plays HD DVDs with the player, but its actual software is still good old DVDs. It doesn't add up too well though, since it can run graphics that compete with the PS3. I've seen people beat Gears of War in one sitting, and while Halo 3 was a decent length (so I've heard), it sure wasn't pushing the hardware at all. The 360 can still do well when a balance is found, though. Games like Dead Rising definitely aren't short. I worry that the 360 will drag down some games like RE5 because of this, though.A valid concern. This is one of the reasons the guys at Free Radical decided to go PS3-only with Haze.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:35 pm
Waynebrizzle The top pic probably doesn't look as good because it's at night. Anyways, from what I've seen, these games with HD textures and really advanced graphics are usually pretty short. The Wii has no problem with this, as it doesn't offer as much as the other two graphically speaking. In fact, after working with the GC so long, they can probably do great things with their bigger format. I was amazed that they fit TP on one disc for the Gamecube. The PS3 is also pretty well off because of Blu-ray. Yeah, people consider it a downside most of the time, but when it comes down to it, the massive space is going to be needed for really long games on the system. The 360 is the only system I really worry about because of its media format. Yes, it plays HD DVDs with the player, but its actual software is still good old DVDs. It doesn't add up too well though, since it can run graphics that compete with the PS3. I've seen people beat Gears of War in one sitting, and while Halo 3 was a decent length (so I've heard), it sure wasn't pushing the hardware at all. The 360 can still do well when a balance is found, though. Games like Dead Rising definitely aren't short. I worry that the 360 will drag down some games like RE5 because of this, though. You know, in the 360, the memory is shared between the GPU and CPU, so it could potentially display more polygons, while the PS3 can hold more polygons on the disks. Pish. I'll let the other two systems' fans battle this out. I'm completely content with the artistic details and vibrant colors in my games. To me, graphics aren't as important. As long as Shining Force 2 is on VC, I'm good. Edit: out of curiosity, what's the compacity of Wii optical discs anyways? I'm told they are supposed to help alleviate loading times somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:17 am
Waynebrizzle The top pic probably doesn't look as good because it's at night. Anyways, from what I've seen, these games with HD textures and really advanced graphics are usually pretty short. The Wii has no problem with this, as it doesn't offer as much as the other two graphically speaking. In fact, after working with the GC so long, they can probably do great things with their bigger format. I was amazed that they fit TP on one disc for the Gamecube. The PS3 is also pretty well off because of Blu-ray. Yeah, people consider it a downside most of the time, but when it comes down to it, the massive space is going to be needed for really long games on the system. The 360 is the only system I really worry about because of its media format. Yes, it plays HD DVDs with the player, but its actual software is still good old DVDs. It doesn't add up too well though, since it can run graphics that compete with the PS3. I've seen people beat Gears of War in one sitting, and while Halo 3 was a decent length (so I've heard), it sure wasn't pushing the hardware at all. The 360 can still do well when a balance is found, though. Games like Dead Rising definitely aren't short. I worry that the 360 will drag down some games like RE5 because of this, though. Ok, no one said that games HAD to be put on HD DVD or Blu-Ray disks. 360 is doing fine, and the only reason to go PS3 exclusive is to take advantage of a lot more space. More importantly, Rsident Evil 5 will be more than fine on the 360. It might take 4 disks, but it's not a multilayer game, either, nor is it a sandbox. A fairly linear design will allow it to perform just as well as the PS3 in almost all aspects...that is so long as you don't have a problem with multiple disks with a linear game...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:44 am
@Tango: I think the Wii optical disks are about the same as standard DVDs.
