Print

[griffin XXI]

QUOTE(m_hael @ Jun 6 2006, 02:08 PM)

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.

Really appreciate your answers to my ?s.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(griffin XXI @ Jun 6 2006, 03:48 PM)

Really appreciate your answers to my ?s.

understand the way things are done now, are you happier with how system and game releases are now?

I never meant no offense to you, just tried to help you understand that to happen what you wish then the hardware would be old and inferior by the time the system launched.

[Heet]

Hey griffin XXI just do what I do.  Buy the system when there is a good game you want.  Then, and this is the genius part, dont buy any crap games.  


Buy another game when one that is appealing to you comes out.  That may be a year or two for me, the
current selection for the most part sucks ass as far as my taste goes.  Thats expected at only 6 months after a console's launch.  You think PS3 is going to have jaw droppers in the beginning?


Oblivion is great but other than that, im waiting.  GOW will probably be next.


Till then just rent, rent, rent.

[griffin XXI]

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Jun 6 2006, 03:10 PM)

understand the way things are done now, are you happier with how system and game releases are now?

I never meant no offense to you, just tried to help you understand that to happen what you wish then the hardware would be old and inferior by the time the system launched.

hey brother, none taken. Just curious and had some questions. Think i got a better understanding, thanks for your input as well.

[krims0n]

To me it would just seem wasteful to hold back a console for 12-18 months to "get used to the hardware". An "unoptimized" 360 game still looks leaps and bounds better then an xbox game as long as they don't fuck up the framerate.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(krims0n @ Jun 7 2006, 12:26 PM)

To me it would just seem wasteful to hold back a console for 12-18 months to "get used to the hardware". An "unoptimized" 360 game still looks leaps and bounds better then an xbox game as long as they don't fuck up the framerate.

no one is "holding back", time and money are also always an issue but most games are as optimized as they could be when they are released.  Time restraints, money restraints, and current development tools play more of a factor then any developer "holding back".

[incognegro]

I guess some ppl like to eat it raw than let it cook

[krims0n]

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Jun 7 2006, 12:48 PM)

no one is "holding back", time and money are also always an issue but most games are as optimized as they could be when they are released.  Time restraints, money restraints, and current development tools play more of a factor then any developer "holding back".

Err?? I was referring to Griffin's comments that they should hold back a brand new console for 12-18 months to let developer's get used to the hardware. I'm saying that would be a complete waste of capable hardware for those 12-18 months because even the "unoptimized" games look better then anything on the xbox.

[Staple]

man the demo to this game fuckin pwns

[Keshire]

People that do Game Development for a living versus People that play games for a psuedo-lving (aka basement dwellers).

Which side to choose on the system potential argument....