Post by: Xbox-Scene on October 28, 2006, 08:36:00 AM
| From joystiq.com: Quote
Read More: joystiq.com and siliconera.com |
Post by: DMAddict on October 28, 2006, 07:50:00 AM
This post has been edited by DMAddict: Oct 28 2006, 02:51 PM
Post by: Mega_mil on October 28, 2006, 07:57:00 AM
QUOTE(DMAddict @ Oct 28 2006, 02:21 PM) 
With this kind of talk, it makes me wonder if wer're going to see more game freezing with GOW. I've experienced it a couple times with Just Cause.
LMAO
I know. I was thinking the same thing. I'm on my 3rd 360 and I'm seriously about to write a letter to M$ and request my money back cause no system has had this many issues before. I still have my 8-bit Nintendo and it works better than these damn 360's do. Either the games stutter or freeze. I was playing the Rainbow Six Vegas demo last night and it froze on me again. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grr.gif)
Post by: RiPpN-N-TrIppN on October 28, 2006, 07:30:00 AM
does that mean this is as good as any 360 game is going to get ??????
Post by: m_hael on October 28, 2006, 07:40:00 AM
there is always room for optimisation... just like there is always room for beer.
Post by: xboxexpert on October 28, 2006, 08:47:00 AM
Post by: sicknasty413 on October 28, 2006, 08:31:00 AM
QUOTE(xboxexpert @ Oct 28 2006, 10:18 AM) 
More and More Hype....lets just see the damn game!
agreed.
And i wouldnt worry about GOW making 360s freeze, Im sure the game was built CORRECTLY so that it utilizes the 360s potential without causing it to overheat/freeze/poop/whatever....and yes, that is possible.
Post by: m_hael on October 28, 2006, 08:35:00 AM
Post by: XanTium on October 28, 2006, 08:47:00 AM
I'm pretty sure Halo3 will push more about of the 360.
Post by: xboxexpert on October 28, 2006, 10:37:00 AM
QUOTE(XanTium @ Oct 28 2006, 09:54 AM)
TBH I'd be surprised if the Xbox360 couldn't do better ...
I'm pretty sure Halo3 will push more about of the 360.
XanT lemme find out you'll be online with Halo 3 so I can own you in a multiplayer (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Post by: Xx The 0ne xX on October 28, 2006, 10:13:00 AM
Post by: abuimak on October 28, 2006, 10:21:00 AM
Post by: shotgunsteve on October 28, 2006, 11:10:00 AM
Post by: laurie on October 28, 2006, 10:34:00 AM
There is no way that in 1 year of any consoles release its potential will have been filled. Look at the last batch of ps2 games compared to the ones which were supposedly pushing the system to its limits during its infancy. They are twice as good looking at least. Developers will find new ways to exploit the hardware to maximise its efficiency and capabilities.
Post by: cerberus414 on October 28, 2006, 10:36:00 AM
1. PS3 Fanboys who are trying to divert attention away from the Resistance Killer (aka Gears of War). Yes, that's what Sony said about Resistance being the Halo Killer. I'm pretty sure they meant Halo 2 not Halo 3
2. Retards because MS is refunding money for the broken Xbox 360s. (Made before 2006, because the problem was isolated afterwards and has no relationship with how much stress is being put on the system - aka defect) Are you guys trying to blow the issue out of proportion? Obviously, just because every 3rd post has to do with the "3 rings of death" doesn't mean everyone has it. Only those who have it will go online will talk trash. If you ever took Statistics you'd know that this shit is biased. And all this crap with 33% of 360 failing is crap too, because MS would of recalled and some 3rd party calculations are probably wrong and meaningless. I think Microsoft would know the real failure numbers.
Post by: CMB. on October 28, 2006, 10:39:00 AM
QUOTE(XanTium @ Oct 28 2006, 08:54 AM)
TBH I'd be surprised if the Xbox360 couldn't do better ...
I'm pretty sure Halo3 will push more about of the 360.
Hopefully...