@Jawes: That's a good point. RE5 wasn't a very good example, since the 4th installment was on multiple disks, too. Yeah, if the devs are clever they can work with the size. I guess I'll wait to see how GTAIV turns out before opening my mouth again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:50 am
Arvis_Jaggamar SuperJawes2112 Arvis_Jaggamar Griggle990 What is the top one, and what is the bottom one. The top one is the GameCube version of the Wii game seen in the bottom picture. Also, anyone who's played the Fire Emblem games for both systems will see a significant upgrade in graphical and animation quality, although I think alot of this has to do with the Wii Fire Emblem having a larger budget and less lazy animators. @ Blu-Ray: the 720p thing is a digital thing. It looks better because you can put more stuff in it. DVDs are already digital, which is why 360 has been doing HD just fine. Blu-Ray's advantage is 1080p and storage for OTHER data. 1080p won't do much on a TV less than around 42", because the details become too small anyways. The storage of other data is what Sony needs to push, making longer games, or more added features/easter eggs to find. Oh wow, good eye, man. Is it possible these photos are doctored then? Because the game doesn't ever look that bad on the Wii. Of course, I don't think it looks that bad on the Game Cube either.... Thats why I asked. So Wii version looks worse than the Game Cube version? That doesn't make any sence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:55 am
SuperJawes2112 Waynebrizzle The top pic probably doesn't look as good because it's at night. Anyways, from what I've seen, these games with HD textures and really advanced graphics are usually pretty short. The Wii has no problem with this, as it doesn't offer as much as the other two graphically speaking. In fact, after working with the GC so long, they can probably do great things with their bigger format. I was amazed that they fit TP on one disc for the Gamecube. The PS3 is also pretty well off because of Blu-ray. Yeah, people consider it a downside most of the time, but when it comes down to it, the massive space is going to be needed for really long games on the system. The 360 is the only system I really worry about because of its media format. Yes, it plays HD DVDs with the player, but its actual software is still good old DVDs. It doesn't add up too well though, since it can run graphics that compete with the PS3. I've seen people beat Gears of War in one sitting, and while Halo 3 was a decent length (so I've heard), it sure wasn't pushing the hardware at all. The 360 can still do well when a balance is found, though. Games like Dead Rising definitely aren't short. I worry that the 360 will drag down some games like RE5 because of this, though. Ok, no one said that games HAD to be put on HD DVD or Blu-Ray disks. 360 is doing fine, and the only reason to go PS3 exclusive is to take advantage of a lot more space. More importantly, Rsident Evil 5 will be more than fine on the 360. It might take 4 disks, but it's not a multilayer game, either, nor is it a sandbox. A fairly linear design will allow it to perform just as well as the PS3 in almost all aspects...that is so long as you don't have a problem with multiple disks with a linear game... Blue Dragon was a Single player RPG, but it came with a few disks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:00 am
I feel a game like RE5 would be able to get away with multiple discs due to the nature of the game, but say a game like GTA or a new Gears came out, those kinds of games would not be multi-disc appropriate, which would still be a gimp to the 360 without being able to install the content to the Hard Drive or having a large disc space to put all the content too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:32 am
Ace Paladin Okay, I've been noticing a lot of _______ is better than ________ because of graphics, and I'd like to just post my opinion/ask questions.
+We've all seen a lot of "I own Gamecube/Xbox/PS2, but and the new Wii/Xbox 360/PS3 is coming out, so I'm going to get that/them. The graphics are sooo next-gen!" Which brings me to my first point. Why would anyone buy the next console and hold graphics as their highest priority? The only reason I'm going to get a PS3/Wii is not for updated graphics on the PS2/Gamecube, but because my franchises/series continue, and there's new games coming out I'm going to like.
