Post by: Deftech on February 02, 2006, 08:45:00 PM
I'd paste it here but go read it so the pictures can properly accompany the interview.
I didn't read it all because the game doesnt interest me much, but I hope theres something in there for all you fans
I did find something that always bothered me...
QUOTE
GI: Well lets move on to the Xbox 360 version. You guys have been known in the past to do brilliant things with the PS2 hardware and even Xbox and GameCube. Its amazing what you can do PS2 versus Xbox in making the PS2 version look better (in my opinion). Now youre getting to toy around with the next generation hardware. Whats it like having that extra processing power and extra boost?
I know in some aspects the Burnouts looked as good or better on psoo and were fast ports to xbox and gc, but does anyone know why? is the engine just suited for lower end machines? are the devs inept when it comes to xbox development?
I can't stand laziness. And they are one of the few that did nothing to make the xbox versions of their games stand out. No offense LowProf
I hope the game meets all of the Scene members xpectations, otherwise theres going to be some major bitching in here 
Heres the guys reply by the way....
QUOTE
Ward: Youll see it straight away. You literally cant take your eyes off it. Its by far one of the best f****** things weve ever done. Im so excited about it. I met with MS this morning and theyre really excited with what were doing on Live. I mean, it looks amazing. Its hi-def so you can see the world like never before. You can really see the detail and what weve put into it. The cars look incredible. They wreck with a fidelity and force that youve never seen. We have the interior of the car. Not only does it look amazing in HD we havent been speaking too much on what weve done graphically because so what thats what we expect from 360.
Post by: miggidy on February 02, 2006, 10:04:00 PM
I had no idea the PS2 version looked better
Perhaps this guy's talking about the whole PS2 VS Xbox sparks thing
However if the PS2 version does happen to look better for what ever reason then I'm placing Criterion on the jack ass shelf right next to Hideo Kojima
Post by: Deftech on February 02, 2006, 10:29:00 PM
QUOTE(miggidy @ Feb 3 2006, 12:04 AM) 
Hmmmm....
I had no idea the PS2 version looked better
Perhaps this guy's talking about the whole PS2 VS Xbox sparks thing
However if the PS2 version does happen to look better for what ever reason then I'm placing Criterion on the jack ass shelf right next to Hideo Kojima
I do recall some textures or something looked better in the ps2 version. which burnout I dont recall, but I saw side by sides and I even noticed it.
LMAO at the Hideo mention
Post by: m_hael on February 03, 2006, 03:32:00 AM
Granted - they do change renderware to suit their needs, but you can only change it soo much.
Post by: redwolf on February 03, 2006, 04:48:00 AM
QUOTE(m_hael @ Feb 3 2006, 12:03 PM) 
Burnout uses Renderware, Renderware is a middleware solution meant to provide a common interface to common effects and materials for rendering. It is and will always be written primarily for the most common (and thus money making) HW... for now this is Ps2.
Granted - they do change renderware to suit their needs, but you can only change it soo much.
so upcoming Black which uses Renderware will be better for PS2? i just played the PS2 demo...looked pooo, just wish there was X360 version
Post by: m_hael on February 03, 2006, 06:50:00 AM
what I was getting at was last gen.. ps2 was king.
Post by: Deftech on February 03, 2006, 06:34:00 AM
I believe kage likes it
/runs and hides
Post by: Joergen on February 03, 2006, 07:35:00 AM
GTA3 uses Renderware and it looks miles better on the xbox thanks to remodeled people, far higher textures and draw distance.
I cant see how 16MB (or even less where framebuffer at the same res takes a bigger % of ram) of texture memory can compete with 32MB what comes to texture fidelity but hey, guess 2X is nothing.
This post has been edited by Joergen: Feb 3 2006, 03:37 PM
Post by: Deftech on February 03, 2006, 07:38:00 AM
EDIT: It was Takedown, I found the Head 2 Head. Xbox still won for Graphics, heres what it says...
QUOTE
Graphics
If we hadn't been writing these Head-to-Heads for so long, we'd have a hard time believing that a PS2 racer could look as good as, if not better in some respects, than the Xbox version. However, this is the case with Burnout 3: Takedown. The talent at Criterion has mastered Sony's PlayStation 2 hardware, which is why Takedown is one of the most visually impressive on the console. While comparing the two builds, a handful of people mistook the PlayStation 2 version of Takedown for an Xbox game; they simply assumed its sharpness, all the reflections and specular lighting tricks, had to be coming from Xbox. They were wrong.
From what we can tell, Criterion developed an incredibly-solid 60 frames per second racer on PS2 and then translated that to Xbox as it went, taking advantage of what it could along the way.
The PlayStation 2 is not excessively jaggy when compared to Xbox. In fact, the two look very similar at first sight. The way reflections are handled varies, but there's no huge differences here as you can see.
Interestingly, though, these menus only run at 30 frames per second on the PlayStation 2 while they keep at 60 (consistent with the rest of the game) on Xbox. We're not sure why Criterion had no problem getting PS2 to run at 60 for the highly complicated races and couldn't get the garage to do the same, but maybe it has something to do with the "dirt mapping" and floor reflections. Whatever the case, it doesn't matter that much. We just thought you'd like to know.