I think GRAW just has so much stuff going on in a small space at once, the X360 finds it hard to keep up.... Personally i think this game would suck on the PC, ha ha.
Post by: epsilon72 on October 28, 2006, 10:54:00 AM
Post by: BasicAir on October 28, 2006, 11:00:00 AM
That's like saying there were games on PS2 or Xbox1 that pushed the limit within 1 year of release. Or any other system for that matter. It's BS. I've been gaming for 20 years, played every console since the early 80's, and NO CONSOLE has ever achieved this.
End of discussion.
Post by: sicknasty413 on October 28, 2006, 11:19:00 AM
QUOTE(xboxexpert @ Oct 28 2006, 12:08 PM)
XanT lemme find out you'll be online with Halo 3 so I can own you in a multiplayer
pshh, Ill take you both on... with no hands..
Post by: xboxexpert on October 28, 2006, 11:22:00 AM
QUOTE(sicknasty413 @ Oct 28 2006, 12:26 PM)
pshh, Ill take you both on... with no hands..
Hah
Post by: Sanitarium on October 28, 2006, 12:24:00 PM
Post by: picopir8 on October 28, 2006, 12:32:00 PM
QUOTE(BasicAir @ Oct 28 2006, 06:07 PM)
DON'T TAKE THIS NEWS as meaning that 360 games won't improve at all after GoW.
Agreed. Its very easy to write software that pushes a device to its limit. Thats what benchmark programs do. The trick is to utilize the resources effectively to make a game look/play as good as possible w/o bogging down the system.
To me this announcement can be interpreted as "we have crummy software engineers".
Post by: whiteboytroy on October 28, 2006, 12:34:00 PM
Post by: Mega_mil on October 28, 2006, 01:48:00 PM
QUOTE(Xx The 0ne xX @ Oct 28 2006, 05:20 PM)
gears of war is going 2 be good, 360 can get much much better, i love gears of war got my stuff preordered but i kno its not the best 360 can do, epic has been working on this game to make sure it doenst cause hardware or any other issues with 360, they have it running at 60fps, and the reason other games like the rainbow six demo freeze up is cuz they dont put enough time and effort into it, ubisoft and EA like to make shitty versions of their game most of the time for all consoles and not really put forth the effor to debug and fix all of the issues. I mean look at Dead Rising it could have taken them 5 min to fix that SDTV text issue but they said fuck it, epic isnt like that with gears of war they have been working on it 1 year before xbox 360 was even announced, plus the rest of this time, Gears of war is def gonna b the beggining of the real next gen.
Ubisoft put alot of effort into their games on the 360. The demo froze because the 360 was rushed and wasn't properly vented inside. I have had more than one 360 freeze on all of my games so I doubt it is always faulty programming.
QUOTE(cerberus414 @ Oct 28 2006, 05:43 PM)
I think people with broken Xbox 360s are either:
1. PS3 Fanboys who are trying to divert attention away from the Resistance Killer (aka Gears of War). Yes, that's what Sony said about Resistance being the Halo Killer. I'm pretty sure they meant Halo 2 not Halo 3
2. Retards because MS is refunding money for the broken Xbox 360s. (Made before 2006, because the problem was isolated afterwards and has no relationship with how much stress is being put on the system - aka defect) Are you guys trying to blow the issue out of proportion? Obviously, just because every 3rd post has to do with the "3 rings of death" doesn't mean everyone has it. Only those who have it will go online will talk trash. If you ever took Statistics you'd know that this shit is biased. And all this crap with 33% of 360 failing is crap too, because MS would of recalled and some 3rd party calculations are probably wrong and meaningless. I think Microsoft would know the real failure numbers.
So you telling me it's my fault that the 360's I keep getting are faulty. It's my fault they send me back a refurbed xbox instead of giving me a brand new one??? I think maybe you are just an xbox fanboy way too much. Why would M$ give you the real numbers? Look how long it took them to admit to the first batch of 360's being faulty and having issues? Come on man, open your eyes. It's a good system, yeah, when it's working....
