Slashdot Mirror


Are the 360 Launch Titles Actually Next-Gen?

An anonymous reader writes "1UP has a feature up entitled 'Is This Really The HD Era?' The article begs the question: How many of the games ported to the Xbox 360 (12 of the 18 launch titles were ports) are truly next gen, and how many are just trying to cash in on the hype of the new console? There are some interesting conclusions, but best are the quotes from Peter Moore explaining the HD Era throughout the whole thing: 'Next generation games will combine unprecedented audio and visual experiences to create worlds that are beyond real and they'll deliver storylines and game play so compelling that it will feel like living a lucid dream.' Right."

13 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Truth by Brantano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think just about everyone who has done some research could of realised this without looking at this article, although it does introduce some new complaints (Such as Quake 4 being utterly unplayable, didnt know that). It seems that even though microsoft tried to release some great games for there launch, they just ended up with a bunch of ports and a few decent games. Sadly its been toted as one of the best launches to console date, but this is only because most of the games released for it arnt new at all.

    But the article speaks truth, 12 ported games where nearly all of them dont add a reason (and even take some gameplay away) to add a 10 dollar price tag. Hopefully they can actually release some decent games (or atleast decent ports) or there is going to be some rough tides ahead for microsoft.

    1. Re:Truth by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Nintendo GameCube had the same problem. A lot of the early titles were PS2 ports. Nintendo started rejecting titles that came straight over from the PS2 without using any of the GameCube polish to make the games stick out. Unfortunately, Nintendo made game development a living hell for the developers that they no longer support the GameCube as much as PS2/XBox. I don't think anything will change for the Revolution.

  2. To be expected... by pjh3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a known fact that "First Gen" titles usually don't take full advantage of the hardware. It takes a couple years or more to develop a title, so the devs haven't had enough time with the hardware to maximize it's potential. Same thing will happen with the PS3. It's not news.

  3. Ports by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well... obviously they are ports, not new games specially designed for it.
    Interesting to note, 50% of the games are (EA) sports games.

  4. Let's get something straight by Jtheletter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    'Next generation games will combine unprecedented audio and visual experiences to create worlds that are beyond real and they'll deliver storylines and game play so compelling that it will feel like living a lucid dream.'

    This should read: 'Next generation games could blahblahblah...'
    Fact of the matter is it will be a while before titles actually start looking and - more importantly - playing like true 'next generation' games most of us imagine. Is the power there in this next round of consoles? I think it is, there is definitely a lot of potential, but it's still a ways off. Developers will have to learn the platform and its nuances, and they will also have to create all that higher detailed art and better audio, just because you can render a bazillion pixels doesn't mean the pictures are automatically prettier, someone has to create all the high-res art first. Additionally gameplay itself, AI, multiple paths to completion etc are better supported with these consoles but it will take time for game designers to figure out how to take advantage of all that. And just as importantly, publishers are going to have to give those developers the leeway and the opportunity to take chances with new gaming experiences that push the boundaries of gameplay as well as the system. There's a lot of potential in this new round of consoles, but I think it will take a few years before it really feels like next-gen.

    --
    -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
  5. Next Gen? by Threni · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are any games ever "Next Gen"? If you ignore pre-3d platforms and concentrate on any from the PSX1/N64/Saturn/PC-with-decent-3d-card onwards, which game can't be ported to any other console without losing more than the odd polygon, or slightly smaller levels? Battlefield2 for the latest PC would play the same on a PSX, wouldn't it? Halo could be adequately ported to the N64, no?

    Good gaming is about gameplay, and I don't see that being something that is improved with a few more polygons or an even-uglier-than-last-generation joypad. Perhaps with a 10,000X faster CPU we'll be able to have vaguely interesting AI from non-player characters rather than the useless or scripted crap we have today, but given that the best games are multi(human)player enabled anyway, who cares?

    1. Re:Next Gen? by cgenman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A game is not just the sum of its systems, but an aesthetic experience.

      Power should help with that experience.

      Battlefield 2 would be a much less satisfying experience on the PSX.

  6. HD Era by Targon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Considering that games on the PC tend to be intended to run at 1024x768 or above(1280x1024 or 1600x1200 are very common), that's the video level people want to see from a HD title. I don't think we will see this quality video for quite a while yet. Improved textures are easy enough to implement, but that doesn't mean that the graphics or feel of a game has improved much.

    Now, companies CAN prepare well in advance for next generation computers and equipment by developing well beyond the current abilities of the consoles. Make it so the models use 5 million polygons each in the design of the game. Who cares that the game runs at 3 frames per second on current equipment. Then the developer can scale down the number of polygons in order to make it run on the target system. Rebuild for the next console, and porting will at least provide the graphics improvements people look for. A game like Jade Empire could be re-released with an XBOX 360 version with improved graphics if the original game was intended to be that much better than the original Xbox could handle.

