Mass effect and 360's power

How far do you think this game is pushing the 360's power? Are we only seeing the tip of the iceberg or nearing a limit? What's your opinion.

Gears took up like 98% of one of 360's cores (it has 3). I'm guessing Mass Effect is using 100% of one core. Early games never take full advantage of a consoles power.

Look at last gen: Chaos Theory, Black, Halo 2, and other great looking games came in the late stages of the console's life.

SO basically, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I think it's using a lot of 360's power, but there is still room for revisions and improvement.

We're only a year and a half into the console's life cycle -- there's no way we're hitting the peak.project343

I agree. People said MGS2 peaked the PS2 and we all know that wasn't true. I don't think it'll be too long before they hit it, but it won't be with this game.

no where near peaking the power of the 360. madvlad, you pulled those figures out of your arse. Cliffy B. said that Gears only used about 25% of the 360's power. You can find that story on any game site.Halo2_Norad

25% of three 3.2 ghz cores (9.6) = 2.4 ghz.  So Gears was using about 75% of one core. 

[QUOTE="Halo2_Norad"]no where near peaking the power of the 360. madvlad, you pulled those figures out of your arse. Cliffy B. said that Gears only used about 25% of the 360's power. You can find that story on any game site.a_ratchet_fan

25% of three 3.2 ghz cores (9.6) = 2.4 ghz.  So Gears was using about 75% of one core. 

According to Epic's Cliff Bleszinski, the game as it is running right now is only using one of the Xbox 360's three cores, and has been up and running on the final development kits for only about two weeks. The game had been running on Beta development kits for only a few weeks before that, so it's clear that the team at Epic is only getting started in terms of finding out how much power they can get out of the system.

So Gears basically used 1 out of the 3 cores. See Halo2_Norad...I wasn't pulling those figures out of my arse.

Mass Effect seems to be carefully choosing when to turn on the juice, As in for character models, which seems especially good during enclosed, low-demand environments.  Even assuming that Mass Effect uses the same power as Gears, it might look better simply due to power allocation...

As for how much better games will look in three years, just look at the ps2.  Games released in its first year were nowhere near as good looking as games released later in its lifecycle. In products like the ps3 and xbox 360, the architechture is even more complex so more shortcuts could maybe be found.

to be quite honest its not the techincal capabilities of the 360 that are being pushed, its the storage capacity. You can only compress data so much till it starts to lose detail and quality. Marc Rein stated that Unreal Engine took up 4gb of the bat. And we all now that gears was a graphical masterpiece "kinda". Mass Effect has been cut down from its origanl developmnt plans becuse of the lack of space.

I only said kinda because while it was beautiful in graphics i felt like they neglected particle effects and physic based destrucatble structures and enviroments to go along with

to be quite honest its not the techincal capabilities of the 360 that are being pushed, its the storage capacity. You can only compress data so much till it starts to lose detail and quality. Marc Rein stated that Unreal Engine took up 4gb of the bat. And we all now that gears was a graphical masterpiece "kinda". Mass Effect has been cut down from its origanl developmnt plans becuse of the lack of space.

I only said kinda because while it was beautiful in graphics i felt like they neglected particle effects and physic based destrucatble structures and enviroments to go along with

ktrotter11

What did they cut out? 

[QUOTE="Halo2_Norad"]no where near peaking the power of the 360. madvlad, you pulled those figures out of your arse. Cliffy B. said that Gears only used about 25% of the 360's power. You can find that story on any game site.a_ratchet_fan

25% of three 3.2 ghz cores (9.6) = 2.4 ghz.  So Gears was using about 75% of one core. 

Mass Effect seems to be carefully choosing when to turn on the juice, As in for character models, which seems especially good during enclosed, low-demand environments.  Even assuming that Mass Effect uses the same power as Gears, it might look better simply due to power allocation...