Post by: VerbalVenom on October 28, 2006, 02:11:00 PM
QUOTE(Mega_mil @ Oct 28 2006, 03:55 PM)
Ubisoft put alot of effort into their games on the 360. The demo froze because the 360 was rushed and wasn't properly vented inside. I have had more than one 360 freeze on all of my games so I doubt it is always faulty programming.
So you telling me it's my fault that the 360's I keep getting are faulty. It's my fault they send me back a refurbed xbox instead of giving me a brand new one??? I think maybe you are just an xbox fanboy way too much. Why would M$ give you the real numbers? Look how long it took them to admit to the first batch of 360's being faulty and having issues? Come on man, open your eyes. It's a good system, yeah, when it's working....
Same thing I say. I have the $ for a 360, but IDk if I wanna wait till the revision or not. I hope they have a revision by XMas but I doubt it.
Post by: Interfire on October 28, 2006, 02:24:00 PM
Post by: nectar12 on October 28, 2006, 02:53:00 PM
QUOTE(cerberus414 @ Oct 28 2006, 12:43 PM)
I think people with broken Xbox 360s are either:
1. PS3 Fanboys who are trying to divert attention away from the Resistance Killer (aka Gears of War). Yes, that's what Sony said about Resistance being the Halo Killer. I'm pretty sure they meant Halo 2 not Halo 3
2. Retards because MS is refunding money for the broken Xbox 360s. (Made before 2006, because the problem was isolated afterwards and has no relationship with how much stress is being put on the system - aka defect) Are you guys trying to blow the issue out of proportion? Obviously, just because every 3rd post has to do with the "3 rings of death" doesn't mean everyone has it. Only those who have it will go online will talk trash. If you ever took Statistics you'd know that this shit is biased. And all this crap with 33% of 360 failing is crap too, because MS would of recalled and some 3rd party calculations are probably wrong and meaningless. I think Microsoft would know the real failure numbers.
no its cause there are alot of 360's out there that are shit. where the fuck have you been?
Post by: SteveNZ on October 28, 2006, 03:06:00 PM
QUOTE(cerberus414 @ Oct 28 2006, 05:43 PM)
I think people with broken Xbox 360s are either: And all this crap with 33% of 360 failing is crap too, because MS would of recalled and some 3rd party calculations are probably wrong and meaningless. I think Microsoft would know the real failure numbers.
My 360 was bought in March, it freezes while playing Saints Row on a fairly regular basis and stutters while playing downloaded videos. The problem has not been "isolated". It's bad internal design somewhere. Then there was the Dead Rising issues...
I'll be buying a new 360 next year when the lower-temperature versions are released, hopefully it'll be less loud.
Post by: crobar on October 28, 2006, 03:56:00 PM
now if they tweaked the engine and optimized it for the 360( as i understand it the engine doesn't even allow anti aliasing at this state) and then claimed this i think we would all be looking at a far superior game.
as i'm sure it was stated earlier the unreal engine was made for pc and ported over to 360 not optimized for the system as it could have been if it was built directly for the system.
the troubling thing to me is that they claim this game could not be made on the ps3 at all due to a lack of ram, did sony really shoot themselves in the foot like that?!
Post by: Navillos on October 28, 2006, 04:20:00 PM
Post by: nwo504 on October 28, 2006, 07:15:00 PM
QUOTE(karnak @ Oct 28 2006, 11:23 PM)
The X360 can do ALOT! More. The PR Manager at my work says that his brother is the Producer for COD3 (Hes a good honest bloke) and apparently COD3 is using no more than around 30% of the X360's capabilities..
but cod3 loooks 70% less good than cow
Post by: GLiTcH on October 28, 2006, 09:39:00 PM
Post by: Odb718 on October 29, 2006, 12:41:00 AM
QUOTE(GLiTcH @ Oct 28 2006, 11:46 PM)
wonder how many xbox360 this game its going to kill . .lol
Post by: nickthegreat on October 29, 2006, 03:26:00 AM
QUOTE(XanTium @ Oct 28 2006, 03:54 PM)
TBH I'd be surprised if the Xbox360 couldn't do better ...
