Slashdot Mirror
More On PS3 and Xbox 2
News for nerds writes "The BBC has news about the next-generation game consoles, with comments from various third parties. According to Rory Armes, studio general manager of EA in Europe, they have already received the development kits from Microsoft, but not yet from Sony and Nintendo. He assumes Sony's PlayStation 3 will have a little more under the hood and be more cost-efficient than Microsoft's Xbox 2. Gerhard Florin, head of EA in Europe, remarks 'PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.' Spider-Man 2 or Toy Story 2, that's the problem."
Would it be too much to speculate that Apple can easily come out with a iGame console similarly sized like a Mac Mini?
The article mentioned that "Microsoft is obviously a software company first and foremost, while Sony has more experience in hardware", so what then, can a software/hardware company like Apple do?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
when Nvidia said their GeForce FX series could render 6 Jurassic Park quality dinosaurs in real time. Long story short, this is bullshit and it'll be a while before we get such great quality.
http://ipod.fresh27.net/
"We have no idea what the two will look like, but that doesn't keep us from making Wild-ass guesses and then providing 'analysis' on them!"
This sounds like hype to me...how can you render on the fly as well as movies which use huge render-farms to come up with a static video? If he just meant cutscenes....well guess what, thats just the work of any DVD player.
...it seems Nintendo is all but ignored by the MSM, unless it's an article predicting doom and gloom for the country. I think Nintendo's system is definitely the one I'm most interested in seeing.
:P)
And anybody else upset that Microsoft wants to rush the next next generation? I still don't think this generation has been tapped out yet in terms of graphics and gameplay potential (maybe I'm just a bit bitter cuz I bought an Xbox last week
I love this comment.
"Graphics on PC games such as Half Life 2 will be capable on the new consoles"
In another 6 months, PC's will have moved on yet again to the next generation GPU's, leaving these things behind once more.
In the article they mention that a big thing they'll be able to do with the improved processing power is more realistic physics. ??? Does anyone else find that a bit weird? I remember like 20 years ago I played a game with monkeys on buildings throwing bananas at each other. That thing had gravity you could adjust :)
The screenshot does look amazing though... it's going to be really interesting to see where this technology (games) goes not only in the next 18 months, but 5-10 years down the road. Maybe we'll have holodecks after all :)
I store my recipes online (the way nature intended)
Maybe I'm getting old and all but I find with better graphics I end up forgetting about the game and just watching the game. For Halo I'd walk around for awhile just admiring different things while getting shot at by Convenant ships.
;)
Well not really. But I'd feel like I missed something whipping around on the warthog.
This can only be more true with movie like games.
Blurring the lines between cut scenes and gaming. Can't wait! Although I'll probably be too distracted to actually finish my objective
-Teiresias
Every time a new Playstation comes out Sony marketing types talk about how it will deliver movie-quality graphics to the masses in realtime. The truth is that it tends to perform exactly how you would expect it to perform, about the same as a high-end PC graphics card at the time it is released. Given how PC graphics cards aren't very close to rendering movies in realitime yet, I think it is safe to assume that any such statements made by Sony marketing are bullshit.
I read the internet for the articles.
"We can thrown more polygons around and have better AI but if it doesn't make for a better game then that's not very useful."
Yes. I've talked to people at EA. They really have no clue what it takes to get a movie made. When it takes 100 CPU hours to render a typical frame (not unusual) and hours of work by human compositors to achieve subtle 2D effects for which no algorithms as yet exist (such as touching up the lighting because what is aesthetically pleasing isn't geometrically correct) I wonder how they're going to do this stuff at 60fps even if the hardware renders 1000 times faster than is possible on the current crop of PCs.
On the other hand, if by movies they mean the likes of Episode II then Half Life 2 is already better.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Sounds like everyone's goal is graphics realism and immersion. Isn't anybody trying innovate anymore? Thank God for Nintendo. You want immersion? You want to run...they gave you the power pad. You want to punch...they gave you the power glove. You want to shoot...they gave you the light gun. You want to play music...they gave you the Konga bongos. While Sony and Micsrosoft are trying to improve their graphics, Nintendo is actually immersing players in the game by innovating hardware...the only area left for innovation.