. The two share the same assets, so it's really just a matter of how they're handled. The PlayStation 2, because it has no intense anti-aliasing like the Xbox, has some jagginess on wires and in the like, but the textures go "untouched," so to speak, and benefit from a sharpness, something that Xbox's more powerful anti-aliasing makes blurry.
Of course, Burnout 3 is a very fast racer; both anti-aliasing effects and textures are engulfed by motion blur effects most of the time.
Elsewhere, both show off to reveal some other discrepancies. The PlayStation 2 was the platform that Criterion perfected its blooming effect for specular light reflections. In Burnout 2 it was superior and it stands likewise for Takedown -- you can clearly see the orange bloom that highlights the edges of light reflections on the roads. That's not to say that the bright buildup of light reflections on Xbox's Burnout 3 roadways are "bad," but PS2's better bloom effect is impressive at times and bounces of the car in a similar way.
Finally, we noticed the particles on PlayStation 2 outshined (literally) Xbox in some respects. Again, we suspect that the engine work for particles primarily took place on the PlayStation 2. The result -- as you can see in the picture -- are more "glowy" sparks. They add a little more oomph when you're getting sandwiched between a semi-truck and a wall, for example.
On the whole, none of these minor details change the gameplay much at all. Both versions look amazing, but Xbox's higher-resolution textures combined with a more reliable framerate (although both are exceptional) make it a better choice in the graphics department. Not by much, though!
If we hadn't been writing these Head-to-Heads for so long, we'd have a hard time believing that a PS2 racer could look as good as, if not better in some respects, than the Xbox version. However, this is the case with Burnout 3: Takedown. The talent at Criterion has mastered Sony's PlayStation 2 hardware, which is why Takedown is one of the most visually impressive on the console. While comparing the two builds, a handful of people mistook the PlayStation 2 version of Takedown for an Xbox game; they simply assumed its sharpness, all the reflections and specular lighting tricks, had to be coming from Xbox. They were wrong.
From what we can tell, Criterion developed an incredibly-solid 60 frames per second racer on PS2 and then translated that to Xbox as it went, taking advantage of what it could along the way.
The PlayStation 2 is not excessively jaggy when compared to Xbox. In fact, the two look very similar at first sight. The way reflections are handled varies, but there's no huge differences here as you can see.
Interestingly, though, these menus only run at 30 frames per second on the PlayStation 2 while they keep at 60 (consistent with the rest of the game) on Xbox. We're not sure why Criterion had no problem getting PS2 to run at 60 for the highly complicated races and couldn't get the garage to do the same, but maybe it has something to do with the "dirt mapping" and floor reflections. Whatever the case, it doesn't matter that much. We just thought you'd like to know.
. The two share the same assets, so it's really just a matter of how they're handled. The PlayStation 2, because it has no intense anti-aliasing like the Xbox, has some jagginess on wires and in the like, but the textures go "untouched," so to speak, and benefit from a sharpness, something that Xbox's more powerful anti-aliasing makes blurry.
Of course, Burnout 3 is a very fast racer; both anti-aliasing effects and textures are engulfed by motion blur effects most of the time.
Elsewhere, both show off to reveal some other discrepancies. The PlayStation 2 was the platform that Criterion perfected its blooming effect for specular light reflections. In Burnout 2 it was superior and it stands likewise for Takedown -- you can clearly see the orange bloom that highlights the edges of light reflections on the roads. That's not to say that the bright buildup of light reflections on Xbox's Burnout 3 roadways are "bad," but PS2's better bloom effect is impressive at times and bounces of the car in a similar way.
Finally, we noticed the particles on PlayStation 2 outshined (literally) Xbox in some respects. Again, we suspect that the engine work for particles primarily took place on the PlayStation 2. The result -- as you can see in the picture -- are more "glowy" sparks. They add a little more oomph when you're getting sandwiched between a semi-truck and a wall, for example.
On the whole, none of these minor details change the gameplay much at all. Both versions look amazing, but Xbox's higher-resolution textures combined with a more reliable framerate (although both are exceptional) make it a better choice in the graphics department. Not by much, though!
This post has been edited by Deftech: Feb 3 2006, 03:45 PM
Post by: LowProfileWurm on February 03, 2006, 08:19:00 AM
I'll be the first to admit that ALL franchises reach a point of suckitude that stops warranting my money.
[See: Star Wars, Tomb Raider (at the current moment at least), Michael Jackson, and Steven King for reference points.]
Burnout is not impervious to this effect and Criterion has had ample opportunites to bring their A games. If they don't get it right, I simply won't buy it. You all know I love my Burnout games, but I'm not above letting developers know that they are making crap. I will be buying the 360 version for the HD graphics, new additions & online play (never got to play on Xbox1 Live due to banning
), but after that... they need something fresh and non-EA butchered. Carry on.
Post by: KAGE360 on February 03, 2006, 09:03:00 AM
however if the next gen MoH game is anything to go by then the next gen version of renderware should be mighty impressive indeed, though with many more options for devs when it comes to next gen engines (offset engine, wardevil RTE, crytec, unreal3, and Gamebryo) i dont think it will be as popular this coming generation.
