Rev Graphics barely better then GC? - Page 3

DeathsHand · 12-09-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyne

You're taking at face value, DsH.

Not really, I wasn't basing everything on "Xbox 1.5" so much as I was simply pointing out that they are defending Rev's power, yet laughing at 360's graphics...

" '2.5x' power isn't bad at all!"
"360 LOL They call that next-gen TEE HEE"... It just doesn't make sense...

But yeah, Canyarion brought up a valid point... Fanboys are stupid

I just love to point out such stupidity...

Canyarion · 12-09-2005, 06:36 PM

Yay what did I win?

Neo · 12-11-2005, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathsHand

Not really, I wasn't basing everything on "Xbox 1.5" so much as I was simply pointing out that they are defending Rev's power, yet laughing at 360's graphics...

" '2.5x' power isn't bad at all!"
"360 LOL They call that next-gen TEE HEE"... It just doesn't make sense...

But yeah, Canyarion brought up a valid point... Fanboys are stupid

I just love to point out such stupidity...

Except that Microsoft has always preached that awesome graphics are important. Therefore making the 360 an Xbox 1.5 doesn't meet those standards, which is why we can laugh at them. Nintendo on the other hand has always downplayed the importance of graphics. Perhaps then we would be laughing at them if they changed their minds and released a system on par with PS3.

Crash · 12-11-2005, 02:00 AM

it will still be a little bit before lazy developers make a game that looks next generation.

I'm glad nintendo didn't decide to compete with sony and microsoft for graphics power.

DeathsHand · 12-11-2005, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crash

it will still be a little bit before lazy developers make a game that looks next generation.

Let's start off with a picture of Goldeneye.

Let's move on to a picture of Quake 3 for PS2 (launch game of the first current-gen consoles to be released, not counting Dreamcast)...

And continue to a picture of Quake 4 for Xbox 360 (launch game of the first next-gen console to be released)...

Or perhaps a different comparison...

Start off with Goldeneye once more...

Timesplitters (again, PS2 launch game)

Perfect Dark: Zero (launch game)...

And those (of course) aren't even showing off the greatly improved animations and various effects...

I seriously wonder how people can look at these images, all the other images, the videos, etc of the games that are out and the games that are coming out in the future, and NOT consider them to be "next-gen" (visually)...

I guess for the same reason people still bash Sony for the PS2 "not living up to it's original tech demos", when infact if you actually GO BACK AND WATCH THEM, you'd realize that it matched, if not surpassed every single one of them?

People tend to remember things as looking a lot better than they actually did...

I mean have they all forgotten Dreamcast vs. PS2?
"ZOMG That's PS2!? LOL! JAGGIES! That doesn't even look as good as most dreamcast games!"...

And now what do people say? With their MGS3, God of War, Shadow of Colossus, Resident Evil 4?
"ZOMG That's next-gen!? LOL! It barely looks better than the games that are out today! Xbox 360 more like Xbox 1.5!"

Sorry, I just had to get that all out... Probably the issue that's bothering me the most these days, on account'a it's complete bull****... :>

GameMaster · 12-11-2005, 05:00 AM

Did the makers of PS2 really promise Toy Story 2 graphics? If they did, then that was an obvious lie. We won't see Toy Story 2 graphics until PS4 or PS5.

Teuthida · 12-11-2005, 05:07 AM

We need a FPS playing the role of Woody.

Swan · 12-11-2005, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teuthida

We need a FPS playing the role of Woody.

Teehee...

You said Woody.

That is all.

Bond · 12-11-2005, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

Nintendo on the other hand has always downplayed the importance of graphics.

Yes, because Nintendo can't compete with Sony and Microsoft. The videogame industry has become a big business industry. Nintendo simply can't compete with Sony and Microsoft, so they are trying to find a niche that will at least give them some honorable sales.

Teuthida · 12-11-2005, 11:04 AM

Why sell peanut butter when you make better jelly?

Neo · 12-11-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bond

Yes, because Nintendo can't compete with Sony and Microsoft. The videogame industry has become a big business industry. Nintendo simply can't compete with Sony and Microsoft, so they are trying to find a niche that will at least give them some honorable sales.

Hmm do you think they can't or won't? To compete they'd probably have to develop shooters like Halo and other "mature" titles that would damage the whole family-friendly philisophy. Plus they'd have to make a console with the latest in cutting-edge hardware, and possibly start taking losses on each console sold. And even if they sell a much greater number of consoles this way they may or may not be as profitable as they are now. And of course if you look at the gaming industry as a whole (handheld included) Nintendo is 1st place with Sony a distant 2nd. They're beating Sony and MS overall, just not in the specific realm of home console sales (which they are still making money off of).

If the goal is simply to sell more consoles, all they'd have to do is give it a $99 price tag and watch as their sales go up and their profits go down.

Jonbo298 · 12-11-2005, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bond

Yes, because Nintendo can't compete with Sony and Microsoft. The videogame industry has become a big business industry. Nintendo simply can't compete with Sony and Microsoft, so they are trying to find a niche that will at least give them some honorable sales.

That sounds like a business Bond. Profit Profit Profit. Thats Nintendo's goal and its worked to their advantage.

To Deathshand: most of those comparisons are bunk anyways. Why? Because Quake 3 was PORTED from PC to PS2 and Quake 4 was PORTED from PC to Xbox 360. Those games weren't build off their specific consoles. Quake 4 on PC still looks better then the Xbox 360 version because of higher resolutions (thats if your PC can handle it

) and will have a great modding community.

Null · 12-11-2005, 01:34 PM

they wouldnt have to develop thoes kind of 'mature' games at all. Nintendos own games sell great, thats not the problem. they'd need to attract 3rd parties to make thoes kinda games for them.

DeathsHand · 12-11-2005, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonbo298

Because Quake 3 was PORTED from PC to PS2 and Quake 4 was PORTED from PC to Xbox 360.

That's why I picked them... I compared quake/quake (both PC ports), and timesplitters/PD0 (both FPS' handled by Rare/Former Rare developers)...

There weren't really many other options to choose from when it came to comparing launch games... But if you prefer, substitute images from Red Faction (which would give PS2 some brownie points, as it wasn't a launch title)...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myself, because I'm cool like that

"I seriously wonder how people can look at these images, all the other images, the videos, etc of the games that are out and the games that are coming out in the future and NOT consider them to be 'next-gen' (visually)..."

That was an important part of my post... Because of course basing everything on a total of 4 screenshots is silly, I was just picking a couple specific examples out of many, with comparisons that were as close as I could find...