213w ago - Whenever the issue of the Xbox 360 running out of technical steam is risen, you always get the same answer, "there's still more it can do", no offence but this excuse is getting old pretty quickly.
Is there really any thing left in the Xbox 360, hardware wise? I really don't think so.
It's been 3 years and still there are less than a handful of games that have pushed the visual boat that much farther, notably... Gears of War and Gears of War 2, what else has really brought outstanding graphics to the table? Halo 3?
In contrast in just 2 years the PS3 has seen exclusives games that easily destroy what is on the Xbox 360, games like Killzone 2, Uncharted and Metal Gear Solid 4 spring quickly to mind, and these are out of what has been released, looking at what is still ahead, Uncharted 2, God of War 3 and Heavy Rain, the pattern looks set to continue.
So how in 3 years the console has only 1 series producing great graphics, and when one compares the visuals of gears of war 2 to that of the first, the difference isn't much...
My question is 'what really is left in the Xbox 360' technically? I know developers can get more out of the console through art styles and optimisation but it looks to me like the main bulk of tech hardware in the Xbox 360 has been squeezed dry.
Looking at the PS3, however, it's pretty clear that the console was built for the future, with so much untapped potential ready to be used by developers.
Although that is where this also applies to the PS3, we keep hearing about this untapped energy source on the PS3, that if used would make games look and play 5 times better however we are really yet to see this.
I must say while I do believe the PS3 has extra horse power yet to be used by devs, on the other hand I cannot say the same for the Xbox 360. Feel free to share your thoughts below in via the comments!
Stay tuned for more PS3 Hacks and PS3 CFW news, follow us on Twitter and be sure to drop by the PS3 Hacks and PS3 Custom Firmware Forums for the latest PlayStation 3 scene updates and homebrew releases!
I think MS has become complacent. The Wii can do some nice graphics but it tailored to the family market. The PS2 had some of it's best looking games when the XBOX (1st one) came out (Batman Begins, Black, Mercenaries), because it was then up against real competition. I've been getting through Banjo Kazooie on my 360, that has some lush visuals and large playing areas.
cyan, i totally agree
i was halfway through edit quoting your last post and realised, i agree with all of it lol
the halo series is a good series though.
but at the end of the day, it looks good (not brilliant but still good enough) and plays good too, which is what you want in a game.
totally agree about the gta4 thing too, its not as "godly" as some would make it out to be
and with mgs3 vs mgs4, they do seem like two totally different genre's even though they are both stealth games. but i think thats just down to the different mechanics involved in the stealth (painted camo vs high tech octocamo etc)
First off saviour07, I got nothing. Perfect way of saying things in my opinion. But so you know, yes I hated Metal Gear Solid 4..actually I hate the entire series and I hated CoD4..my main issue was just...how clumsy the experiance was for me.
Second, CyanCaze, Lair was actually the first game I ever saw being played for the PS3 and since then I have seen no other games like it. It's a game with a lot of potential if it were in the right hands and was not using that SIXAXIS gimmick. Like saviour said your arguments are based off your personal preferences. For me I am a fan of games that are innovative and different I tend to stray away from mainstream games to the point where I am disgusted by games like Gears of War, Halo or Resistance. None of them offer anything new in the means of game play, they are typical "Look alien is bad! Kill them!" shooters.
I know GTAIV is a typical sandbox game. But it does something different from the rest. It's realistic, some thing all other sandbox games lack. I myself find that to be an innovation..even if the game is mainstream and so you know, Crisis has amazing graphics that top any game to date...that I have played..which is quite a bit...and no..I was saying Lair had dead sexy graphics..meaning they were top notch which is in stark comparison t the game play. Making it a perfect example of my argument that graphics are being pushed too much while game play is being ignored.
MGS4 had good gameplay and so did Killzone 2 the only problems were the controls on Killzone 2. MGS4 was not as good as number 3 online or offline but they are 2 different styles of gameplay. MGS4 is more for action which I didn't like, but on number 3 you could mess around with the guards and had a massive replay value. MGS4 had great action and was a really fun game, but wasn't a "Stealth action" game it was more of a "Action Action Action Stealth" game.
Killzone 2 had the ability to be much better but is still a 10/10 game or at the very least 9/10. The Halo series I have not played very much but what I have hasn't impressed me. It seems like a very over rated game from what I have played. Resistance isn't over rated in fact it's under rated. It is a okay game, but it doesn't nearly get the reputation it deserves. Especially with the high ratings of halo.
GTA on the other hand it just like the pokemon games in the fact they are almost the same exact games with different city's and stuff. I like San Andreas the best. But GTA 4 is the same game without the ability to fly jets and stuff. I personally like GTA which I didn't originally but GTA 4 isn't the godly game you make it out to be.
I personally have not played Crysis. But I was only replying to your "Lair has the best graphics ever!" Claim.
Games are a subjective medium and alot (millions++) of people would disagree that kz2, crisis and mgs4 are "terrible games". but as i said, games are subjective and if you think they are terrible, then they just arent your type of game.
totally agree with the first point here, gameplay and graphics should go hand in hand. it should be the most basic thing that devs think about when planning the game.
But if were all totally honest, gta4 wasnt graphically beautiful or stunning as some games. it was good for a sandbox game, but i think gameplay was precedent over graphics for gta4.
without sounding like a fanboy.... are you seriously saying mgs4 lacked "true gameplay"?? there was certainly ALOT of replay value in that game, so i could sit here all day and argue against that statement tbh
but yeh there wasn't anythin groundbreakingly different in mgs4 compared to others in the series, just the drebin points system for guns, octocamo, metal gear mk2, controling metal gear rex
lol the "it's not the same as cod4 controls" that everyone mentions when kz2 is brought up
again... games are a subjective medium, and everyone is ofcourse entitled to their opinion of a game, but when tlking about kz2/mgs4/crisis... "enjoyable" they are to the vast majority of gamers out there.