Whats wrong with the way they look...when you say they dont look like console, you mean they dont look like consoles used to look.
Maybe they dont want them to look like consoles...maybe they want something that goes in a sitting room and doesnt look out of place.
This site is very retroist. Same subject over and over "the problem with 'todays' consoles is that they not yesterdays consoles', "the problem with todays games is that theyre not 2d platformers"..."where have all the proper games gone"..."the problem with todays developers"...get over it.
The word "prerendered" as its used in the games industry is a buzzword that has little meaning.
I can 'prerender' things entirely using my GPU if i wanted to.
Well ive read the white papers and seen the test results comparing the Cell to other top range CPUs and the thing takes them appart in applications involving media and poly pushing.
Also PS3 will have a built in PSU.
but im not talking specs...
...i used my eyes to look at the difference.
XBOX360 graphics, in my opinion, have been laughable so far. I wouldnt call it a next-gen console, its.5 at best.
Ive read some of the things Microsoft has in its graphics R+D, its 10 years ahead of its 360. The only glimpse of nextgen graphics in the 360 titles is:
1: the dirty but functional motion blur in gotham
2: the paralax mapping in perfect dark (though it was implemented incredably badly and looked terrible)
What havent i seen in 360 that i think should be standard in nextgen consoles:
1: proper texture filters, texture filtration in console games is aweful to look at.
2: anitaliasing as standard (as it is in all the modern GPUs they say theyre using.
3: Unified HDR (non of this tonemapping = HDR rubbish)
4: Some sort of motion blur (wether post filter or whatever) to fix the naffness of refresh rates.
But what did we get? Games that are 99% old generation just with everything on.
"neck and neck for visuals"
Thats a joke, right?
"...the two bohemoths [Sony and Microsoft]"
Microsoft isnt a bohemoth in the games industry, its a little fish.
Theres a fundamental flaw in using a GPu as a PPU...most of the technology in a GPU that youve PAID FOR (fast AA, texture filtering schemes, mipmapping, z-buffer technology, optimisation schemes etc) will be totally irrelavent for physics work.
...another thought: sound studios use high res sounds. Game engines are mixing many sounds together and adding effects, so having very high res sounds at the start of this process makes sense for the same reason having high res sounds in the studio makes sense.
All misconceptions forced in place by CD marketing companies back in the day exploiting a lack of understanding of how human hearing works. Theyve been around so long that theyre making it difficult to justify sound quality higher than the false golden standard of "CD Audio".
Perception of sound goes far beyond 22kHz.
Game developers dont need more storage space...k...so why when i install a game do i see overly compressed images and movies and horrible quality sounds?
Why arent all the images and movies compressed lightly? Why arent i hearing 96KHz sounds (that my card supports)?
Its not my problem developers cant think of something to put onto the disk.
Saying this PPU is just a 'Math(s) Processor' is like saying a graphics card is just a rasterisor...its not true.
At its most basic it is just a FP calculator in the same way a GPU is just a chip...but in both cases its the surrounding stuff that makes them fast. Things like automatic optimisation schemes and specific enhancements to the architecture.
Take for example mipmapping or antialiasing or automatic shadow culling schemes...all designed around image theory and human perception...arent applicable to anything else other than image generation.
A PPU will have similar things that are based specifically on physics and will make it more than just a 'Math Co-Processor'.
How is framerate a measurement of the performance of a physics card?
Also the current limitations imposed by dx9 probably cause bottlenecks given the number of objects being returned by the PPU, i think vista will remove this bottleneck to a lrage extent.
A dual SLI GPU (not to mention quad) is a total waste of money...a huge CPU is a total waste of money too...people still buy them. Why not save some money on the 4 GPUs and huge CPU and invest it in a PPU?
Physics isnt eye candy. Theres alot of physics that CPUs are struggling with right now...and im not talking fluids or ragdolls...im talking collision detection and movement logic...thats all physics and a dedicated card can do it faster and more precisely. One think people dont realise is that physics has to be calculated at a MUCH higer refresh rate than the display frequency for good accuracy.
