Print

[KAGE360]

Now i use the word current because developers have yet to truely understand the limitations of these systems.  when development tools improve the bar gets raised, kind of the same thing that most developers will claim to push a system to it's limits to only get surpassed months later in technology and graphics.  however it is great news to see that a great game like Lost Planet doesnt come close to what the system can truely do.

QUOTE

This is a bit old, but we wanted to bring it to you anyway. Keiji Inafune of Capcom, the man behind Lost Planet, stated that they are only using about 60% of the XBox360's potential with the game. Take into account that Lost Planet is one of the best games out and it is only in demo form, and you can see we are in for a real treat this generation on both systems.

http://www.gamersrep....com/news/2813/

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(paranoia4422 @ Jun 5 2006, 03:24 PM)

I have a hard time believing it, its Ridiculous to think its not %100 of what the system can do but just poorly optimized instead

how do you have a hard time believing this?  also how is it that you know what 100% of the system is??  we constantly read on how developers are still diving deaper and deaper in the system and keep finding new ways to push more power out of the system.  we wont have a true idea of how powerful this system is for another year or two.  

also it is never right to quote how much power of a system you are using, this is because most measurements of a system's total power is hardly accurate.  if you were right (which your not) and Lost Planet used 100% of the system's power then what would we look forward to a year from now other then improved frame rates?  it doesnt work that way, we had developers say at launch that they are pushing the system to it's limits but months later we are getting games that kill the launch line-up technically.  

it is never accurate to measure a system's power since there is usually a lot of unlocked potential that takes years to uncover.  that is why i stressed the word current potential, because this time next year development tools will have improved and we will be looking forward towards games will kill GoW and Lost planet graphically.

[griffin XXI]

Here's an outrageous suggestion: Don't release a system, until you CAN create games making use of its full potential. I hate knowing I paid full price for a game that in a year from now could have been better. We are all a bunch of suckers!

[jimjom]

But it ALWAYS works like this. Every console every doesn't get 100% off the bat... Why?


Because the techniques and coding tricks to do that haven't been learned yet. Things like that don't happen until at least two years into it's lifespan....

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(griffin XXI @ Jun 5 2006, 04:34 PM)

Here's an outrageous suggestion: Don't release a system, until you CAN create games making use of its full potential. I hate knowing I paid full price for a game that in a year from now could have been better. We are all a bunch of suckers!

your only a sucker for ever expecting or wanting that to happen.  its not going to happen and it never will.  its not like developers are "holding back" there is just more to learn about each console everytime you look under the hood.  if you knew game development then you can say that about any game, with more time it would turn out better.  also if we really got 100% of the system at launch then again, what would we have to look forward to?  you pay full price for a game that is fun and worth the $$ in your opinion, that is what you paid full price for.  if things happened the way you wished them to happen then there would very little to be excited for in the future years of a console life-cycle.  

right now we can say were playing amazing games like GRAW, PGR3, CoD2, oblivion, and DoA4 while still have the ability to think and know that in two years games will look MUCH better and continue to amaze us, giving us even more reasons we spent $$ on not only the game but the system itself.

its classic game development, if you dont know this much by now, do some research.

even two years after the system's launch there will still be new things and techniques to learn.  i read it somewhere (dont remember where, could have been here) that developers arent thrilled with the concept of relearning architectures every 5 years and would love more time if granted.  the ps2 is ass old and there are still techniques that developers are finding out about it, same for the xbox.

[griffin XXI]

QUOTE(draken333 @ Jun 6 2006, 02:43 AM)

I fully agree with you. Its inevitable that game developers will ever makes games at launch that use the systems full power. Just like the ps1. I remember playing the very first games that came out, ridge racer and that fighting game...forget the name. But the ps1 games that came out years later were so much better, only because game developers understood the console and how to utilize its power. Its ignorant to expect all games to use the systems full power the day of the launch.

