By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - The myth of the more powerful console.

mibuokami on 23 May 2009
deadt0m said:
CGI-Quality said:
There are actually plenty of differences and both systems have strengths and weaknesses and it shows in their top tier games. No myth about that.

And even if Blu-ray doesn't contribute to the look of a game, I'm not sure if that's been proven false though, it DOES contribute to lots more content within a game. MGS4's main advantage was Blu-ray, so it does account for something, which does matter.

Regardless, the article makes several nice points, even if I disagree with a few other ones.

Bold is 100% false.  It contributes NOTHING to the content within a game, it contributes to the amount of content that can be fit on one disc.  I am in no way denying that MGS4 could not be pulled off in one-disc format on 360.  But it could easily be pulled off in multi-disc format, thus meaning that Blu-Ray in no way enhances the amount of content available, only the number of discs that content is packaged on.

This is not always true, case in point would be Final Fantasy 13, the producer has stated that they plan to forgo the Japanese language track from the western release due to limitation of disk space on the 360, the main issue here is that the extra disk to put those extra content on cost money, and a company is unlikely to add those smaller level content that has small financial impact but caters to a more niche market.

If this game was on the Ps3 only, the Japanese language track could be very easily incorporate as it adds no extra cost and will also make the niche market happy.

On face value, your statement is true, but it does not always reflect in real life due to other factors (primarily cost).




Around the Network
bugrimmar on 23 May 2009

guys guys, you're already talking about japanese language tracks and whatnot, when that has absolutely nothing to do with graphics. please leave the discussion to the topic at hand, please.



mibuokami on 23 May 2009

Heh I guess I did contribute to the derail.

With regards to your post, you've established a 'no-win scenario' with your argument, because a key criteria you've pointed out is that graphic is subjective to a person's opinion due to art style and the objective of the game. You can only get agreement and fanboy trying to shout you down.

This thread is suprisingly lacking of the later




bugrimmar on 23 May 2009

yeah, but there's a limit to that art argument.

for games that have the same objective, theme, and genre, decent comparisons can be made.

examples:

1.) killzone 2 vs. COD4. both games aim for realism, both games are war settings, both games are FPS.

2.) Ratchet and Clank vs. Banjo and Kazooie. both games aim for cartoonish graphics, both games are platformers.

3.) Uncharted vs. Tomb Raider. both games aim for realism, both games are adventure/action, both games focus on beautiful environments.

etc.

there are many proper comparisons out there and there isn't a need to compare things that aren't even applicable. nonetheless, in the end, it's all down to budget and dev time, then comes art style and emphasis.

you do bring up some good points, however, and i agree that there are some metrics wherein games can be objectively compared graphically. but the point of this thread is "the myth of the more powerful console". at least we agree on the fact that both consoles are just the same in terms of power.



Zizzla_Rachet on 23 May 2009
mibuokami said:
deadt0m said:
CGI-Quality said:
There are actually plenty of differences and both systems have strengths and weaknesses and it shows in their top tier games. No myth about that.

And even if Blu-ray doesn't contribute to the look of a game, I'm not sure if that's been proven false though, it DOES contribute to lots more content within a game. MGS4's main advantage was Blu-ray, so it does account for something, which does matter.

Regardless, the article makes several nice points, even if I disagree with a few other ones.

Bold is 100% false.  It contributes NOTHING to the content within a game, it contributes to the amount of content that can be fit on one disc.  I am in no way denying that MGS4 could not be pulled off in one-disc format on 360.  But it could easily be pulled off in multi-disc format, thus meaning that Blu-Ray in no way enhances the amount of content available, only the number of discs that content is packaged on.

This is not always true, case in point would be Final Fantasy 13, the producer has stated that they plan to forgo the Japanese language track from the western release due to limitation of disk space on the 360, the main issue here is that the extra disk to put those extra content on cost money, and a company is unlikely to add those smaller level content that has small financial impact but caters to a more niche market.

If this game was on the Ps3 only, the Japanese language track could be very easily incorporate as it adds no extra cost and will also make the niche market happy.

On face value, your statement is true, but it does not always reflect in real life due to other factors (primarily cost).