Individuals deciding to play games less is blatently not the same thing as "teens are playing less"; which implies teens from one year play less than different teens from the previous year. By the time they stop playing the games they might not even be teens anymore...
Believability isnt the same as realism...in fact realism in many cases damages believability for a number of reasons.
plus, realism is subjective. If i show 100 people two pics, one photo and one cg, 50% choose the photo as the real image and 50% choose the cg image...does that mean the cg is as real as real life. What if more people choose the cg image...does that mean the cg image is more real?
If the single aim for the games industry is realism...then theyve got it all wrong.
The real potential of a game isnt its ability to be real, its the fact that its not real.
And i dont believe gamers want realism. Realism has little connection to immersion or even believability.
I am reading alot of articles on slashdot that just seem like someone random saying something without any proof.
how can the reader arbitrarilly discard graphical inovation as not inovation??? Yet then argue that creating ever larger gaming environments IS inovation. The logic of that is severely flawed since expansive environments is part of the graphics system anyway.
I dont see any real connection between inovation and console generations...invoatation just happens in the games...then every few years a console is upgraded to include new inovations, then these are exploited.
i dont see how that leads to any definition of nextgen.
Plus, how exactly do you measure inovation... especially since theres a screaming error since GOLDENEYE did Halos inovation long ago on a console much older...does that mean the n64 is at the same generation as an xbox????
obviously not...so theres no connection between GAME inovation and generations of console. CONSOLE inovation is seperate, however.
Another article about HDR that doesnt actually explain what is really is.
It starts off ok but then falls appart.
Bloom isnt HRD, Exposure control isnt HDR, Radiosity isnt HDR...whats more all of things are possible in LDR (though exposure control is a bit difficult).
HDR just makes everything more realistic.
The stuff about the contrast ratio of displays. The final contrast ratio of the image isnt what HDR is about either. The it will be important with newer monitors. I mean a LDR image has a contrast ration of 256:1...whats the contrast ratio of a normal CRT? LOL, if that was so important...whats the point of downloading normal JPEG previews of loast coast?
Its articles like this are what make people say "WOW..another game with specular bloom...not worth a $400 graphics card".
I am getting tired of reading these articles that attempt to 'dumb down' these subjects for us everyday gamers...the trouble is, most of the time theyre totally misinformed. I remember when HDR first became known (to gamers: its already known to 3D artists), most magazines explained how it was a way of displaying ever more colours and that our current 32 bit systems dont display enough colours to be realistic. Though that might be true its not what HDR is.
The most basic flaw in these articles is that HDR isnt just lighting. HDR makes EVERY aspect of the games graphics more realistic (or has the potential to).
Bloom, motion blur, global illumination (once its implemented in games), fogging, reflections, depth of field, ambient occlusion (once its implemented in games), transparency all become more realistic in a HDR engine. Thats before you even concider the contrast ratio of the monitor.
...on it is that everyone plays the game at a theoretical point in time, which isnt 'game now'. Everyone plays at a point 'game now' + X ms. So the players are actually at 60ms for example.
When a player hits the button, X increases because rather than moving forward in time at the same rate ([game ms per realworld ms] = 1), instead every 'game ms' takes for example 2 or 3 'realworld' ms. So, as you hold the 'bullettime' button down youre X number will increase.
After you let go of the button, you will be at (for example) X=360ms. Presumably, to remedy this, the game will begin to 'catch up' ie slowly reduce this number back to 60ms.
During the 'bullet time' you wont necesarily move more quickly, you will still move at the same speed (thats 'game meters per game seconds'). The important thing is that everyone else will see you ducking or jumping to dodge bullets in a way similar to how high difficulty level quake bots dodge rail guns. Theres no reason why anyone should be able to run faster. They could, but thats not the point of 'bullet time'.
Slashdot Mirror
Whats wrong with the way they look...when you say they dont look like console, you mean they dont look like consoles used to look.
