Print

[incognegro]

The DC could do MSAA from what ive read back in the day (thats the first time i heard about; never thought it was a big deal cause nobody was talking much about it). I also remember the dc being able to output in some high resolutions but wasnt fully utilized since nobody used anything Hd to play games back then. Even the damn sound processer in that system still considered pretty good.

Twisted, the statement carmack mentioned about HD is what i was talking about when i said i wonder if MS might be hurting themselves with this HD in every game thing. If the ps3 devs have the choice of not outputting in HD and the performance is extremely good with it off, then if a person who doesnt have hdtv were to put the two consoles beside each other and see that the ps3 has better performance (with HD off) then the misconception of the ps3 being more powerful is justified. Look at nintendo's approach, they know alot of ppl dont have hdtv now and since ms is requiring all devs to use 720p then they [nintendo] believe that they dont have to beef up the hardware to compete; because the average (non HD) customer is not gonna see the difference. They wont realise that the revolution is weaker, they wont see the visual advantage 360 has and the ps3 is gonna look somewhat superior even though it technically doesnt.

Bottom line, revolution will look similar in terms of performance since it doesnt have hd, the ps3 gives the devs the freedom to kick hd out the door to make the game more efficient and 360 will not have that freedom thus making it seem average to the average customer. On the other hand, HDTV owners and Monitor users are gonna tell the other systems to kiss ass while they enjoy their 360.

[Deftech]

MS is thinking long term, always has been. If the 360 hangs in there for a good 5 to 6 years, halfway thru that the devs should have a handle on how to utilize the AA and the HD the best way possible.

You have to understand, that a base line MUST be instilled. Just as 480p was done for the xbox(minues 2 or 3 games), 720p MUST be a standard for atleast one console in the next gen, or believe me, it will NEVER happen.

Someones got to keep upping the standards, and so far its been MS. Harddrive(hopefully in 360 as well), built in ethernet, 480p, now 720, MSAA running on all games...

someones gotta do it, and better now than 6 years from now.

Its like when dvd hit and they offered component video outputs. People in 2005 still dont even know wtf that is. Things have to be pushed, or it'll catch on slower than anyone thought. And for a lot of us, thats unacceptable.

Some of you should be happy this is happening. It could force you to get a HDTV when you see games running as they should be at a kiosk or a friends house.

If games are meant to transport you to another world, another place and time, and graphics/resolution help to make it more of an engrossing experience, then you owe it to yourself to do whatever possible to get your hands on the toys that get it done.

I guarantee 3 months after the 360 is out, noone will be talking about the whole HD thing. People said the same shit about 480p, that argument vanished faster than Kutaragi burns a Tbone on the Ps3 Grill.

People said broadband only for Live would flop...just the opposite happened.

standards need to be set.

broadband, High def, MSAA, 5.1...it has to move forward because I for one am sick of living in a fugging analog world.

Ive been sick of it for a decade, and Im damn glad MS is pushing things forward.

I dont care how people percieve what they see. We are getting first party titles that will make our eyes bleed. Those alone will make the 360 a worthwhile purchase.

If you dont agree, go watch the latest in game vids of Gotham TV and tell me that for a launch title, that doesnt blow you away?

This will be a dead subject by January, guaranteed. And I bet a lot of you doubters end up feeling grateful that MS did this. It might be a couple years until you think that, but it'll happen  

and when the next next gen hits(lets say xbox720), HD gaming at 720p will be a breeze, and the 360 will have had a lot do with that overall feeling as to why the Industry will feel that way.

now eat some   and reread all this crap I just posted.

 

[VariableElite]

QUOTE(incognegro @ Aug 15 2005, 11:50 PM)

Twisted, the statement carmack mentioned about HD is what i was talking about when i said i wonder if MS might be hurting themselves with this HD in every game thing. If the ps3 devs have the choice of not outputting in HD and the performance is extremely good with it off, then if a person who doesnt have hdtv were to put the two consoles beside each other and see that the ps3 has better performance (with HD off) then the misconception of the ps3 being more powerful is justified. Look at nintendo's approach, they know alot of ppl dont have hdtv now and since ms is requiring all devs to use 720p then they [nintendo] believe that they dont have to beef up the hardware to compete; because the average (non HD) customer is not gonna see the difference. They wont realise that the revolution is weaker, they wont see the visual advantage 360 has and the ps3 is gonna look somewhat superior even though it technically doesnt.