  7. HD by SteveX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The killer for me is HD. I have an HDTV, and the XBox 360 games look beautiful on it.

    If you take away the HD advantage (ie, hook the XBox 360 up to a standard TV) then yeah, there's nothing advanced about the current generation of games. But on a good TV, nothing compares.

  8. First time I've heard this complaint by cgenman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It takes a couple of generations of games for the full potential to be unlocked, but first-gen titles are considered "showcases" for what is to come. The PS2 launched with SSX, Ridge Racer V, and a bunch of other titles that made people lust after the little machine. The Xbox ping pong videos were completely lickable. Mario 64 was light years ahead of the 16 bit era, as was Ridge Racer 1. NFL and NBA 2K on the Dreamcast were shocking. Panzeer Dragoon on the Saturn was light years ahead of the Genesis. Super Mario World on the SNES and Altered Beast on the Genesis both blew away the 8-bit offerings of the time.

    This is the first system launch that I've ever heard of where people are seriously questioning whether or not this is any better than the previous generation. Microsoft has the unfortunate position of both having the last-released current generation system and the earliest-released next one, so that the inevitable comparisons won't find much gulf. But still... wow us now!

    Even Fantavision on the PS2 showed off the system's power. Remember being stunned by the realistic water in Wave Racer? It looks like there was a rush to get the X360 into people's hands, and none of the potential of the system have been tapped. At least, I hope that is what happened. There just isn't much to get excited about currently besides potential, and potential as a satisfying gameplay experience doesn't last very long.

  9. Rewrites instead of backwards compatible by Generic+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thing which concerns me is that instead of just moving on with building the true next generation titles, some shops (EA I'm looking at you) seem to be content with re-writing existing titles again just for the 360 unit.

    I was just reading an article about how EA is converting Burnout Revenge over to Xbox 360 format. Keep in mind this is a very recent title, and I would have expected an Xbox backwards-compatiblity "profile" for this game. EA seem to think people should buy it all over again. To me, this not undermines the whole backwards-compatible angle of the 360 (it shouldn't carry the Xbox name if it can't handle the Xbox games), but smells of extreme laziness on the part of the developer. A re-hash instead of a new gameplay, very this-gen instead of next. But you can bet it'll be sold at a new-game price.

    It's these kind of things which make me, and I'm sure others, wait until next year to see what the competition brings.

    --
    { - Generic Guy - }
    1. Re:Rewrites instead of backwards compatible by Winterblink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keep in mind, EA has been doing this for years with almost all of their licenses. I'm surprised anyone thought they'd come up with something original for the next generation, instead of just doing incremental upgrades to their existing lineups. I mean, it's the company that releases 200x versions of practially everything they have, adding almost nothing new and even taking away things at the same time.

      You're correct that it IS extreme laziness on the part of the developer, but if it's one thing gamers have shown is that they'll eat up the next version of Madden readily. And of course since EA's the only one who can develop NFL-based games, they pretty much don't have to compete with anyone.

      Burout Revenge is a prime example of EA fracking up a license. Burnout 2 was probably the best of the series, because since then the games have gone so eXtreme that they're impossible to play. Revenge is an absolute assault on your senses, and there's little skill (more random luck) involved in actually racing. I know it's all about the crashing, but there's nothing new there either.

      EA's not the only culprit of this of course. The entire first-person shooter genre is guilty of this, with very few games actually doing something interesting and innovative anymore at all.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
  10. Technological Triumphalism At Its Very Worst by NBarnes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Blah blah blah better graphics blah blah.

    Is there an Intel Twain-class chip in the 360 that'll offer hardware acceleration to game storylines? I hadn't heard about that feature, the one that offers support for a full megaGaiman's worth of plot processing with integrated character development support.

    Or maybe the 360 won't do one single damn thing to help developers offer us better plotlines or story. Or gameplay, for that matter; feel free to count all the games that took the move to true physics engines and gave us truly novel gameplay experiences with them. Don't worry, I'll wait.

    Any game designer that really wants to be Neil Gaiman when they grow up, or Sid Meier or Peter Molyneux for that matter, has already noticed that there's no place for them on the cutting edge of console development. That area is well and truly the domain of the very large, the very rich, and the very branded.

    There's good gameplay and good story on consoles, but it's nothing the console makers are doing. And the 360 isn't doing anything except escalating the price of doing business on a console, pushing more creative thinkers onto other platforms.