Maybe they dont want them to look like consoles...maybe they want something that goes in a sitting room and doesnt look out of place.
This site is very retroist. Same subject over and over "the problem with 'todays' consoles is that they not yesterdays consoles', "the problem with todays games is that theyre not 2d platformers"..."where have all the proper games gone"..."the problem with todays developers"...get over it.
Imediatly after that comment...it say analysts say that all of the initial ps3s will be sold, yet when sony say that theyre arogant?
The word "prerendered" as its used in the games industry is a buzzword that has little meaning. I can 'prerender' things entirely using my GPU if i wanted to.
Well ive read the white papers and seen the test results comparing the Cell to other top range CPUs and the thing takes them appart in applications involving media and poly pushing.
...i used my eyes to look at the difference.
.5 at best.
Also PS3 will have a built in PSU.
but im not talking specs...
XBOX360 graphics, in my opinion, have been laughable so far. I wouldnt call it a next-gen console, its
Ive read some of the things Microsoft has in its graphics R+D, its 10 years ahead of its 360. The only glimpse of nextgen graphics in the 360 titles is:
1: the dirty but functional motion blur in gotham 2: the paralax mapping in perfect dark (though it was implemented incredably badly and looked terrible)
What havent i seen in 360 that i think should be standard in nextgen consoles:
1: proper texture filters, texture filtration in console games is aweful to look at.
2: anitaliasing as standard (as it is in all the modern GPUs they say theyre using.
3: Unified HDR (non of this tonemapping = HDR rubbish)
4: Some sort of motion blur (wether post filter or whatever) to fix the naffness of refresh rates.
But what did we get? Games that are 99% old generation just with everything on.
"neck and neck for visuals" Thats a joke, right? "...the two bohemoths [Sony and Microsoft]" Microsoft isnt a bohemoth in the games industry, its a little fish.
Theres a fundamental flaw in using a GPu as a PPU...most of the technology in a GPU that youve PAID FOR (fast AA, texture filtering schemes, mipmapping, z-buffer technology, optimisation schemes etc) will be totally irrelavent for physics work.
...another thought: sound studios use high res sounds. Game engines are mixing many sounds together and adding effects, so having very high res sounds at the start of this process makes sense for the same reason having high res sounds in the studio makes sense.
All misconceptions forced in place by CD marketing companies back in the day exploiting a lack of understanding of how human hearing works. Theyve been around so long that theyre making it difficult to justify sound quality higher than the false golden standard of "CD Audio". Perception of sound goes far beyond 22kHz.
Game developers dont need more storage space...k...so why when i install a game do i see overly compressed images and movies and horrible quality sounds?
Why arent all the images and movies compressed lightly? Why arent i hearing 96KHz sounds (that my card supports)?
Its not my problem developers cant think of something to put onto the disk.
Saying this PPU is just a 'Math(s) Processor' is like saying a graphics card is just a rasterisor...its not true.
At its most basic it is just a FP calculator in the same way a GPU is just a chip...but in both cases its the surrounding stuff that makes them fast. Things like automatic optimisation schemes and specific enhancements to the architecture.
Take for example mipmapping or antialiasing or automatic shadow culling schemes...all designed around image theory and human perception...arent applicable to anything else other than image generation.
A PPU will have similar things that are based specifically on physics and will make it more than just a 'Math Co-Processor'.
How is framerate a measurement of the performance of a physics card?
Also the current limitations imposed by dx9 probably cause bottlenecks given the number of objects being returned by the PPU, i think vista will remove this bottleneck to a lrage extent.
A dual SLI GPU (not to mention quad) is a total waste of money...a huge CPU is a total waste of money too...people still buy them. Why not save some money on the 4 GPUs and huge CPU and invest it in a PPU?
Physics isnt eye candy. Theres alot of physics that CPUs are struggling with right now...and im not talking fluids or ragdolls...im talking collision detection and movement logic...thats all physics and a dedicated card can do it faster and more precisely. One think people dont realise is that physics has to be calculated at a MUCH higer refresh rate than the display frequency for good accuracy.