+"Wii's graphics are the same as Gamecube." Not really. I've played/watched people play various Wii games, and the graphics are better. Just because Nintendo didn't shove graphics/Blu-Ray/Hardware Stats down your throat, it doesn't mean the graphics aren't improved. Graphics improve with each console gen... but, as in bullet #1, that shouldn't be your soul reason to buy a console.HistoryWak Canis mentioned how a couple of PS3 exclusive games because of the amount of space it takes up for the graphics are very short. I don't know about any of you but I'd rather have non-HD graphics (still decent graphics though. HD isn't needed for graphics to look good) and have the game be a decent length to get my money's worth. I don't want to pay $59.99 for a game that's too short. This Is a better comparison. Wii Game Cube
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:39 am
HistoryWak Part-Time Viking In defense of the Blu-Ray thingy, while HD is not necessary for good looking graphics, with TV's generally being at least 720p now, if a game is not in HD, it's noticeable. The biggest advantage that Blu-Ray offers to games is really the ability to not have to compress the information which eventually could damage or inhibit the data on said disc. It will still will look good(contrary to popular belief). It's not like a game will all of a sudden look like s**t if it isn't. Also, the disc space advantage is primarily for the graphics. I know that because we've seen really long games on disks with less space. I didn't say anything in the contrary, all I stated is that it's noticeable. The PS3's upscaling of PS2 games is a prime example of this, plug in a PS2 and play RE4 or Shadow of the Colossus, and then play the same game on the PS3 with upscaling... It is noticeable, and RE4 and SotC are examples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:06 pm
Part-Time Viking HistoryWak Part-Time Viking In defense of the Blu-Ray thingy, while HD is not necessary for good looking graphics, with TV's generally being at least 720p now, if a game is not in HD, it's noticeable. The biggest advantage that Blu-Ray offers to games is really the ability to not have to compress the information which eventually could damage or inhibit the data on said disc. It will still will look good(contrary to popular belief). It's not like a game will all of a sudden look like s**t if it isn't. Also, the disc space advantage is primarily for the graphics. I know that because we've seen really long games on disks with less space. I didn't say anything in the contrary, all I stated is that it's noticeable. The PS3's upscaling of PS2 games is a prime example of this, plug in a PS2 and play RE4 or Shadow of the Colossus, and then play the same game on the PS3 with upscaling... It is noticeable, and RE4 and SotC are examples. The point I'm making is that is HD-gaming that big a deal? Does it really matter if the games we play are HD? Will it be the end of the world if it isn't? (not knocking it just making a statement.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:17 pm
HistoryWak Part-Time Viking HistoryWak Part-Time Viking In defense of the Blu-Ray thingy, while HD is not necessary for good looking graphics, with TV's generally being at least 720p now, if a game is not in HD, it's noticeable. The biggest advantage that Blu-Ray offers to games is really the ability to not have to compress the information which eventually could damage or inhibit the data on said disc. It will still will look good(contrary to popular belief). It's not like a game will all of a sudden look like s**t if it isn't. Also, the disc space advantage is primarily for the graphics. I know that because we've seen really long games on disks with less space. I didn't say anything in the contrary, all I stated is that it's noticeable. The PS3's upscaling of PS2 games is a prime example of this, plug in a PS2 and play RE4 or Shadow of the Colossus, and then play the same game on the PS3 with upscaling... It is noticeable, and RE4 and SotC are examples. The point I'm making is that is HD-gaming that big a deal? Does it really matter if the games we play are HD? Will it be the end of the world if it isn't? (not knocking it just making a statement.) Well, one can argue that 3D games are not a big deal either, but it was necessary for the evolution of the industry, Gaming needs to keep up with the technology offered in order to keep making an impact, examples of this is of course 3D gaming, the Online gaming revolution, and now HD gaming. Is it a big deal now? Not quite, the bulk of folk still don't own a HDTV (hell, I don't own one yet), but when retailers faze out analog and tube TV's in the coming years as the cost of HDTV's come down to being far more affordable, gaming will need to accommodate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:32 pm