Ignorant? Maybe. Perhaps I'm more of a dreamer. And Kage, why would anyone want to wait, if you know you could have the best or near best, right off the bat? I would argue that, the initial quality would be better for the life the of the system and draw a larger audience. Am I sucker, sure I am, I'm also an old ass gamer who would like to see the payoff asap so he can sooner enjoy the high quality games before he passes on to the next life. Why not question if a system could be created and its limits tested before being introduced to the public? As for you calling me a sucker for "ever expecting or wanting that to happen", I'll gladly embrace that title, as should you. Can a man not dream or hope or ask questions? Why don't you keep standing resolute in your belief, that things cannot possibly change or shouldn't, and you will see me standing firmly opposite of you.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(griffin XXI @ Jun 6 2006, 08:58 AM)

Ignorant? Maybe. Perhaps I'm more of a dreamer. And Kage, why would anyone want to wait, if you know you could have the best or near best, right off the bat? I would argue that, the initial quality would be better for the life the of the system and draw a larger audience. Am I sucker, sure I am, I'm also an old ass gamer who would like to see the payoff asap so he can sooner enjoy the high quality games before he passes on to the next life. Why not question if a system could be created and its limits tested before being introduced to the public? As for you calling me a sucker for "ever expecting or wanting that to happen", I'll gladly embrace that title, as should you. Can a man not dream or hope or ask questions? Why don't you keep standing resolute in your belief, that things cannot possibly change or shouldn't, and you will see me standing firmly opposite of you.

all i was stating is that it will never happen, game development does not work that way.  i understand that if your spending $400-$600 for a system you want your games to take full use of that $400 worth of technology, and it is in the most possible way at that point in time.  like i said before, it isnt like developers are "holding back", they need to become familiar with the architecture, development tools need to mature, and bounderies need to be pushed to test the limits of these consoles.  

im not calling you a sucker for wanting it to happen, im calling you a sucker if you ever expect for it to happen because it wont.  If no one ever said anything about how much potential the current games are using, would you still feel the same way?  would you believe that the current quality of titles was still sub-standard?  yes its true the initial impression would be great and very positive if we had games at launch that took used every ounce of the power the system can muster, but it would not be great in the long run.  you would then get complaints that the games coming out 3 years later look and play no better then the launch line-up.  

again you are getting the most developers can do with the system right now, no one is holding back, the lack of final hardware and immiture development tools only allow so much to be done.  like i said before the perception of a system's total power is always evolving, so there is no telling without proper information of how much a game really using the system.

regardless of how much of the system's total power the current games are using now, are you saying your not happy with great games like CoD2, GRAW, oblivion, DoA4 and PGR3 and you would be happier with them if you were told they are using the total system's power?  Do you not see my point that no matter how good the quality titles we are playing now are, we have much reason to get excited for the future?  i dont expect you to understand everything with little knowledge of game development.  all i am saying is im sorry, but it will never happen, you are getting your pay off right now and it will only get better.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(paranoia4422 @ Jun 6 2006, 10:47 AM)

Kage way to go understanding my post, your always right arent you

ummm no im not always right but you can believe what you wish.

you made a statement and i commented on it, i understood your post.  

now i question whether or not you understood anything i have typed, besides i said nothing negative towards you, why the sensetive attitude?

[m_hael]

QUOTE(paranoia4422 @ Jun 5 2006, 12:24 PM)

I have a hard time believing it, its Ridiculous to think its not %100 of what the system can do but just poorly optimized instead

it is a flawed statement.... resolving that sentence you get.

this game uses 100% of the system.
its ridiculous to think otherwise.
its poorly optimised.

100% of the system would imply it is perfectly optimised; its impossible.
assuming its poorly optimised is flawed in that it assumes you have knowledge you do not.
saying its ridiculous to think otherwise is egregious and somewhat arrogant (I should know, I'm good at it).


sorry - but I really can't stand comments like that based on supposition.

yes the system can do more... but that does NOT qualify your statement.

further it should be noted that there is no "readout" anywhere that tells me as a programmer how much of the system I am using... its an guestimate based on what he thinks ... if anything I'd say he's WAY overestimating how much of the system they are actually using.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(m_hael @ Jun 6 2006, 10:58 AM)

it is a flawed statement.... resolving that sentence you get.

this game uses 100% of the system.
its ridiculous to think otherwise.
its poorly optimised.

100% of the system would imply it is perfectly optimised; its impossible.
assuming its poorly optimised is flawed in that it assumes you have knowledge you do not.
saying its ridiculous to think otherwise is egregious and somewhat arrogant (I should know, I'm good at it).
sorry - but I really can't stand comments like that based on supposition.

yes the system can do more... but that does NOT qualify your statement.

further it should be noted that there is no "readout" anywhere that tells me as a programmer how much of the system I am using... its an guestimate based on what he thinks ... if anything I'd say he's WAY overestimating how much of the system they are actually using.