Post by: Deftech on February 03, 2006, 09:01:00 AM
QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Feb 3 2006, 10:19 AM)
Thanks for the reading material Deftech.
I'll be the first to admit that ALL franchises reach a point of suckitude that stops warranting my money.
[See: Star Wars, Tomb Raider (at the current moment at least), Michael Jackson, and Steven King for reference points.]
Burnout is not impervious to this effect and Criterion has had ample opportunites to bring their A games. If they don't get it right, I simply won't buy it. You all know I love my Burnout games, but I'm not above letting developers know that they are making crap. I will be buying the 360 version for the HD graphics, new additions & online play (never got to play on Xbox1 Live due to banning
), but after that... they need something fresh and non-EA butchered. Carry on.
I didnt meany offense by my posts, it looks to be good for you fans
I liked the first one a lot, if I can find a cheap copy of Revenge at some point, I'll def pick it up.
Post by: LowProfileWurm on February 03, 2006, 09:59:00 AM
QUOTE(Deftech @ Feb 3 2006, 11:01 AM)
I didnt meany offense by my posts, it looks to be good for you fans
I liked the first one a lot, if I can find a cheap copy of Revenge at some point, I'll def pick it up.
No offense taken. I'm just bracing myself for the eventual decline of the franchise. Personally, I think there should be a limit on the number of sequels a game/movie can have just to prevent such suckitude from occuring, but I'm not in charge. It's not a knock on Criterion's creative team either. I simply think that an idea can only go so far before it needs to be reincarnated as something else. Itagaki has recognized this already with DOA4 and I applaud him for it. Needs to make more damn costumes, but I understand his position.
What more are Criterion going to bring to the table anyway? Better graphics? Coming in HD. Faster cars? I couldn't handle them any faster. MORE crashing? Then it's not really racing anymore. So I think Alex's original idea needs one more iteration to make it perfect in his own eyes, not EA's (analogous to Itagaki's take on DOA4) and then let the franchise retire until the Next Next-Generation. That's probably asking too much from EA though..
Post by: Deftech on February 03, 2006, 10:41:00 AM
You see what they did to Ubi Soft? Already breaking contractual agreements
I wish MS would buy Ubi so the threat of EA ruining them goes away!
Post by: Rubix42 on February 03, 2006, 11:31:00 AM
No, hell no, no no no no no no O'NO!
I have been a huge fan of Ubi for years. Their games are always on a high level, and they try new and innovative things (XIII for example-stellar game by the way) If EA starts messing up ther design and game development, it will be a HUGE loss to the community.
Post by: mikedavis2838 on February 03, 2006, 01:28:00 PM
Post by: Joergen on February 03, 2006, 01:38:00 PM
The burnout series is some amazing graphics and physics on both ps2 and xbox1 considering its a solid 60fps all the time. Games like GTA series overstretch the engine and you can see its just a game bolted loosely onto an engine never meant for such abuse, but it still manages to be the biggest selling franchise of last gen.
GTA3 remains perhaps the most next-gen game of last gen, and Renderware can pin that medal to their chest with pride.
Post by: Deftech on February 03, 2006, 02:57:00 PM
Post by: spIdeZ on February 03, 2006, 04:30:00 PM
Post by: Deftech on February 03, 2006, 04:19:00 PM
QUOTE(spIdeZ @ Feb 3 2006, 06:01 PM)
Ummm EA didn't buy Ubisoft...
who said they did?
EDIT....
Oops, Rubix did.
Rubix, they did not buy them, I didnt say they did. Just a matter of time I fear
Post by: miggidy on February 03, 2006, 05:40:00 PM
*Removes Criterion from the jack a$$ shelf and places Billy Berghammer from Game Informer in its place*
What can you say? Kojima started feeling lonely
Post by: Joergen on February 03, 2006, 06:06:00 PM
QUOTE(Deftech @ Feb 3 2006, 11:28 PM)
May I ask how GTA 3 was next gen of last gen?
The only reason I bought the PS2.
It was revolutionary in so many ways. It took a game like Carmageddon2 (3D, great physics and destruction) or Driver (3d, not so great physics), and combined it with GTA2 (get out of your car, shoot and do various missions onfoot).
No other game before it had done that. Plus it did the impossible on the PS2 in streaming on-the fly (which the bandwidth etc on the ps2 wasnt meant for, or so they said). Without constant streaming it wouldhave been one street - load screen - other street - loadscreen etc.
Sure it had somewhat tacky controls and sure it could be done better, in fact the Driver3 engine on the PS2 is in many ways better and more sophisticated (hard shadows, better physics), and in more ways far worse, but that game came years later as a ripoff of the GTA3 pioneered "genre".
I just dont see any other game being that revolutionary on the PS2. And unless Rockstar (DMA) comes up with something really special for next generation, we wont be seeing such a leap, and it will be more Saints Row esque next-gen.
What they could do with a massively multiplayer GTA game is food for thought. Like players joining rival gangs, the police force, the fire fighters and ambulance crews. A living crime-filled city balanced out by AI and real players.