[Deftech]

QUOTE(VariableElite @ Aug 16 2005, 03:42 AM)

With all respect, I don't think that's going to matter very much (if at all). By targetting the higher-end HD demographic, MS is going after the area of the public that has already shown an interest in spending money on high-quality home theater and entertainment equipment. Their attitude is to let Sony and Nintendo chase the lower end; as more and more people upgrade to HD, they will see that the X360 is indeed superior.

[KAGE360]

i may be slow but i just caught on to something.  back in E3 sony claimed that all their games would/could run at 1080p, then a while ago i thought it was announced that 720p would be their minimal standard, and now Carmack is saying that its open to any resolution.  is there any difinitive answer to what the standard is??  pointless to be debating anything if sony will have all games at 720p at a minimum also.  especially when you consider that the higher resolutions wouldnt put as much of a strain on the 360 as it would on the ps3.

[LowProfileWurm]

I'm concerned about something that Carmack brought to my attention.  

MS is forcing a 720p minimum.  And MS gives devs 10mb of EDRAM to utilize AA.  But you can't really do both at the same time without more EDRAM.  As m_hael said, you need 14mb of EDRAM to drive 4xAA at 720p.  My question is why force devs to use 720p  if there isn't enough EDRAM to utilize AA?  Personally, I'd rather have a game running in 480p at 60fps with all the AA goodies turned on.  Instead, devs HAVE to use 720p which means the damn jaggies will pop up in games that are made by devs who don't know the work arounds.  That is unless MS's XDK is really outstanding.  I don't know.  But I'd much prefer a game to have ZERO jaggies and run at 60fps in 480p.  Can someone point out the intricacies of this?

I just don't want jaggies, plain and simple.  Who's with me on this?

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Aug 16 2005, 08:36 AM)

i may be slow but i just caught on to something.  back in E3 sony claimed that all their games would/could run at 1080p, then a while ago i thought it was announced that 720p would be their minimal standard, and now Carmack is saying that its open to any resolution.  is there any difinitive answer to what the standard is??  pointless to be debating anything if sony will have all games at 720p at a minimum also.  especially when you consider that the higher resolutions wouldnt put as much of a strain on the 360 as it would on the ps3.

[Deftech]

If 14megs is needed for 4x, do you cut it in half for 2x?

why in poops name cant they use some main sys ram to aid the buffer? Im assuming because of the architecture, and how they relate or see one another(r500 and edram), that this isnt possible?

this shit drives me insane fellas. I forgot to read Twisteds post...off I go.

[LowProfileWurm]

QUOTE(Deftech @ Aug 16 2005, 12:52 PM)

LowProfile, Im with ya but I also need 720p. Eff 480p. If anything, at 720p the jaggies go away a little just by raising the res, so its not all gloom and doom.

[Deftech]

wouldnt it be nice if a rumor started saying they added another 10 megs of edram?

muwhahahaha

so it begins!

 

[LowProfileWurm]

QUOTE(Deftech @ Aug 16 2005, 01:00 PM)

wouldnt it be nice if a rumor started saying they added another 10 megs of edram?

[incognegro]

QUOTE

why in poops name cant they use some main sys ram to aid the buffer?

They can. Where's m_chael when you need him!?

end this madness please.

[Deftech]

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Aug 16 2005, 02:03 PM)

Yeah... and at $10 a meg... they'll just stick that right onto the pricetag!   

[KAGE360]

QUOTE

Ok even if the PS3 can run faster at 480i/p than the Xbox does at 720p... exactly where are those extra clock cycles going? Most games that will be compared will be cross platform games. If a game is cross platform and they need to make it 720p for MS then they're probably going to make it 720p on PS3 as well... then they'll have to spend extra time making it work with 480i/p on the PS3... they'll be using the same models/etc as they did when it was 720p so it's not like they can add more polygons... Also the resolution is lower so it's not like making the texture res higher is going to do anything...

good point, I didnt think about this.

and i could have sworn that sony has set a standard resolution, maybe not in an official announcement but maybe in an interview, if i wasnt at work i would look for the info but my pc at my desk has all kinds of filters and blocks.  i cant even get into the main page at xbox-scene.  

[m_hael]

you'll have to wait until theres an expose' of the kits. I'm not allowed to comment on technicalities like this.