Jump to content


Photo

Gun


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Andy51

Andy51

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,044 posts
  • Location:I don't know... In Canada... I think?
  • Xbox Version:v1.5

Posted 19 July 2005 - 06:25 PM

Has any one seen GUN for Xbox 360?

The game looks very poor

http://xbox.gamespy....r/634618p1.html

#2 Deftech

Deftech

    X-S Transcendental

  • XS-BANNED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,917 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 19 July 2005 - 06:30 PM

those have been supposedly confirmed to be ps2 pics

if thats true it looks good for a ps2 title, mediocre for xbox, and terrible if those are 360 shots.

jaggeriffic pos as far as graphics go, nothing next gen about it. Hope the 360 screens emerge soon to put this to rest.

#3 twistedsymphony

twistedsymphony

    arrogant beyond belief

  • Head Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,466 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Almost Canada http://solid-orange.com
  • Interests:Consoles, Computers, Cars, Arcades, Home Theater, and the modding of anything that moves.
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v2 (zephyr)

Posted 19 July 2005 - 06:54 PM

Yes those are screen shots from current gen, if you read the article they say so. They also say that they "saw" 360 screen shots and they looked much better (though it makes me wonder why they didn't post the next gen shots if they had them).

Also... isn't m_hael working on this game? rolleyes.gif

#4 Deftech

Deftech

    X-S Transcendental

  • XS-BANNED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,917 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 19 July 2005 - 07:02 PM

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Jul 19 2005, 04:05 PM)
They also say that they "saw" 360 screen shots and they looked much better (though it makes me wonder why they didn't post the next gen shots if they had them).

View Post



I'll never understand these gaming sites. why show ugly ass pics of a game when theres better out there, what kind of marketing is that?!?!

Instead of having the 3 of us that have posted in this thread going.."Lookin good so far!"

We are all saying how shitty it looks.

First impressions are everything to me and as of right now, I have no interest in this game. UNLESS m_heal sends me a devkit and an early copy beerchug.gif

pop.gif

movies...

http://media.xbox.ga...810/vids_1.html

#5 Stratus

Stratus

    X-S X-perience

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 448 posts
  • Location:Idaho Falls, ID
  • Interests:Xbox, xbox 360, technology in general
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 20 July 2005 - 10:06 AM

The magazine "Game Informer" had some pics of it from the 360 and they looked great

#6 LowProfileWurm

LowProfileWurm

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,246 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 20 July 2005 - 01:38 PM

I have yet to see ANY cross platform game (PS2, Xbox, & 360) where the 360 is the source of the screenshots. The games that are only coming out on 360 seem gorgeous... but they won't show them off. I don't understand it.

#7 m_hael

m_hael

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 20 July 2005 - 02:23 PM

QUOTE(Andy51 @ Jul 19 2005, 11:36 AM)
Has any one seen GUN for Xbox 360?

The game looks very poor

http://xbox.gamespy....r/634618p1.html

View Post




please explain what about this game is very poor - I'd like to know in your professional opinion how to make such a game "not poor".

#8 m_hael

m_hael

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 20 July 2005 - 02:24 PM

one note...

ps2 runs @ appox 640x448 on most games
xbox runs @ 640x480 or 1280x720 depending on the game
x360 runs @ 1280x720x2xFSAA (or 4xFSAA) minimum

make your own decisions about what you are seeing on IGN.

#9 LowProfileWurm

LowProfileWurm

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,246 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 20 July 2005 - 03:21 PM

QUOTE(m_hael @ Jul 20 2005, 10:34 AM)
please explain what about this game is very poor - I'd like to know in your professional opinion how to make such a game "not poor".

View Post

I think he means graphically poor. But since IGN just posts PS2 pics of everything, we can never assume that we are looking at 360 stuff (unless its an exclusive).

The only things I need for a game to not be "poor" are:

1. Better physics
2. No goddamn jaggies
3. Good replay value

Otherwise, I'm set!


#10 m_hael

m_hael

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 20 July 2005 - 03:35 PM

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Jul 20 2005, 08:32 AM)
I think he means graphically poor.  But since IGN just posts PS2 pics of everything, we can never assume that we are looking at 360 stuff (unless its an exclusive).

The only things I need for a game to not be "poor" are:

1. Better physics
2. No goddamn jaggies
3. Good replay value

Otherwise, I'm set!

View Post




do jaggies REALLY hurt gameplay or are you just an empty shell of a graphics whore?

when you say better physics - are you referring directly to Gun... or just in general.. I only ask because no one but a few journo's have seen Gun.

replay value is a must - thats why I like the Tony Hawks games; you can ALWAYS play it again... classic mode is the best.