 

[griffin XXI]

QUOTE(m_hael @ Jun 6 2006, 09:58 AM)

it is a flawed statement.... resolving that sentence you get.

this game uses 100% of the system.
its ridiculous to think otherwise.
its poorly optimised.

100% of the system would imply it is perfectly optimised; its impossible.
assuming its poorly optimised is flawed in that it assumes you have knowledge you do not.
saying its ridiculous to think otherwise is egregious and somewhat arrogant (I should know, I'm good at it).
sorry - but I really can't stand comments like that based on supposition.

yes the system can do more... but that does NOT qualify your statement.

further it should be noted that there is no "readout" anywhere that tells me as a programmer how much of the system I am using... its an guestimate based on what he thinks ... if anything I'd say he's WAY overestimating how much of the system they are actually using.

m hael, allow me to ask you a question in regards to my first statement, since you appear to have a depth of knowledge of this industry, above and beyond my own. I'm asking this question, without any experience, and please forgive any faulty terminology. Would you if you could, for sake of arguement lets use the 360, test and develop on this machine for lets say 12 or 18 months, or even longer, before its release, so as to have a greater understanding of its performances, allowing a game developer to release a higher initial quality product, than what we normally see the first 6 or even 12 months after the system releases? I know this is probably a very naive question, because I know b4 even asking that the issue of dollars and cents, would probably make this prohibitive, and I can only imagine what other business issues would make this moot. I guess I probably answered my own question, maybe in a perfect world? So would you if you could? It just seems to me that the quality isn't vastly improved enough over the previous gen to warrant the cost of a new system, at least that first year of its life. I know there are other people besides myself that get sucked into this hype, buy a new system, spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on games and accessories, and end up with disappointment, because we very likely could have spent less for the game on our old system and wouldnt have any complaint playing a slightly lower quality game. So we're left with the choice of either waiting a couple years to buy it, when there is consistent quality, or purchasing right away and sifting through the detritus of terrible game choices the first year. There are always exceptions, GRAW and COD2 were amazing, as well as few others, but look what we get for the most part, I won't call them junk, but my God, were they worth buying a new system for? I got in my head that if developers had a head start and issued high quality games from the start, wouldnt that be better business? I know if I buy a Mercedes or an Armani suit, that those products don't start off as a Pontiac or a suit from Men's Wearhouse and eventually evolve into the things they were intended to be. Just my 2 cents.

[Ozy]

Hey m_hael your back! Good to read from you, keeping neutral in a world of xbox fanboys.

[hamwbone]

whos in it for better buisness and whos in it for making money?there is a fine line that a company has to find.  people are still going to buy no matter what. 12-18 months is 1/3 of a systems life cycle, why would you waste that time, none of the games are garbage. i dont even know where to start with this.. i cant think straight!

[crobar]

would you say the same about...oh i dunno any other production technology?

like music or movies?
are you upset wiht the fact that lucas didnt wait till  computer animation was in its prime to create his star wars movies?

point is..people can only program for what they know...
if the world were perfect every system would come out and be exactly the same as the last but more powerful so everything would be backwards compatable and new games could use "100%" of the systems processing power. but thats not the case and it will never be these systems are made and shipped to game producers to learn on and build on.
what your asking is that the programers
 
a ) get the system years in advance to get to know the hardware
    so in a few years when the system launches (with a few year old technology)it uses  the coveted "100%"

or

b ) programers magicly know how to do everything on the system automaticly 100% with no bugs or patches or upgrades so they can program "100%" for launch...

both...are crazy and will naver happen.

your better off sticking wiht a pc if this is your mentality...then you can upgrade your pc as the groundbreaking stuff comes out...but this is a console its hardware that is programed for not vice versa...and even that doesnt happen.

[m_hael]

QUOTE(griffin XXI @ Jun 6 2006, 09:44 AM)

...

what you're saying in short boils down to.

given more time developing tools & tech BEFORE handing the console to the developers... do I think a consoles first batch of games would look better.

in short yes.... the second gen would however look worse* and by that point the console itself would be behind the times in terms of hardware and thus for a LOT of people NOT a must buy.

more time spent on a console doing R&D pretty much always yields better results than NOT spending that time.

as you say tho... dollars are a rather controlling feature of consoles.


* worse because developers would be forced to use the original tech first game.. and only get R&D for the second game.... R&D first gen would therefore go into the second.