I played 360 [Archive]

Dyne

05-29-2006, 01:41 PM

Fight Night 3 looks nice. Though it overuses the "crisco effect"

I haven't noticed it looking "Crisco", ever. What are you talking about? The graphics on it ARE great and you really notice the power once you remove that wall of doubt.

The RB and LB buttons are not unreachable. In fact, they're just another Z button times 2. I haven't found them awkward at all.

Jonbo298

05-29-2006, 03:46 PM

Making everything look shiny. I hate it. It looks stupid.

The table tennis game from Rockstar does a similar/same thing. Makes the people look shiny and its so damn ugly.

Dyne

05-29-2006, 03:55 PM

http://www.fightnews.com/marinelli.jpg

http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2005/346/reviews/930863_20051213_screen011.jpg

http://www.polisboxingacademy.com/boxing/32.jpg

Come to think of it, real life is too damn shiny! You know, god must be against us, or something.

DeathsHand

05-29-2006, 05:48 PM

Come to think of it, real life is too damn shiny! You know, god must be against us, or something.

Damn God for creating sweat!

I personally don't really mind when things look shiny so much as I do when every single damn thing in the game world glows... I've noticed this about Guild Wars... World of Warcraft, too, though it had an option to turn it off, which I took advantage of...

Also, having seen various screenshots and displays at Best Buy and such, it is my belief that anybody who says 360 games barely look better than current-gen games is lying to themself...

I mean, it may not be quite as big a leap over the extremely muddy textures and pixilated graphics of N64/PS1 as GC/PS2 were, but 'barely' an improvement? *scratces noodle*

Jonbo298

05-29-2006, 06:28 PM

Its your opinion. You think one way, I think another.

DeathsHand

05-29-2006, 07:02 PM

Its your opinion. You think one way, I think another.

Is it also your opinion that there are many things in real life that are shiny?

Perhaps you do not like this about the world, and wish it could be eliminated in your gaming experiences?

Dyne

05-29-2006, 07:03 PM

My real opinion is that, until you see it running on your own set, you shouldn't be able to pass judgement.

Or, on a really high-definition set. I played DOA4 on my 30"-ish TV with AV output, and it looked somewhat the same as DOA3, but better. This is probably the difference you're basing off of, Canyarion. But when I hooked it up to my 50" and ran it in 480P, the difference was astonishing.

Same with Fight Night Round 3. I played on my set, then I played at my girlfriend's 1080i setup, 60". The difference is fantastic.

Ginkasa

05-29-2006, 09:26 PM

Dylflon

05-29-2006, 09:29 PM

I almost drooled the first time I saw Fight Night 3.

*happy sigh*

Dyne

05-29-2006, 09:36 PM

I know I want to spend several hundred to a thousand dollars on a new TV (and maybe new cables?) in addition to the money for my XBox360 and a game just so I can fully appreciate the graphical difference.

* Link1130 shrugs and walks away

Well, DOA4 looked relatively the same (because the models look like plastic), but everything else has looked fantastic. I even download my demos upstairs and play them for the first time on my room's 13" TV.

Typhoid

05-30-2006, 02:16 AM

I almost drooled the first time I saw Fight Night 3.

*happy sigh*

I remember when I was at Phil's and he just started playing Fight Night 3, and I asked when the fight was starting, and he said "10 seconds ago..." I just sat back in awe.

Canyarion

05-30-2006, 06:03 AM

Null

05-30-2006, 09:27 AM

I played demos of Need for Speed (I don't keep up with all the names lately) and Quake 4.
And the guy had a very nice TV. It just didn't feel new enough to be next gen. The leaps are getting smaller and smaller with every gen.

the 'leaps' arent really getting smaller, they're just being used in more areas.

the addition of real textures from PS1/N64 to PS2/GC seemed like a lot more becuause of how bad the ps1/n64 looked. the leap is still there, and can be seen if you know what to look for. but good graphics to great graphics doesnt seem like as big of a thing as bad graphics to good graphics.

Canyarion

05-30-2006, 10:55 AM

I don't care about the technology behind it or whatever, I care about looks.
but good graphics to great graphics doesnt seem like as big of a thing as bad graphics to good graphics

Null

05-30-2006, 01:55 PM

well because you personally cant tell a difference doesnt mean the leap isnt there.

i didnt mean just the technology behind it has changed without producing any drastic results...
many people look for more realistic looking charcaters or worlds. and while it can be noticed on that, especially with a HDTV, the difference is just everywhere, Bigger worlds, more detailed worlds, phisics, many many more things on screen at once, with much better AI and better lighting effects. i can tell a differerence right away, especially in gameplay videos.
But many dont know what to look for and dont think about all the power thoes things take and add to the games look.

maybe its the same as people who say they cant hear a difference between normal quality and high quality Audio. i dunno, but i think its quite obvious to me at least the leap is there, and in many cases a bigger leap then before.

Perfect Stu

05-30-2006, 03:38 PM

I know I want to spend several hundred to a thousand dollars on a new TV (and maybe new cables?) in addition to the money for my XBox360 and a game just so I can fully appreciate the graphical difference.