#11 Shawn_

Shawn_

    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 20 July 2005 - 04:03 PM

it looks cool to me, esp if these are only ps2 screens. to me i see many little details, like the hats and clothes and stuff. things like that are more important to me.

#12 LowProfileWurm

LowProfileWurm

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,246 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 20 July 2005 - 04:21 PM

QUOTE(m_hael @ Jul 20 2005, 11:46 AM)
do jaggies REALLY hurt gameplay or are you just an empty shell of a graphics whore?

when you say better physics - are you referring directly to Gun... or just in general.. I only ask because no one but a few journo's have seen Gun.

replay value is a must - thats why I like the Tony Hawks games; you can ALWAYS play it again... classic mode is the best.

View Post

In a sense, yes; jaggies (bad graphics in general) do hurt gameplay because if I can't see what I'm shooting at because the graphics suck... I won't play a game. Am I a graphics whore? Yes. I like good graphics. Is it the only thing I look for in a game? No. Does that make me an empty shell of a person? Well, I don't cry during love scenes so I guess so. rolleyes.gif

Better physics in general. There can ALWAYS be better physics in ALL games. Be it collision detection, model deformation or environment interaction, there can always be better physics. I have no opinion of GUN because I haven't played it. But I have been gaming since I was 8 (I'm 24 now) so I've seen a broad evolution of gaming and I feel physics is the next area of focus.

I should hope you like the games you make. I prefer Burnout for my fixes. Tony Hawk was alright, but I'm not into the skater culture. To each their own.


#13 m_hael

m_hael

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 20 July 2005 - 05:43 PM

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Jul 20 2005, 09:32 AM)
In a sense, yes; jaggies (bad graphics in general) do hurt gameplay because if I can't see what I'm shooting at because the graphics suck... I won't play a game.  Am I a graphics whore?  Yes.  I like good graphics.  Is it the only thing I look for in a game?  No.  Does that make me an empty shell of a person?  Well, I don't cry during love scenes so I guess so.  rolleyes.gif

Better physics in general.  There can ALWAYS be better physics in ALL games.  Be it collision detection, model deformation or environment interaction, there can always be better physics.  I have no opinion of GUN because I haven't played it.  But I have been gaming since I was 8 (I'm 24 now) so I've seen a broad evolution of gaming and I feel physics is the next area of focus.

I should hope you like the games you make.  I prefer Burnout for my fixes.  Tony Hawk was alright, but I'm not into the skater culture.  To each their own.

View Post




you'd be surprised how many developers do NOT like the games they play.

regarding physics - your interpretation of physics and our interpretation are VASTY different.

model deformation is a rendering task
collision detection is a collision task
environment interaction is a game side task

physics refers to the actual movement of entities and their reactions AFTER a collision... read up on it... you'll see what I mean.

Even solutions like Havok are largely a collision based system... they will get larger and encompass more over time... but they are not the full solution they pretend to be.

#14 LowProfileWurm

LowProfileWurm

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,246 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 20 July 2005 - 07:12 PM

QUOTE(m_hael @ Jul 20 2005, 01:54 PM)
you'd be surprised how many developers do NOT like the games they play.

regarding physics - your interpretation of physics and our interpretation are VASTY different.

model deformation is a rendering task
collision detection is a collision task
environment interaction is a game side task

physics refers to the actual movement of entities and their reactions AFTER a collision... read up on it... you'll see what I mean.

Even solutions like Havok are largely a collision based system... they will get larger and encompass more over time... but they are not the full solution they pretend to be.

View Post


I lump all object interactions into the same category as "Physics". Glad I'm not a developer then. laugh.gif I suppose I take from my physics degree the definition as the interaction of particles (polygons?) via set equations and mathematics. Billiards bouncing around shouldn't be too hard to describe but it seems a daunting task in video games. Perhaps that's what the PhysX's PPU will solve in the future?

An example: Two balls are rolling towards each other with different velocities and momenta. BEFORE their collision, how do you describe their "physics" (position, velocity, acceleration, momentum)? How about DURING the actual collision (exchange of kinetic energy, change of vector)? And what about AFTER?

#15 Andy51

Andy51

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,044 posts
  • Location:I don't know... In Canada... I think?
  • Xbox Version:v1.5

Posted 21 July 2005 - 01:43 AM

QUOTE(m_hael @ Jul 20 2005, 03:34 PM)
please explain what about this game is very poor - I'd like to know in your professional opinion how to make such a game "not poor".

View Post



I should have said "The graphics are poor" or something... When I watch the trailer, while the guy is riding on his horse, it looks really nice, but when they zoom in and shit... Hell breaks loose

I know I know! It could or could not be Xbox 360 screenshots, but its not the final look of the game, but I would say right now based on those screenshots, It doesn't look impressive...

I'll be singing a different tune if they release Xbox 360 screenshots, or I won't be singing a different tune...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users