Best Graphics in a Console Game, whats your vote?

[YujiNaka]

Here is a stupid poll....

What are the best graphics in any console video game?

I suppose that it will basically come down to a PS2, NGC or Xbox game...

Heres a good list if you want to make a quick choice:

PS2 - MOH:Frontline
PS2 - Virtua Fighter 4
PS2 - Gran Turismo 3
XBX - Halo
XBX - Dead or Alive 3
XBX - Ralisport Challenge
NGC - Resident Evil
NGC - Luigi's Mansion
NGC - Star Wars Rogue Leader


I guess my vote would have to go to Dead or Alive 3... It's graphics simply blow out anything on PS2, NGC or anything else on XBox for that matter.. the guys at Team Ninja really know graphics and the XBox hardware, as they throw all the tricks in the book, and still have it going at 60fps.

So, I guess thats 1 for DOA3..

Also, I heard someone else in another thread say that RE for Gamecube had the best graphics for any game out now... I tried it out briefly, and while great graphics, it didn't seem to me to be the best of ANY game out now... What do you others think?

Thanks
-Jim

[Kellehair]

Resident Evil. There's no 2 ways about it. I could have a good time just walking through that game. Some of the scenes, if not most, are stunningly realistic as well as breath-takingly beautiful.

[Groucho]

I think the character models in Resident Evil are probably the best ever, but overall? Hard to say.

[Liver&Onions]

RE0 looks to be even better then RE, but then RE4 will be even better!

My vote for RE

[cubanx]

XBX - Dead or Alive 3

Breath taking on a 65" WS HDTV.

[Adam Tyner]

XBX - Dead or Alive 3

[AgtFox]

Even though I despise everything DoA stands for in the fighting genre, it certainly has the best overall graphics available.

I will agree that RE has the most realistic feel for a game though...well, that is if a group of zombies terrorizing a mansion was real.

[gross@iastate]

My vote goes to Dead or Alive 3. It looks great on a 55 inch HDTV.

[finbogg]

DOA3 does have some incredible graphics, but I'm going to put my vote in for HALO. The detail in textures and reflections is fantastic. They truly created a living, breathing world.

[Shawn]

DoA3

[heavywear]

I like OddWorld’s images and artwork myself. Incredible movies and intros...

[Josh H]

Resident Evil hands down. Much better than DOA3 or Halo.

[CreatureX]

GCN - Resident Evil

:up:

[Outlaw]

I'll put in another vote for Resident Evil! The graphics and lighting effects are the best I've seen ever so far, especially the outdoor scenes. I've fooled my friends into thinking I was watching a movie until they realized I was controlling it. It'll probably be topped by RE0 though.

[Tamrok]

As far as textures and animation goes, Halo has no peer. As for character models and overall graphics quality, I think I would go with DOA 3 although Halo is an infinitely better game. Although Resident Evil looks nice, it uses pre-rendered backgrounds which isn't as technically impressive as the real-time graphics of DOA 3 or Halo.

[Quake1028]

Metal Gear Solid 2 is still head and shoulders above any other game when you take into account the overally package. MGS2 should replace VF4 on your quick list. Baldur's Gate should replace MoH.

[Souljahh]

RE, no contest.

[karnblack]

It looks like Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell for Xbox is going to have the best graphics of any game coming out this year, but if the game has to be out already then I vote for DOA3. I have RE for GC, but I'm sorry to say I was disappointed in the graphics. Don't get me wrong. It's an awsome game. It brings back old memories for me. The opening prerendered cutscene had better graphics than the actual game IMHO. DOA3 looks better and smoother on my HDTV.

[neale]

I agree with most of the posts so far. Eternal Darkness for GC is pretty impressive, too.

[poetic_power]

DoA3!!!

[Mattalos]

Dead or Alive 3.

[Josh H]

Originally posted by Tamrok
Although Resident Evil looks nice, it uses pre-rendered backgrounds which isn't as technically impressive as the real-time graphics of DOA 3 or Halo.

I was assuming that "best graphics" simply meant best looking, not most technically impressive graphics.

By that token RE by far is the best looking console game ever.


But by most technically impressive, I'd agree with you. DOA3 and Halo are better, as is Eternal Darkness (once you get past the first couple levels).

[V-ism]

Are we talking Real Time console generated graphics (DOA3)? or Pre-rendered FMV enhanced graphics (RE)?

My vote goes for DOA3 on XBOX. I also give a nod to Metal Gear Solid 2 on PS2, considering the limited power the console has, it stands with the best.

[Jeremy517]

I can't say for sure which I'd vote for since I haven't played about half of those. I can say that for me, it definitely isn't MOH:FL, Halo, or Luigi's Mansion.

[jdhoang]

XBox -- DOA3. Beautiful graphics, especially on a HDTV.

[Tamrok]

Originally posted by joshhinkle


I was assuming that "best graphics" simply meant best looking, not most technically impressive graphics.

By that token RE by far is the best looking console game ever.


But by most technically impressive, I'd agree with you. DOA3 and Halo are better, as is Eternal Darkness (once you get past the first couple levels).