I'm pretty sure Halo3 will push more about of the 360.
not by the looks of the recent screenshots........... (yeah yeah early build, no excuse.)
QUOTE(Sanitarium @ Oct 28 2006, 07:31 PM)
I wonder if Gears of War is the first game to use multiple cores?
no, im fairly sure all games use multiple cores; 360 games described as using "1 core" are mythical.
QUOTE(LRa @ Oct 28 2006, 09:25 PM)
If a first generation game pushes the 360 to it's limit, that's pretty lame.
first gen? think its second, but your right.
its marketing shite, just like the guy below you said.
edit: oh and by the way; a shitting demo with wank graphics can tax the system just as much as a great looking game that 'pushes the console to the limit'. like someone said, its all about efficient coding - not just about how good the game looks. BC is an example of this ---- that taxes the system.
Post by: karnak on October 29, 2006, 03:42:00 AM
QUOTE(WarriorNine @ Oct 29 2006, 04:33 AM)
Keep in mind the source of this comment - "Gears of War QA manager Preston Thorne". Not to say he doesn't know what he's talking about, but after working several years in QA (testing department), I can pretty safely say that most QA managers don't know a whole lot about programming, console capabilities/limitations, and the like.
Thats funny because both me and my Boss QA Manager know quite a bit about limitations in hardware and capabilities of consoles e.t.c. Just because they are game testers (like me) does not mean we dont know anything about hardware.. I myself know an awfull lot..
Post by: Mega_mil on October 29, 2006, 08:27:00 AM
QUOTE(cerberus414 @ Oct 29 2006, 06:41 AM)
Just because the game looks good and is smooth, doesn't mean it will always put a lot of stress on the console. It's all about code efficiency. I'm not a programmer but I think of code efficiency is how well it is organized. Think of a computer as a person trying to read his notes. If they are neat, bulleted and categorized, then the person should have no problem recalling anything written down quite quickly. Where as if the notes were sloppy and written on different pages, sideways then the person would find it quite frustrating to go through all the mess. Both have same information but one is more effective than the other.
Next topic: Insomniac is claiming that Resistance is currently taking up at least 20 GB of space. This is what I think:
1. They are lying to pretend they worked hard and nonstop to get a quality game out to the PS3 users. Just think about it - 20GB!!! Now realize how much bandwidth that would require to run a game like this. Big bulky games aren't always good because of all huge pre-rendered textures which could clog the system's arteries.
2. It's in Sony's nature to advertise BluRay and if they were to say that the game is 5 GB, then people would go "Ugh.....Why should I get an expensive Ps3 with a meaningless BluRay drive in it" or "Doesn't it defeat the purpose of BluRay". It just wouldn't make sense would it. I'll say it again: It is marketing and they want people to think that BluRay is mandatory. Blah Blah
3. Something relevant to this topic: Inefficient coding. Don't judge games by their size. What exactly do I mean by inefficient coding. Have you guys ever heard of .kkrieger? It's basically a game that has moderate graphics. You might say "Yea.....so....where are you going with this?". Well the catch is that the whole game is just one file taking up just 96KB of space. Procedural Synthesis is what its called. If people can code right, a lot more can be done with less space and resources. In Resistance's case, I'm guessing programmers were kinda sloppy and decided to keep files uncompressed to "take advantage of BluRay." I just hope that all this junk on BluRay won't backfire back at them.
Here is the link to .kkrieger
QUOTE(nickthegreat @ Oct 29 2006, 11:33 AM)
not by the looks of the recent screenshots........... (yeah yeah early build, no excuse.)
no, im fairly sure all games use multiple cores; 360 games described as using "1 core" are mythical.
first gen? think its second, but your right.
its marketing shite, just like the guy below you said.
edit: oh and by the way; a shitting demo with wank graphics can tax the system just as much as a great looking game that 'pushes the console to the limit'. like someone said, its all about efficient coding - not just about how good the game looks. BC is an example of this ---- that taxes the system.