As for how much better games will look in three years, just look at the ps2.  Games released in its first year were nowhere near as good looking as games released later in its lifecycle. In products like the ps3 and xbox 360, the architechture is even more complex so more shortcuts could maybe be found.

osirisomeomi

this xmas and you will be close to seeing what the x360 is capable of going by previous gen, games are just about at their peak 2 years into their life span

I think it's using a lot of 360's power, but there is still room for revisions and improvement.

lantus

[QUOTE="ktrotter11"]

to be quite honest its not the techincal capabilities of the 360 that are being pushed, its the storage capacity. You can only compress data so much till it starts to lose detail and quality. Marc Rein stated that Unreal Engine took up 4gb of the bat. And we all now that gears was a graphical masterpiece "kinda". Mass Effect has been cut down from its origanl developmnt plans becuse of the lack of space.

I only said kinda because while it was beautiful in graphics i felt like they neglected particle effects and physic based destrucatble structures and enviroments to go along with

GabeBlack

What did they cut out? 

I read in a interview that they had spent alot of time revising the game to make it fit on the disc.

I believe they were referring to Mass Effect. But it could have been gears?!

to be quite honest its not the techincal capabilities of the 360 that are being pushed, its the storage capacity. You can only compress data so much till it starts to lose detail and quality. Marc Rein stated that Unreal Engine took up 4gb of the bat. And we all now that gears was a graphical masterpiece "kinda". Mass Effect has been cut down from its origanl developmnt plans becuse of the lack of space.

I only said kinda because while it was beautiful in graphics i felt like they neglected particle effects and physic based destrucatble structures and enviroments to go along with

ktrotter11

[QUOTE="GabeBlack"][QUOTE="ktrotter11"]

to be quite honest its not the techincal capabilities of the 360 that are being pushed, its the storage capacity. You can only compress data so much till it starts to lose detail and quality. Marc Rein stated that Unreal Engine took up 4gb of the bat. And we all now that gears was a graphical masterpiece "kinda". Mass Effect has been cut down from its origanl developmnt plans becuse of the lack of space.

I only said kinda because while it was beautiful in graphics i felt like they neglected particle effects and physic based destrucatble structures and enviroments to go along with

ktrotter11

What did they cut out?

I read in a interview that they had spent alot of time revising the game to make it fit on the disc.

I believe they were referring to Mass Effect. But it could have been gears?!

I think you read that they were compressing the game and took it as cutting stuff out. :| 

[QUOTE="GabeBlack"][QUOTE="ktrotter11"]

to be quite honest its not the techincal capabilities of the 360 that are being pushed, its the storage capacity. You can only compress data so much till it starts to lose detail and quality. Marc Rein stated that Unreal Engine took up 4gb of the bat. And we all now that gears was a graphical masterpiece "kinda". Mass Effect has been cut down from its origanl developmnt plans becuse of the lack of space.

I only said kinda because while it was beautiful in graphics i felt like they neglected particle effects and physic based destrucatble structures and enviroments to go along with

ktrotter11

What did they cut out?

I read in a interview that they had spent alot of time revising the game to make it fit on the disc.

I believe they were referring to Mass Effect. But it could have been gears?!

Dude, I think that's compression. Almost all games, if left uncompressed, wouldn't be able to fit on a DVD9. Hell, Resistance wasn't compressed, and it took up, what, 21 megs? 

[QUOTE="osirisomeomi"]

Mass Effect seems to be carefully choosing when to turn on the juice, As in for character models, which seems especially good during enclosed, low-demand environments. Even assuming that Mass Effect uses the same power as Gears, it might look better simply due to power allocation...

As for how much better games will look in three years, just look at the ps2. Games released in its first year were nowhere near as good looking as games released later in its lifecycle. In products like the ps3 and xbox 360, the architechture is even more complex so more shortcuts could maybe be found.

imprezawrx500

this xmas and you will be close to seeing what the x360 is capable of going by previous gen, games are just about at their peak 2 years into their life span

didnt Ninja Gaiden and Conkerwhich was agrued  as one of the best looking games on the xbox was in it's fourth year?....Yea ur theory isnt correct.

As for how much better games will look in three years, just look at the ps2. Games released in its first year were nowhere near as good looking as games released later in its lifecycle. In products like the ps3 and xbox 360, the architechture is even more complex so more shortcuts could maybe be found.

osirisomeomi

Heck, why not look at the NES?!

I mean, compare Super Mario Bros. with SMB3.  They don't even look like they were made on the same system.