And Playstation 2 can presumably render the original Toy Story in real time, right? Just like Sony claimed before PS2 was released ( http://www.dvdfuture.com/features.php?id=2)?
The Pippin, like the Performa and the Newton, was a product of the Dark Times, between when Jobs had control of the company stolen from him, and when he stole it back.
Let us not speak of the Pippin any further.
If a critical mass of Mac mini systems end up in TV rooms across America, a few game developpers will probably gravitate towards exploiting that market, and Apple may find themselves selling a popular game console entirely by accident.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The illusion of total immersion is the first step in building the Matrix. Thank you for your feedback.
-Agent Smith
Nintendo is not an American company. It is not traded on the American exchanges like Sony and Microsoft are. Press about Nintendo is not as useful to the people who actually get "gaming" news from the MSM, except to give perspective compared to Sony and Microsoft, and yes in the American market it is relatively doom and gloom for Nintendo. This is all logical and matter-of-course.
And for a little perspective on rushing things... The GBA and Xbox both came out in 2001. The NDS is already out. Nintendo is the one complaining about the pace of the console cycle. This does not make sense. I'm just saying.
Where the hell did that beautiful picture come from?
g /_40753511_ea_screenshot203.jpg
It's definately rendered - but from what?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40753000/jp
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
In related news, the PS3 will also be packed with the following features:
- Built-in AI indistinguishable from humans
- Integrated 10 MP digital camera
- 10 Gigabit ethernet & wireless
- Controllers will interface directly with the human brain--wirelessly!
- Processor will run at 42 GHz
All these and more, in the Next Sony Platform(TM)!...is there anyone here who still believes pre-release/development crap like this? Anyone? I mean, anyone other than Michael.
And now, it is time for a shameless plug.
You probably shouldn't click this.
... but I have no doubt that the Xbox2 will be larger, louder, and hotter!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I'm positive the next generation of consoles will be very nice to behold, but I also remember all of the hype surrounding the PS2 launch and how the PS2 was such a super computer that they had to ban exports to Iraq, and how it was "movie quality" and such... And then it came out, and it was a clear step up, but not nearly the giant leap the hype suggested.
I suspect we'll see the same thing here.
The other thing to worry about is that the increasing reliance of highly detailed art means games are going to take much longer to produce, cost a lot more to make, and those costs will certainly be transfered to the consumer. Not to mention that when you're making games that require 100s of artists and with artists being a limited resource, you'll be seeing less projects spread among less game developer/publishers, with less competition and thus less gameplay innovation...
So things aren't *all* rosy...
Still, I'm sure I'll buy the Xbox2 on release day... I'm a sucker for new things.
It seems to me that all this technology just increases the effort necessary to produce a given quantity of satisfying gameplay.
Once you add physics into the mix, every object needs to be broken down into more parts, represented in more ways, its possible impact on the game logic dealt with. (No point putting in a maze puzzle if you can bash through walls.)
So now you need hyper-detailed models with hyper-detailed textures and somewhat-detailed physics representations to produce something that looks as good as a second-tier film from ten years ago.
And the state of the art is, say, Half Life 2, a game which provides gorgeous graphics but runs you around on rails -- because providing that level of detail in a more open-ended game is simply prohibitively expensive. Indeed, by all accounts, Half Life 2's game play is unusually restrictive, even by the standards of First Person Shooters.
The key to me is choosing a level of design detail that suits the game you plan to make and then hiring an art director who can make the game look fabulous at that level of detail -- rather than maxing out the level of detail for the hardware currently available, and then producing the best game you can given the budget constraints you're stuck with.
The way things are trending we'll have games where you only get to visit one room because it costs millions of dollars to texture the pillows, insects, cracks in the wall, navel fluff, etc.
Halo was orignally a Mac game, meant to showcase OSX, before Microsoft bought Bungie.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?