* Link1130 shrugs and walks away

yep...because that's only what you're going to get out of a nice new HDTV. not a sports or movies fan, are ya?

and if you care so much about looks, Cany, why are you looking forward to the Wiiiiii more than any other next gen system?

Canyarion

05-30-2006, 05:12 PM

I care about looks on Xbox360 and PS3 because IMO it's the best thing they offer. They NEED their looks, Wii doesn't. :)

Null

05-30-2006, 05:51 PM

annddd i think we figured out why he 'doesnt notice a difference' ;)

Typhoid

05-30-2006, 06:36 PM

I care about looks on Xbox360 and PS3 because IMO it's the best thing they offer. They NEED their looks, Wii doesn't. :)

Why doesnt the Wii need looks?

Because it's 200 dollars for a graphics card, and controller port, more or less?

*coughfanboycough*

Perfect Stu

05-30-2006, 07:04 PM

*coughfanboycough*

i cant quite make that out, let me get you a coughdrop, see if that helps

:hands Typh a coughdrop:

*fanboy*

http://www.joshilynjackson.com/mt/archives/surprised!.jpeg

Typhoid

05-30-2006, 07:09 PM

Sadly, I laughed so hard at that.

KillerGremlin

05-30-2006, 11:14 PM

Jee wiz forum, I wonder where 3rd party support will be for the Wii in 2 years when the system is getting its ass kicked in the graphics department. You better hope that Wii-pointer holds the 3rd party support, or you'll all be left with franchise titles.

Which probably won't bother the Nintendo fanboys.

The PS3 and 360 can put a whole hell of a lot of objects on screen at once...better textures, faster load times, more expansive environments. The list goes on!

Perfect Stu

05-30-2006, 11:22 PM

or you'll all be left with franchise titles.

it's worked for the past 10 years...

KillerGremlin

05-30-2006, 11:44 PM

It kept Nintendo selling but it wasn't all that innovative.

Jonbo298

05-31-2006, 09:18 AM

Funny people ;)

Thanks for the laughs :D

Ginkasa

05-31-2006, 07:19 PM

yep...because that's only what you're going to get out of a nice new HDTV. not a sports or movies fan, are ya?

I never said that's all an HDTV could do; I wasn't commenting on HDTVs at all. I was commenting on the XBox360, and the apparent fact that you need an HDTV to be able to notice the graphic difference between the 360 and a regular XBox.

Some people have to save up to upgrade their video console and they expect to be able to tell the difference. They shouldn't have to spend another several hundred to a thousand dollars, or more, just to appreciate the graphical upgrade. That they would also gain eye candy when watching movies or sports in completely irrelevant.

And I'm a very big movie fan. I work at a movie theatre just so I can get free movies.

/me shrugs and walks away

Null

05-31-2006, 09:14 PM

still looks a lot better even without an HDTV.

but the people with HDTV's shouldnt have to stand to look at a crappy low resolution game, when they paid to get the crystal clearity of HD.

Perfect Stu

05-31-2006, 10:32 PM

Some people have to save up to upgrade their video console and they expect to be able to tell the difference. They shouldn't have to spend another several hundred to a thousand dollars, or more, just to appreciate the graphical upgrade.

This is what I got out Dyne's message:

-DOA4 is a very average looking next gen game, not a whole lot better than top XBox stuff
-You can, however, notice the differences much more easily when it is being displayed on a quality TV
-XBox 360 games look better on HDTVs than 'old' TVs

Now, maybe I was supposed to read "you cant tell the difference between XBox 360 and XBox unless you spend upwards of $1000 on a new TV"...Hopefully Dyne can clear that up for us.

And if you were trying to exaggerate to prove a point, it still didn't work (unless you truly believe there would be no visable difference between XBox 360 games and XBox games on a non-HDTV)

Dyne

05-31-2006, 11:26 PM

Yeah.

I believe I said "I played DOA4 on my 30"-ish TV with AV output, and it looked somewhat the same as DOA3, but better."

"Somewhat" being a keyword to describe DOA4's likeliness to its predecessor. The models are a lot better, the stages are a lot more huge and detailed, and there's blur and stuff. I was absolutely amazed at the level of quality of Ryu Hayabusa's Ninja helmet on my little screen, but when I brought it to the bigger screen I really appreciated it. The textures will show up better on a better screen, of course.

Of course you can't base it off one game. I played Kameo on a tiny screen at a store and I appreciated the amount of polys the screen was pushing and some of the very realistic shining effects. However, this was back when it came out, and I played it from a jaded standpoint - but I still admired the jump of graphics. I'm sure if I played Kameo now on my own setup I'd appreciate it more.

Fight Night 3 is just astounding. No current console can do it. It's just amazing. Maybe I was a little confusing, but this game is basically the tits on any screen.

Ginkasa

05-31-2006, 11:38 PM

I know I want to spend several hundred to a thousand dollars on a new TV (and maybe new cables?) in addition to the money for my XBox360 and a game just so I can fully appreciate the graphical difference.

This is my first post. You'll notice the word "fully" (bolded to increase your chance of seeing it easily) next to "appreciate." By using this adverb I was indicating my understanding that a person could notice a graphical difference on a regular TV, but would not get the full effect unless they were playing the game on a high definition television set. I believe this concurs with Dyne's explanation of his own, original post.