Well, I guess that's your interpretation of best graphics which your certainly entitled to. However, I have always associated best graphics with polygon counts, texture quality and resolution, animation, bump mapping, particle effects and the type of lighting employed (such as real-time lighting vs. lightmaps). To me, graphics is a technical catagory. Using your example, Resident Evil (due to it's use of pre-rendered backgrounds) isn't as technically impressive graphically as other games. Where Resident Evil excels is in it's art direction. It uses a washed out color palette and moody lighting to create a dark mood. However, from a technical perspective, the only real impressive feat is the high polygon character models and particle effects. If "best graphics" is simply what looks the coolest then you would probably have to pick some game that uses a lot of pre-rendered cutscenes like Final Fantasy X or something. They look great but it's really just a movie clip.

[Kellehair]

The environments in RE aren't just pictures. They show shadows and reflect light. You can see your refelction in every broken mirror and puddle of cold grey water. It just looks absolutely amazing. No other game can compare at the moment.

[Gallant Pig]

Originally posted by Kellehair
The environments in RE aren't just pictures. They show shadows and reflect light. You can see your refelction in every broken mirror and puddle of cold grey water. It just looks absolutely amazing. No other game can compare at the moment.

Why are the shadows extremely jaggy sometimes?

[Tamrok]

Originally posted by Kellehair
The environments in RE aren't just pictures. They show shadows and reflect light. You can see your refelction in every broken mirror and puddle of cold grey water. It just looks absolutely amazing. No other game can compare at the moment.

Regardless of the tricks that the programmers are using to make it appear otherwise, the backgrounds are still pre-rendered. It looks very nice but they are still pre-rendered. If they weren't, the game camera would not be locked in place and would be able to move much like in Eternal Darkness (which is not pre-rendered).

[YujiNaka]

Well it seems a dead heat for DOA3 and Resident Evil.

My question is, if XBOX is more powerful than NGC, which nobody disagrees with, how can RE compete with the XBox's best in terms of graphics?

I guess this will all boil down to the graphics being pre-rendered discussion again?

-Jim

[Kellehair]

Why are the shadows extremely jaggy sometimes?
I never noticed that. What are the shadows projected on when they look jaggy? I know most times the shadows look terrific. It seems like almost every room has an intricate shadow that could belong to anything...including a zombie!

Regardless of the tricks that the programmers are using to make it appear otherwise, the backgrounds are still pre-rendered.
Are you serious? They weren't trying to trick anyone. They were trying to make the best possible graphics. And you know what? They succeeded.

[Tamrok]

Originally posted by Kellehair


Are you serious? They weren't trying to trick anyone. They were trying to make the best possible graphics.

So, your saying that the programmers want you to know that the backgrounds are pre-rendered? Ok.

I agree with your last statement, though. The programmers are trying to make the best looking game within the limitations of the hardware. If that requires pre-rendered backgrounds, then so be it. It's a good looking game, just not as technically impressive as some others.

[Groucho]

The reason for pre-rendered backgrounds on Resident Evil had nothing to do with tricks or with hardware limitations. It had to do with remaining true to the spirit of the original (which, for those who don't know, also had pre-rendered backgrounds and static camera angles).

[Tamrok]

Originally posted by Groucho
The reason for pre-rendered backgrounds on Resident Evil had nothing to do with tricks or with hardware limitations. It had to do with remaining true to the spirit of the original (which, for those who don't know, also had pre-rendered backgrounds and static camera angles).

Actually, that's doubtful. In case you've forgotten, RE: Code Veronica did not use pre-rendered backgrounds. So, your "true to the spirit" argument doesn't hold water. The most likely reason for using pre-rendered backgrounds was that it allowed the programmers to spend their polygon budget on extremely detailed character models. In other words, they made a trade off based on the hardware limitations. By using pre-rendered backgrounds they could have a better looking game.

[The Bus]

Obviously this needs to be split up into two awards:

Artistic/mood (RE, Oddworld) and technical (DOA3, Halo).

Although I will state for the record DOA3 did not "wow" me with its graphics. I had already played the Japanese limited edition of DOA2 on my Dreamcast a year ago.

[Tamrok]

Originally posted by The Bus
Obviously this needs to be split up into two awards:

Artistic/mood (RE, Oddworld) and technical (DOA3, Halo).


An excellent idea.

[Groucho]

Originally posted by Tamrok
Actually, that's doubtful. In case you've forgotten, RE: Code Veronica did not use pre-rendered backgrounds. So, your "true to the spirit" argument doesn't hold water. Code Veronica wasn't a remake. It wasn't even a sequel (hence no number), but rather a spin-off game.

[Josh H]

What a stupid arguement.

Who cares how "technically impressive" the graphics are? :confused:

Tech geeks and computer science dorks that get off on tech specs, programming and polygon counts?

I'd think all that would matter to gamers is how good the game looks, and what the graphics add to the gameplay.

I could care less if it's real-time, pre-rendered, or whatever as long as it looks good and adds something to the gameplay experience.