The producer also quiped a question regarding DLC and wondered if Xbox owners would want Japanesse voices and speculated about a DLC for this option..So..While the Blu-ray format makes it easier...It is not impossible to have this particular content on the Xbox 360



 



Around the Network
mibuokami on 23 May 2009
bugrimmar said:

yeah, but there's a limit to that art argument.

for games that have the same objective, theme, and genre, decent comparisons can be made.

examples:

1.) killzone 2 vs. COD4. both games aim for realism, both games are war settings, both games are FPS.

2.) Ratchet and Clank vs. Banjo and Kazooie. both games aim for cartoonish graphics, both games are platformers.

3.) Uncharted vs. Tomb Raider. both games aim for realism, both games are adventure/action, both games focus on beautiful environments.

etc.

there are many proper comparisons out there and there isn't a need to compare things that aren't even applicable. nonetheless, in the end, it's all down to budget and dev time, then comes art style and emphasis.

you do bring up some good points, however, and i agree that there are some metrics wherein games can be objectively compared graphically. but the point of this thread is "the myth of the more powerful console". at least we agree on the fact that both consoles are just the same in terms of power.

Your intention is obviously trying to interpret an end product: graphic, but the way you worded the initial statement is pretty bad. There is a very easy way in which one can measure the 'power' of a console through benchmarking and stats comparison, this is not relevant to how good a game is or how good the graphic output is (although it is a influence), like you said, other contributing factors include time, budget, talent of developer, objective of the game and engine used.

Agree with regards to comparision within genre and style, although the distinction can be sometimes blurred for same genre stuff like FPS.

@ Zizzla: The original argument was that blue-ray doesn't contribute anything to content within a game, my rebuttal counters that, whether the 360 choose to provide additional content through DLC to counter this is irrelevant, the content can be provided off the disk in the former case and that is a contributing factor. (IE: Blue-Ray means I can have Japanese language track off the disk without the hassle of DLC purchase)




yo_john117 on 23 May 2009

Very good read...i guess this shows that games just boil down to personal preferences.



Zizzla_Rachet on 24 May 2009
mibuokami said:
bugrimmar said:

yeah, but there's a limit to that art argument.

for games that have the same objective, theme, and genre, decent comparisons can be made.

examples:

1.) killzone 2 vs. COD4. both games aim for realism, both games are war settings, both games are FPS.

2.) Ratchet and Clank vs. Banjo and Kazooie. both games aim for cartoonish graphics, both games are platformers.

3.) Uncharted vs. Tomb Raider. both games aim for realism, both games are adventure/action, both games focus on beautiful environments.

etc.

there are many proper comparisons out there and there isn't a need to compare things that aren't even applicable. nonetheless, in the end, it's all down to budget and dev time, then comes art style and emphasis.

you do bring up some good points, however, and i agree that there are some metrics wherein games can be objectively compared graphically. but the point of this thread is "the myth of the more powerful console". at least we agree on the fact that both consoles are just the same in terms of power.

Your intention is obviously trying to interpret an end product: graphic, but the way you worded the initial statement is pretty bad. There is a very easy way in which one can measure the 'power' of a console through benchmarking and stats comparison, this is not relevant to how good a game is or how good the graphic output is (although it is a influence), like you said, other contributing factors include time, budget, talent of developer, objective of the game and engine used.

Agree with regards to comparision within genre and style, although the distinction can be sometimes blurred for same genre stuff like FPS.

@ Zizzla: The original argument was that blue-ray doesn't contribute anything to content within a game, my rebuttal counters that, whether the 360 choose to provide additional content through DLC to counter this is irrelevant, the content can be provided off the disk in the former case and that is a contributing factor. (IE: Blue-Ray means I can have Japanese language track off the disk without the hassle of DLC purchase)

If SE were to make it a DLC..I doubt they would charge.And it would be very stupid for them to do so if the content is only voice over....and if you read my post right..You would see that I agree on how the Blu-ray was helping game content in this isolated example.



 



rafichamp on 24 May 2009

Oh its not a Myth, its a Fact!



bugrimmar on 24 May 2009

can we.. er.. move that discussion about blu-ray storage to another thread guys? please?