I wrote the post as a sarcastic comment that people who were buying an XBox360 would not really get their money's worth unless they also bought or already owned an HDTV.

You, Stu, either misread my post or took it too literally and stated that HDTVs could do more than just video games.

My second post was a reply to your post clarifying and restating the intent and meaning behind my first post. I, regretfully, neglected to include the previous mentioned adverb of "fully," or some form of synonym.

This led to your second misunderstanding in which you believed I either misread Dyne's original post or exaggerated to prove a point (which I did neither).

This, my third post, has been written to hopefully clear up any confusion over one simple sarcastic comment. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

/me shrugs and walks away

Null

06-01-2006, 12:30 AM

If you have any questions feel free to ask.

If a cow moo's in the woods and no ones around to hear it... Can it still give milk?

Ginkasa

06-01-2006, 12:52 AM

No, unless it learns how to milks itself.

/me shrugs and walks away

KillerGremlin

06-01-2006, 01:32 AM

Canyarion

06-01-2006, 06:22 AM

Look what I started. :sneaky:

Jonbo298

06-01-2006, 07:55 AM

You spend that much if you have another company do it for you.

For me, my first computer cost me around $1200 (with monitor price included) all built myself. I still use 85% of what I made back in 2003. I don't "fully" benefit from PC gaming but things still play damn well. When I upgrade, I *could* spend around $1700 but thats because I take a few existing parts over.

But it gives me something to last for me for awhile. Does it seem like a waste to spend so much compared to the 360 or Wii or PS3? not for me. I get more value out of a PC moreso then a console could ever give me. So I feel my investment in a computer every few years is worth my money. A console is once I have some extra money laying around and decide to buy one for a game.

Null

06-01-2006, 09:17 AM

It could be worse. To "fully" appreciate PC gaming you could be spending an upward of 3, 4 thousand dollars.

Considering HDTV was supposed to be a standard, I think the current generation of consoles are doing the right thing.

actually to fully appreciate PC gaming, you only need to spend about 1k. maybe less.

But some people THINK they need to spend 3 or 4k to do the exact same thing. A better PC it is yes. but i dont understand why some people think they need it when you can spend much much less and still run any game at full settings.

Canyarion

06-01-2006, 10:57 AM

PCs drop in price pretty fast, so I just always buy the second-newest stuff.

BreakABone

06-01-2006, 11:56 AM

Why doesnt the Wii need looks?

Because it's 200 dollars for a graphics card, and controller port, more or less?

*coughfanboycough*

Not trying to defend Angrist here or anything but I think you missed his point as did the others.

I don't think he means to say that he doesn't wish Wii had better graphics. But for quite some time, we have all known that the Wii wouldn't offer state of the art next gen graphics. And I guess most have come to terms with that. What they will offer or try to offer is a new way to play games. We have to wait on that.

However, the biggest reason to switch from xbox to 360 or from ps2 to ps3 is its increase in graphics. Hence, if there is not a large margin of difference between the graphics, which I find untrue anyhow. Then there is no real need for the systems.

KillerGremlin

06-01-2006, 01:16 PM

actually to fully appreciate PC gaming, you only need to spend about 1k. maybe less.

But some people THINK they need to spend 3 or 4k to do the exact same thing. A better PC it is yes. but i dont understand why some people think they need it when you can spend much much less and still run any game at full settings.

Yeah....

I'd go with water cooling, top of the line processor, top of the line dueling video cards, 7.1 surround sound, sound card that supports my sound set up, a top of the line LCD monitor, a nice reclining chair that swivels and maybe does other stuff, the mini fridge on my desk, and maybe 8 gigs of ram and a terabyte of space or two if I had 3 or 4k sitting around. :p

Don't get me wrong, my 900 dollar PC can run most games damn well up to this point.

PCs drop in price pretty fast, so I just always buy the second-newest stuff.

same

Perfect Stu

06-01-2006, 01:47 PM

This is my first post. You'll notice the word "fully" (bolded to increase your chance of seeing it easily) next to "appreciate." By using this adverb I was indicating my understanding that a person could notice a graphical difference on a regular TV, but would not get the full effect unless they were playing the game on a high definition television set. I believe this concurs with Dyne's explanation of his own, original post.

I wrote the post as a sarcastic comment that people who were buying an XBox360 would not really get their money's worth unless they also bought or already owned an HDTV.

You, Stu, either misread my post or took it too literally and stated that HDTVs could do more than just video games.

My second post was a reply to your post clarifying and restating the intent and meaning behind my first post. I, regretfully, neglected to include the previous mentioned adverb of "fully," or some form of synonym.

This led to your second misunderstanding in which you believed I either misread Dyne's original post or exaggerated to prove a point (which I did neither).

This, my third post, has been written to hopefully clear up any confusion over one simple sarcastic comment. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

* Link1130 shrugs and walks away

my last post was replying to your second message...the part that I quoted specifically. i didnt go back and read your original message, so that's partly my fault.

and you're right........a cow would need to learn how to milk itself.