Codemasters: this gen of consoles is not powerful enough

Mr Men · 4 May 2007 at 10:33

Oh ok then

DIRT does look rather rubbish anyway, just like most Codemaster games.

JUMPURS · 4 May 2007 at 10:33

Sheesh Nintenjo made quite good points regarding the systems. Even though what everybody has pounced on is his tongue in cheek remarks about DiRT not being good. I thought all the

after the comments would have been an indication of the light heartedness of them (Least i assume they are light hearted Nintenjo).
He may have assumed most folk knew he worked with the Studio that is making Sega Rally too lol

Mr Men · 4 May 2007 at 10:37

JUMPURS said:
I thought all the after the comments would have been an indication of the light heartedness of them

all 1 of them?

dirtydog · 4 May 2007 at 10:48

Dutch Guy said:
I would be surprised if that wasn't the case, if I look at some of the latest games on PS2 compared to early games the difference is quite big, why wouldn't it be the same for the next gen consoles?

We are talking about framerate. Plenty of early PS2 games were 60fps and plenty of recent ones are 30. Your assumption is based on a false premise therefore.

JUMPURS · 4 May 2007 at 10:55

Mr Men said:
all 1 of them?

No all 2 of them after the twice he calls it a rubbish game

Kamakazie! · 4 May 2007 at 11:49

Teletraan-82 said:
TOCA 2 didn't have rallying, that was Race Driver 2

I apologise most profusely.

FrankJH · 4 May 2007 at 12:37

two things I would like to say:

1) Lets actually see it full screen in game before making any decisions - Dirt maybe the best looking game ever and play just as well (the early shots are promising) but it may turn into mere illusion and be absolutely terrible

I recall the original CM games by codemaster and they wre absolutely incredible (even Rally Championship was pretty fantastic for its time) I am hoping to be as impressed by Dirt as I have been in the past.

2) IT is possible that Codemaster could have been lazy but being the first title on a new generation I dont think this is likely. Its also fact that developers do seem to get bettter the longer they know a product - whether its just their programming skills or whether MS / Sony turning on more abilities through dev kits etc and games improve dramatically

I have no idea which console will be the winner (or even if thre is a dead heat between all three) but I dont think it will be clear for some time the final abilities of each

schnipps · 4 May 2007 at 12:54

I play Tiger Woods 2007 on the pc maxed out 1920x1200, ok AA doesnt work but the 360 version still looks much better, even if the graphics only get slightly better over the next few years i wont complain i think when they are good on the 360 they are great and its enough imo for this gen. Of course we all want better gfx but at what cost, stuttering, no thanks.

dirtydog · 4 May 2007 at 13:05

schnipps said:
I play Tiger Woods 2007 on the pc maxed out 1920x1200, ok AA doesnt work but the 360 version still looks much better, even if the graphics only get slightly better over the next few years i wont complain i think when they are good on the 360 they are great and its enough imo for this gen. Of course we all want better gfx but at what cost, stuttering, no thanks.

Where has this idea come from which I hear all the time, that to have 60fps means you have to suffer stuttering or tearing? It is a myth. There are tons of games on the previous gen consoles which had 60fps and didn't suffer that problem. There is no inherent need for it, it is only down to bad coding.

Mr Men · 4 May 2007 at 13:07

dirtydog said:
Where has this idea come from which I hear all the time, that to have 60fps means you have to suffer stuttering or tearing? It is a myth. There are tons of games on the previous gen consoles which had 60fps and didn't suffer that problem. There is no inherent need for it, it is only down to bad coding.

He never mentioned FPS?

dirtydog · 4 May 2007 at 13:08

I inferred that it was what he was referring to. After all it is the whole point of this thread.

"andy" · 4 May 2007 at 13:09

why does the fact forza2 is 60 fps get mentioned so much

its graphics look poor compared to the dirt trailers and screens ive seen

yeah it might have better physics but this threads about graphics and framerate

Mr Men · 4 May 2007 at 13:10

andy said:
why does the fact forza2 is 60 fps get mentioned so much

its graphics look poor compared to the dirt trailers and screens ive seen

yeah it might have better physics but this threads about graphics and framerate

I suggest you go watch in game of DIRT and not the nice rendered trailers

RuMp3l4$k1n · 4 May 2007 at 13:25

Mr Men said:
I suggest you go watch in game of DIRT and not the nice rendered trailers

Perhaps you should do the same as it does look awesome atm. They had it on gamespot live last night and it was some of the best stuff ive seen on the 360, all of it was gameplay.

Having said all this the framerate was running like a hog.
They metioned that the devs were promising to get it solid before release, and what they were playing was an early demo.

Oh and when he crashed the damage looked brill.

schnipps · 4 May 2007 at 13:42

dirtydog said:
I inferred that it was what he was referring to. After all it is the whole point of this thread.

I wasnt referring to FPS, the thread title is "Consoles not powerful enough" Personally i couldnt give a stuff what FPS a game runs at on a console as long as it doesnt have any noticeable slowdown.

JUMPURS · 4 May 2007 at 13:47

andy said:
why does the fact forza2 is 60 fps get mentioned so much

its graphics look poor compared to the dirt trailers and screens ive seen

yeah it might have better physics but this threads about graphics and framerate

But what is more important, graphics or gameplay?

This is currently the debate that dev's seem to be taking on and graphics is winning in most cases. choosing 30fps over 60fps, and often terrible frame rates and tearing, just to get a game a bit prettier.
Some folk it doesn't harm their gameplay/enjoyment, but for many folk it does. I hardly played Saints row because i got so annoyed with it.

dirtydog · 4 May 2007 at 13:47

schnipps said:
I wasnt referring to FPS, the thread title is "Consoles not powerful enough" Personally i couldnt give a stuff what FPS a game runs at on a console as long as it doesnt have any noticeable slowdown.

You missed the point of the thread then

Kamakazie! · 4 May 2007 at 13:54

For those slating the game already (without so much as a review/final build videos) go have a look at the GameTrailers page on DIRT. I recommend getting the HD Japanese Countryside video. The graphics look amazing and i couldnt see any slowdown/tearing/frameskips that couldn't be attributed to the encoding of the video.
It looks great.

I don't get the whole Forza 2 comparisons either. Forza 2 looks pretty damn bland. It may end up playing amazingly as i am sure it will but really, different games, different graphics.

dirtydog · 4 May 2007 at 13:55

Kamakazie! said:
For those slating the game already (without so much as a review/final build videos) go have a look at the GameTrailers page on DIRT. I recommend getting the HD Japanese Countryside video. The graphics look amazing and i couldnt see any slowdown/tearing/frameskips that couldn't be attributed to the encoding of the video.
It looks great.

I don't get the whole Forza 2 comparisons either. Forza 2 looks pretty damn bland. It may end up playing amazingly as i am sure it will but really, different games, different graphics.

Wow, no slowdown or tearing when they set the bar low in the first place - most impressive...

Kamakazie! · 4 May 2007 at 13:59

dirtydog said:
Wow, no slowdown or tearing when they set the bar low in the first place - most impressive...

There is nothing wrong with a smooth 30fps framerate. It is the slowdown and tearing that causes the problems.
Of course i would prefer 60fps. It is an easier play and usually feels perceivably smoother, however, it is not the making/unmaking of a game.