next gen??

G

guitarwizard

so are the games we are seeing on the 360 really next gen,or are they current gen with slightly better graphics?i know that the games and graphics will get better as time goes by,but the difference between the xbox and the 360 is very small in my opinion.in every other generation of consoles that i can remember the games looked exactly twice as good on the new system than games on the older system...but i guess that could not last for ever
 
I say in about a couple years we will truly see next gen type stuff. Ive seen what the hardware can do and it's way better than what's currently out at the moment. Like you said the games will get better, so I say yes these are next gen systems not just upgrades.
 
I read (don't know if it is true) that the 360 games that are out right now are only using 1 of its cores. And that is impressive enough!
 
how many cores does it have?

and for some reason... I am not so sure we'll see MUCH better beyond this, well.. we will see better, but I doubt by too much.
Look at the current gen games. They have progressed, but on the Xbox and Gamecube, both systems (IMO) weren't really pushed as far as they could go.

It'll be up to the developers to squeeze out what they can. I know we'll see better, but I wonder by how much.

I was sort-of disappointed with the current gen systems because IMO more could have been done with them, and squeezed out of them (Like Mario Tennis at the end of the N64 era... and a few other games that just looked great. You could tell a big difference between 1st and last games.)
I know people will disagree with me.... this is not saying the 360 isn't capable... just whether or not it will be tapped.

†B†V† :hat
 
lets just hope that game developers dont take the easy route and only use one core like most did with the saturn....the only system that truly reached its full potential was the neo geo arcade hardware in my opinion
 
guitarwizard said:
lets just hope that game developers dont take the easy route and only use one core like most did with the saturn....the only system that truly reached its full potential was the neo geo arcade hardware in my opinion
Click to expand...

What about the SNES? I think that one reached it's full potential. Also the PS1.
 
I would say the Neo Geo, Snes, PSX (maybe... although not totally), PS2, Gameboy,

One could argue for the Dreamcast as games are still being done today.
The Ps2 is not able to be argued BECAUSE it is not blown away by the 2 more current systems (Gamecube and Xbox).... and both should be ashamed as they are more advanced hardware. BUT it all comes down to the developers in the end.

Systems that didn't cut it totally:
Lynx, Jaguar, Gamecube, Xbox, Saturn, 32X..... and add more if you wish, I gotta keep shipping these items :lol


†B†V† :hat
 
yeah i guess the snes did reach its full potential.as for the psx,and ps2...i have never,and will never buy a sony system so i dont know.the only game i ever really played for more than an hour on the regular gameboy was pokemon blue version...decent game really.
 
I wouldn't even say the PS2 did. Look at Shadow of the Colossus. That game was freaking amazing, graphically, and gameplay-wise. It proved that the PS2 still had a lot of kick in it left, and could do some amazing things, if developers wanted to utilize it.

I saw Call of Duty 2 on an Xbox 360 the other day. The game looked really good and sounded great too. The whole time I was watching it I just thought "This looks like a really good Xbox game." It seriously didn't look "next-gen" to me at all. I think if developers tried a little harder, they probably could have made it look that good (or close to it) on the Xbox...
 
The way I see it, the more powerful the next gen system is, the longer it's lifespan should be rather than automatically bringing out new ones every five years or so.
 
stealth toilet said:
I wouldn't even say the PS2 did. Look at Shadow of the Colossus. That game was freaking amazing, graphically, and gameplay-wise. It proved that the PS2 still had a lot of kick in it left, and could do some amazing things, if developers wanted to utilize it.

I saw Call of Duty 2 on an Xbox 360 the other day. The game looked really good and sounded great too. The whole time I was watching it I just thought "This looks like a really good Xbox game." It seriously didn't look "next-gen" to me at all. I think if developers tried a little harder, they probably could have made it look that good (or close to it) on the Xbox...
Click to expand...

Show me next-gen graphics. In your opinion. By the way, if you saw the demo of CoD2, that isn't what the game looks like. The actual game has 4x antialiasing, and yes, it makes a huge difference.
 
To be honest....IMO you can't tell the difference between XBOX and XBOX 360 unless you have the 360 hooked up to an HDTV. The 360 demo unit at my store is hooked up to a 23" Samsung HD and it looks hella sweet. But on my non-HDTV I have it hooked up through Composite cables and it looks pretty much the same as the XBOX, which is hooked up to the tv with S-Video cables.

If you have the 360 hooked up to HD though, there's a definite difference. Especially with Call of Duty 2 (XBOX 360) compared to Call of Duty 2: Big Red One (XBOX).
 
i just played call of duty 2 at walmart,and i was not impressed by it.the graphics are good,but the game it self was kind of...bleh.of course i only played it for five minutes
 
guitarwizard said:
i just played call of duty 2 at walmart,and i was not impressed by it.the graphics are good,but the game it self was kind of...bleh.of course i only played it for five minutes
Click to expand...

You're the only person I've heard say it was bad. Everyone else was going insane over its sheer awesomeness.
 
to be fair i dont really like that kind of game...i am into old school arcade games,and almost all nintendo franchises.the thing that really put me off is that the game was not set on inverted,and i could change it because it was a demo....i guess i am just picky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top