360 graphics

roboffer · 19 Oct 2006 at 08:35

DaveyD said:
Guys, leave dirtydog alone

Come off it, he loves it! Its the only reason he comes in here!

Pug · 19 Oct 2006 at 09:52

and this is the problem with having HDDs on consoles. Publishers dont need to polish their works quite so brightly because it can be patched. I always said it might lead to a drop in quality control, turns out its happening...

Still, not saying their arent advantages to a HDD eother, but its valid.

Nismo · 19 Oct 2006 at 10:05

Pug said:
and this is the problem with having HDDs on consoles. Publishers dont need to polish their works quite so brightly because it can be patched. I always said it might lead to a drop in quality control, turns out its happening...

Still, not saying their arent advantages to a HDD eother, but its valid.

Didn't happen on the original Xbox, did it? Think there may have been the occasional updates, but mainly just for tweaks to multiplayer code.

DaveyD · 19 Oct 2006 at 10:19

Nismo said:
Didn't happen on the original Xbox, did it? Think there may have been the occasional updates, but mainly just for tweaks to multiplayer code.

The Xbox wasn't originally connected to the internet though, and the internet was a lot less common in households back then.

I don't really see it as a problem, for the 360 anyway, as the HDD is not a required peripheral to play the game. It's something there so we can have updates and patches, there were probably plenty of games on the Xbox and PS2 that deserved a good patch but couldn't due to no way of doing it.

Nismo · 19 Oct 2006 at 10:37

DaveyD said:
The Xbox wasn't originally connected to the internet though, and the internet was a lot less common in households back then.

Huh

It was always online enabled, and a lot of folks had it connected up.

Edit - or was it? Wiki has the Xbox released on 15 Nov 2001, and Live launched 15 November 2002. Is that right or a typo?

I was under the impression Live launched with the console?

Manlove is my forte · 19 Oct 2006 at 10:49

Nismo said:
Huh

It was always online enabled, and a lot of folks had it connected up.

Edit - or was it? Wiki has the Xbox released on 15 Nov 2001, and Live launched 15 November 2002. Is that right or a typo?

I was under the impression Live launched with the console?

I dont think it did because Halo was the flagship title for the console and did not support live. If live was available at launch Halo would have been on live

sparkymark75 · 19 Oct 2006 at 11:02

Shamelessly stolen from another forum

http://www.microsoftgamefest.com/session_abstracts.htm#GRAPHICS :eek:

Make of that what you will.

dirtydog · 19 Oct 2006 at 11:14

mparter said:
Shamelessly stolen from another forum

http://www.microsoftgamefest.com/session_abstracts.htm#GRAPHICS

Make of that what you will.

I'm missing the relevance

dustiestrat · 19 Oct 2006 at 11:26

yeah i didnt understand what the link was surpose tell me ?

DaveyD · 19 Oct 2006 at 11:26

dirtydog said:
I'm missing the relevance

Makes no sense to me, just lots of paragraphs on what stuff can do :confused:

sparkymark75 · 19 Oct 2006 at 11:37

dirtydog said:
I'm missing the relevance

This thread is about graphics is it not, and that link appears to refer to improvements in the libraries for developers to provide more features and power for the 360.

Just thought it would interest someone.

dustiestrat · 19 Oct 2006 at 11:42

you coulda explained that in the orignal post so we knew *** we were reading instead of leaving it fluttering in the wind like that know *** i mean .
no harm done just left ppl lil baffled

SC04 · 20 Oct 2006 at 10:12

Pug said:
nah, on a CRT the image is offensive - to big and blocky, lacking detail... its just... bad compared to a higher res. Res can only help so far tho - some games look "flat(?)" at higher res'.

You need enough resolution to see detail in textures, if the detail is there of course - which it should be nowadays.

What's peoples opinions on this resolution?, if 1. you can accept the camera is not great, 2. CRT images are difficult to photograph anyway, 3. it looks far better in real life.

Is it offensive, blocky, bad detail ?

dirtydog · 20 Oct 2006 at 10:18

Looks fine to me

Television broadcasts / DVDs look very lifelike and real on a CRT SDTV so there's no reason a console game can't look good at that resolution.

Pug · 20 Oct 2006 at 10:20

i think everyones agreed Fight Night ( i assume thats what it is?) is one of the best games for graphics. But theres simply no way you can anything from that piccy...

SC04 · 20 Oct 2006 at 12:09

Well its at 640 x 480 on a CRT monitor

And it looks a lot better in real life, smoother and obviously less washed out.

As Ive said before, when I run my 360 on the HD TV the biggest changes (wow factor) are the brighness and glossier colour reproduction, I think manufactures are riding the 'HD generation' on the back of LCD and Plasma technology, not the higher definition offered, which is better but not worth the £500 - £800 upgrade on its own. I would recommend a cheap 800 x 600 projector over an expensive HD TV any day.