While I can agree that good coding can help alot of the problems in most of these games, you also have to take into account the difference between non-optimized code and just a poorly made system. The perfect game to support both of your points is Quake 4. That game played like shit for the 360 simply because they just ported the code and did not optimized it (Slowdown up the butt). But on times where the games just straight up freeze. I don't think that has anything to do with the game's programming but rather the 360's design. Since this is pretty much still a first-gen game, only time will tell if things will get better programming wise but I doubt it. The 360 is not a full year old yet but games like EA's Live 07 or Madden 07 are reasons I do not buy games without testing them first. Most of EA's game play poorly when you compared them to the xbox or ps2 version. The 360 versions of these games play kinda choppy and suffer slowdown at certain parts. I thought slowdown was something we would never see on a NEXT-GEN system
Post by: pickie on October 29, 2006, 10:44:00 AM
if thats "pushing the 360 to the limit" then there is no hope for new games in the futre
Post by: Mega_mil on October 29, 2006, 12:12:00 PM
Post by: cerberus414 on October 29, 2006, 09:15:00 PM
I'm just praying that Alan Wake will run smoothly for Xbox 360. They said that 360 is their primary developing platform so I'll have to wait and see.
Post by: Neoistheone2000 on October 30, 2006, 02:32:00 AM
and besides why would they phase out a system not even a year old yet?
now i have my collecters edition reserved im just wondering if i can use my 360 while playing GOW and make me some scrambeled eggs on the graphics heat sink (J/K that was fucking stupid)
Post by: Mr Invader on October 30, 2006, 03:48:00 PM
And even if it does, that doesn't mean that games for the 360 will never be/look better than this. New methods of developing will come up and will be able to make games more efficient when running the 360s hardware. Games WILL look better than GoW.
Post by: amb7247 on November 01, 2006, 05:46:00 PM
This game may be pushing the unreal engine to its limits but cliffyB has stated many times that Gears of War is not even using half of the 360 capabilities.
Oh and most of the games for the 360 or only using 1 core of the 360. I dont know if GoW is using all 3 but most of those ported games are only using 1 core. We'll see 3 core games soon, GoW may be one of them. But most of those game are not designed or optimized for 3 core.
This is the beginning of a good story line, physics and graphics. Just wait till more game studios start using the physics engine that will be in the new upcoming star wars game being developed.
Post by: Deftech on November 03, 2006, 06:14:00 PM
Better ones would be Doom III and Chaos Theory, even Unreal Champs 2. Those games really pushed the Xbox compared to Halo 2.
Post by: KAGE360 on November 03, 2006, 07:13:00 PM
listen to the mark rein interview on Major Nelson's podcast. he states something similar but further explains that this is all they were able to get out of the machine RIGHT NOW. they will continue to get much more power out of the system as time goes on, its commen sense to anyone that has been gaming for years on end.
you guys shoudnt need M_heal to tell you its not maxed out to figure it out. a developer can use all the cores, all the memory, and all the ALUs in the GPU but that doesnt mean its maxed out. thats just as bad as saying "oh no geometry wars uses all 3 cores!! its maxing out the 360!!"
i cant believe there is still confusion as to how many games or what games uses how many cores. EVERY game uses all 3 cores, even small little arcade games like geometry wars. early in development games may only run on one or two cores (GoW and FEAR come to mind in dev comments) but when you put ANY game in your 360, its using all 3 cores.
also i do agree i believe that games like Halo 3 will push the 360 harder because it never started its development on a PC. not saying it will look better (art direction way too different to accurately judge that) but i do believe it will push the system harder, or at least better.
i worry about you people some times.
Post by: jabroniekilla on November 04, 2006, 07:03:00 AM
Post by: joker1993 on November 08, 2006, 05:49:00 AM