Does anyone else find it annoying that the majority of the posts on slashdot assume you know what the post is about before you read it?
Individuals deciding to play games less is blatently not the same thing as "teens are playing less"; which implies teens from one year play less than different teens from the previous year. By the time they stop playing the games they might not even be teens anymore...
Believability isnt the same as realism...in fact realism in many cases damages believability for a number of reasons.
plus, realism is subjective. If i show 100 people two pics, one photo and one cg, 50% choose the photo as the real image and 50% choose the cg image...does that mean the cg is as real as real life. What if more people choose the cg image...does that mean the cg image is more real?
If the single aim for the games industry is realism...then theyve got it all wrong. The real potential of a game isnt its ability to be real, its the fact that its not real. And i dont believe gamers want realism. Realism has little connection to immersion or even believability. I am reading alot of articles on slashdot that just seem like someone random saying something without any proof.
how can the reader arbitrarilly discard graphical inovation as not inovation??? Yet then argue that creating ever larger gaming environments IS inovation. The logic of that is severely flawed since expansive environments is part of the graphics system anyway. I dont see any real connection between inovation and console generations...invoatation just happens in the games...then every few years a console is upgraded to include new inovations, then these are exploited. i dont see how that leads to any definition of nextgen. Plus, how exactly do you measure inovation ... especially since theres a screaming error since GOLDENEYE did Halos inovation long ago on a console much older...does that mean the n64 is at the same generation as an xbox????
obviously not...so theres no connection between GAME inovation and generations of console. CONSOLE inovation is seperate, however.
Another article about HDR that doesnt actually explain what is really is. It starts off ok but then falls appart. Bloom isnt HRD, Exposure control isnt HDR, Radiosity isnt HDR...whats more all of things are possible in LDR (though exposure control is a bit difficult). HDR just makes everything more realistic. The stuff about the contrast ratio of displays. The final contrast ratio of the image isnt what HDR is about either. The it will be important with newer monitors. I mean a LDR image has a contrast ration of 256:1...whats the contrast ratio of a normal CRT? LOL, if that was so important...whats the point of downloading normal JPEG previews of loast coast? Its articles like this are what make people say "WOW..another game with specular bloom...not worth a $400 graphics card". I am getting tired of reading these articles that attempt to 'dumb down' these subjects for us everyday gamers...the trouble is, most of the time theyre totally misinformed. I remember when HDR first became known (to gamers: its already known to 3D artists), most magazines explained how it was a way of displaying ever more colours and that our current 32 bit systems dont display enough colours to be realistic. Though that might be true its not what HDR is. The most basic flaw in these articles is that HDR isnt just lighting. HDR makes EVERY aspect of the games graphics more realistic (or has the potential to). Bloom, motion blur, global illumination (once its implemented in games), fogging, reflections, depth of field, ambient occlusion (once its implemented in games), transparency all become more realistic in a HDR engine. Thats before you even concider the contrast ratio of the monitor.
The list with HL3 on is a list of engines not a list of games... for example it also includes Crytek...not Far Cry
...on it is that everyone plays the game at a theoretical point in time, which isnt 'game now'. Everyone plays at a point 'game now' + X ms. So the players are actually at 60ms for example. When a player hits the button, X increases because rather than moving forward in time at the same rate ([game ms per realworld ms] = 1), instead every 'game ms' takes for example 2 or 3 'realworld' ms. So, as you hold the 'bullettime' button down youre X number will increase. After you let go of the button, you will be at (for example) X=360ms. Presumably, to remedy this, the game will begin to 'catch up' ie slowly reduce this number back to 60ms. During the 'bullet time' you wont necesarily move more quickly, you will still move at the same speed (thats 'game meters per game seconds'). The important thing is that everyone else will see you ducking or jumping to dodge bullets in a way similar to how high difficulty level quake bots dodge rail guns. Theres no reason why anyone should be able to run faster. They could, but thats not the point of 'bullet time'.