It's not actually Sony's idea, but it's nice that they're implementing it finally.
Esnedon's forum posts
[QUOTE="soulitane"]Isn't the point of ID's new engine to not use ram for most of the textures and just stream them off the disc? If thats the case then using the extra ram like you seem to think they do would be utterly useless. RAM is used for more than textures. Most importantly, you haven't answered my question: if RAGE was genuinely that technically impressive on an actual Xbox 360, wouldn't other developers already license ID's engine in droves by now? I think gamers, especially Xbox 360 fanboys, should temper their hope about RAGE's graphics. It might turn out that ID has been giving us all false hope.[QUOTE="dragonboot"] The point is marketing--getting journalists and gamers hyped about a game. For a game like RAGE, the developer/publisher would easily spend a million or so to beef up the graphics for some 10 minutes in front of the whole video gaming press. This is because RAGE represents ID's engine. ID wants to license their engine as a business as well as sell RAGE as a game. From a marketing perspective, using dev kits to up the graphics would be good business. So, until RAGE is demoed on an actual console, I will continue to believe all the screenshots and videos of RAGE all come from the superior dev kits. Besides, if RAGE was genuinely that technically impressive on an actual Xbox 360, wouldn't other developers already license ID's engine? So far, I didn't read anything about ID's engine having much success with the licensing business. It's very likely that ID/EA have been giving us false hopes about RAGE's graphical accomplishments.dragonboot
Maybe idTech 5 isn't suited to the needs of the developers. CryEngine 3 has had heaps of licensees, and Crysis 2 looks just as good, if not better, than RAGE.
[QUOTE="Esnedon"][QUOTE="TehNubTuber"] Why are people impressed with the 3DS for having slighty better graphics then the PSP almost a decade later? The 3DS should have way better graphics imo. It should only be slightly behind the current gen platforms.TehNubTuber
I see. So, does time travel twice as fast for you? Do you have some sort of screwed up leap year system or something? I'm trying to understand your 'decade' logic here.
Is was a simple exageration to prove a point. No need to take everything so literal, I'm sure you understood what the point was.Yep, I understand, but I'm just going to point out that you can't really compare a game developed well into a console's lifetime to a launch title. Compare Metal Gear Acid and MGS: Snake Eater 3D, and you can really see how much it's improved.
[QUOTE="amaneuvering"]Why are people impressed with the 3DS for having slighty better graphics then the PSP almost a decade later? The 3DS should have way better graphics imo. It should only be slightly behind the current gen platforms.going off on a slight tangent...
I tell you, if the 3DS manages to push graphics like that in true 3D without glasses then I am going to be very impressed with the machine.
TehNubTuber
I see. So, does time travel twice as fast for you? Do you have some sort of screwed up leap year system or something? I'm trying to understand your 'decade' logic here.
[QUOTE="Salt_The_Fries"]Gears of War, anyone who says Killzone 2 started gaming pretty late this gen.gameofthering
Maybe they thought KZ2 looked better.
They can see into the future.
Metro 2033 might be better in technical terms, but Crysis just looks better, IMO. I might be the only one, but everything in Metro 2033 has this greasy look to it that I really don't like. It was the same with STALKER.
I guess GT5 is going to flop in the graphics department, then. Must have been running on a devkit.
[QUOTE="gamecubepad"][QUOTE="dragonboot"]I am not to trying to bash RAGE here. I hope it meet the graphics hype. More power to the gamers. I think I point out something very important in the graphics debate. Game journalists have failed again and again to determine if a screenshot or a video given to them comes from a dev kit or from a retail version. I just think developers should be more honest and stop abusing the gamers' trust. I also think journalists should work harder to get to the truth.dragonboot
Rage, Reach, and Gears 3 will all look better than what has been shown at E3 by the time they release.
The dev kits don't have better GPUs from what I've read, so I think you're misunderstanding how bullshots are produced, and the fact you want Rage and Reach to look worse than they do is altering your perception.
Bullshots and footage could be produced just as easily from the old dev kits that didn't have the extra RAM. Just like on PC, you can raise the quality of the settings and take a great looking screen that looks awesome to the average joe blow out there, and conveniently hide the fact it's running at 5fps. Or like Bungie did(and was very open about), render the frames and reassemble them into a video that runs at a smooth framerate, despite the actual realtime version running at a sub-par framerate.
It's not 360 specific, and it has nothing to do with the 360 dev kits, and especially nothing to do with the extra RAM in the dev kits.
I totally disagree. If you play computer games and your computer has a small RAM, you can't play the games with all the graphics bells and visuals. But if increase your RAM the graphics also improve. RAM and the GPU both play a role in graphics. When journalists report their "eye-on" impressions, watching developers demo games on "Xbox 360", they don't know if its the dev-kit Xbox 360 or the retail version. I think it's has happened with RAGE. The journalists who were impressed with RAGE never mentioned if the game ran on the dev kit or the retail version. Notice how PC video cards have RAM numbers on them? The more RAM the more power, the more expensive. Without a doubt the dev kits are superior to the retail versions when it comes to graphics. If you can't see that, I don't know how I can explain better.No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Anyone with basic computer knowledge should know that RAM often means nothing when it comes to graphics power. My crappy HD 4550 has 1gb RAM, but it's slaughtered by the 512mb HD 4870.
Same thing can easily be said for PS3 games. I thought it was strange that the 2007 alpha build of Killzone 2 actually looked better than the retail game.
Log in to comment