Part-Time Viking HistoryWak Part-Time Viking HistoryWak Part-Time Viking In defense of the Blu-Ray thingy, while HD is not necessary for good looking graphics, with TV's generally being at least 720p now, if a game is not in HD, it's noticeable. The biggest advantage that Blu-Ray offers to games is really the ability to not have to compress the information which eventually could damage or inhibit the data on said disc. It will still will look good(contrary to popular belief). It's not like a game will all of a sudden look like s**t if it isn't. Also, the disc space advantage is primarily for the graphics. I know that because we've seen really long games on disks with less space. I didn't say anything in the contrary, all I stated is that it's noticeable. The PS3's upscaling of PS2 games is a prime example of this, plug in a PS2 and play RE4 or Shadow of the Colossus, and then play the same game on the PS3 with upscaling... It is noticeable, and RE4 and SotC are examples. The point I'm making is that is HD-gaming that big a deal? Does it really matter if the games we play are HD? Will it be the end of the world if it isn't? (not knocking it just making a statement.) Well, one can argue that 3D games are not a big deal either, but it was necessary for the evolution of the industry, Gaming needs to keep up with the technology offered in order to keep making an impact, examples of this is of course 3D gaming, the Online gaming revolution, and now HD gaming. Is it a big deal now? Not quite, the bulk of folk still don't own a HDTV (hell, I don't own one yet), but when retailers faze out analog and tube TV's in the coming years as the cost of HDTV's come down to being far more affordable, gaming will need to accommodate. Gaming don't need to accommodate. Superjawes last week was saying how he'd like to see a new 2D game made. (Not for handhelds, for consoles) People think all this is needed when in reality it isn't. It's nice and all but it isn't needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:47 pm
HistoryWak Part-Time Viking HistoryWak Part-Time Viking HistoryWak Part-Time Viking In defense of the Blu-Ray thingy, while HD is not necessary for good looking graphics, with TV's generally being at least 720p now, if a game is not in HD, it's noticeable. The biggest advantage that Blu-Ray offers to games is really the ability to not have to compress the information which eventually could damage or inhibit the data on said disc. It will still will look good(contrary to popular belief). It's not like a game will all of a sudden look like s**t if it isn't. Also, the disc space advantage is primarily for the graphics. I know that because we've seen really long games on disks with less space. I didn't say anything in the contrary, all I stated is that it's noticeable. The PS3's upscaling of PS2 games is a prime example of this, plug in a PS2 and play RE4 or Shadow of the Colossus, and then play the same game on the PS3 with upscaling... It is noticeable, and RE4 and SotC are examples. The point I'm making is that is HD-gaming that big a deal? Does it really matter if the games we play are HD? Will it be the end of the world if it isn't? (not knocking it just making a statement.) Well, one can argue that 3D games are not a big deal either, but it was necessary for the evolution of the industry, Gaming needs to keep up with the technology offered in order to keep making an impact, examples of this is of course 3D gaming, the Online gaming revolution, and now HD gaming. Is it a big deal now? Not quite, the bulk of folk still don't own a HDTV (hell, I don't own one yet), but when retailers faze out analog and tube TV's in the coming years as the cost of HDTV's come down to being far more affordable, gaming will need to accommodate. Gaming don't need to accommodate. Superjawes last week was saying how he'd like to see a new 2D game made. (Not for handhelds, for consoles) People think all this is needed when in reality it isn't. It's nice and all but it isn't needed. Well, gaming in general is not necessary by that logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:07 pm
Part-Time Viking HistoryWak Part-Time Viking HistoryWak Part-Time Viking I didn't say anything in the contrary, all I stated is that it's noticeable. The PS3's upscaling of PS2 games is a prime example of this, plug in a PS2 and play RE4 or Shadow of the Colossus, and then play the same game on the PS3 with upscaling... It is noticeable, and RE4 and SotC are examples. The point I'm making is that is HD-gaming that big a deal? Does it really matter if the games we play are HD? Will it be the end of the world if it isn't? (not knocking it just making a statement.) Well, one can argue that 3D games are not a big deal either, but it was necessary for the evolution of the industry, Gaming needs to keep up with the technology offered in order to keep making an impact, examples of this is of course 3D gaming, the Online gaming revolution, and now HD gaming. Is it a big deal now? Not quite, the bulk of folk still don't own a HDTV (hell, I don't own one yet), but when retailers faze out analog and tube TV's in the coming years as the cost of HDTV's come down to being far more affordable, gaming will need to accommodate. Gaming don't need to accommodate. Superjawes last week was saying how he'd like to see a new 2D game made. (Not for handhelds, for consoles) People think all this is needed when in reality it isn't. It's nice and all but it isn't needed. Well, gaming in general is not necessary by that logic. I wanna find something I've wanted all along.... Also, it gives the option to those with HDTV's. If a game is in HD, you can of course still play on a regular TV. It's better to offer something yet still offer the same thing for those that don't have what is needed for what is offered. Why not make a movie Surround-Sound for those that want it just because those that only have a two-stereo system don't think it's needed? It just gives the option. ....Somewhere I belong
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