[Mattalos]

Who cares? Well, the people listed here for a couple ... Just because you don't care doesn't mean other people don't.

[YujiNaka]

Even if it is pre-rendered or not, DOA 3 still looks better to me than RE.

The environments are simply amazing in DOA3, along with the player interactions.

As for joshinkle, you should calm down.. its just a conversation about video games, and you seem to get quite enraged and start calling people names.

[Josh H]

Originally posted by Mattalos
Who cares? Well, the people listed here for a couple ... Just because you don't care doesn't mean other people don't.

I just what to know what kind of people care and why?

All that should matter is that the game looks good, and the graphic add to the gameplay.

If both those are true, what's it matter how the graphics were achieved?

That's what I was getting at. I don't see the logic in reasoning otherwise, and I don't respect illogical opinions.

[Josh H]

Originally posted by YujiNaka
As for joshinkle, you should calm down.. its just a conversation about video games, and you seem to get quite enraged and start calling people names.

I didn't call anyone names. It was just a retorical question. I don't see how anyone other than tech heads or computer science geeks would care about how "technically impressive" a games graphics are, as long as it looked great and added to the gameplay.

If someone wants to say that RE's graphics don't look good to them, that's a perfectly valid opinion.

But to say that they look great, but aren't really great because they're not "technically impressive", well that's just silly and makes no logical sense.

Who cares how the graphics were done if you already admitted that they looked good. :confused:

[ZakVTA]

Originally posted by Quake1028
Metal Gear Solid 2 is still head and shoulders above any other game when you take into account the overally package. MGS2 should replace VF4 on your quick list.

I'm with you there :-)

[Tamrok]

Originally posted by joshhinkle


If someone wants to say that RE's graphics don't look good to them, that's a perfectly valid opinion.

But to say that they look great, but aren't really great because they're not "technically impressive", well that's just silly and makes no logical sense.



I guess you must live in a black and white world where everything is either right or wrong. Me, I am capable of appreciating a game that looks nice due to good art direction, yet also respect a game that looks nice and is technically impressive because it uses a cutting edge graphics engine.

[Tamrok]

Originally posted by Groucho
Code Veronica wasn't a remake. It wasn't even a sequel (hence no number), but rather a spin-off game.

Did I say it was a remake? The point is that there has already been a Resident Evil game that did not use pre-rendered backgrounds.

[The Bus]

For technical reasons, I guess you could go as far as comparing engines in the PC world --- there's endless debates about the Quake III engine vs. the Unreal engine vs. the new Lithtech engine etc. etc. etc.

But those discussions ultimately end up boring because they boil down to area graphs and plots and discussions on hardware drivers and demos of a donut spinning around at great speeds.

Those discussions are reserved for the same people that were thrilled about Sony's show to the world that the PS2 could make a DUCK IN A SINK MOVE THE WATER AND REFLECT IT! WOW!

Then others appreciate the graphics of Resident Evil or (for me) the graphics in Ultima: Online (some of the best 2-D art I've ever seen in a 2-D game) or the new direction Nintendo took with Yoshi's Island on the SNES.

[Josh H]

Originally posted by Tamrok


I guess you must live in a black and white world where everything is either right or wrong. Me, I am capable of appreciating a game that looks nice due to good art direction, yet also respect a game that looks nice and is technically impressive because it uses a cutting edge graphics engine.


I never said one shouldn't appreciate a game that has dood art direction as well as one that is "technically impressive." As I said earlier in the thread, games like Halo, DOA3, Eternal Darkness, etc., all look great and are more technically impressive than Resident Evil.

However, RE definitely looks better, regardless of how the graphics were achieved, so for the purpose of this poll I list it at the top.

I was simply saying that when determining what has the best graphics, the end result should be all that matters.

Saying it looks amazing, but not giving it the top spot because it isn't a technically impressive as some other game is silly IMO.

[Josh H]

Originally posted by Tamrok

Did I say it was a remake? The point is that there has already been a Resident Evil game that did not use pre-rendered backgrounds.

His point was that in order to be true to the spirit of the original RE (the game being remade) they had to use pre-rendered graphics as that was how the game was originally done.

Besides, so far there are five games in the main series (counting RE 0), and four of them have prerendered backgrounds.

So I'd say prerendered backgrounds is definitely the spirit of the series.

Code Veronic was just an exception, and likely the last time we'll see a non-prerendered RE. At least until consoles are capable of doing real-time graphics that look that good anyway.

[Tamrok]

Originally posted by joshhinkle


However, RE definitely looks better, regardless of how the graphics were achieved, so for the purpose of this poll I list it at the top.

I was simply saying that when determining what has the best graphics, the end result should be all that matters.

Saying it looks amazing, but not giving it the top spot because it isn't a technically impressive as some other game is silly IMO.

And here is the root of the problem. This all started because you objected to my opinion on which game has the best graphics. I happen to have a certain criteria that I use in rating graphics. Apparently, you pick whichever game (in your opinion) is the prettiest. That's just fine. I can respect your opinion but you seem unable to respect mine. You could save yourself a lot of trouble if you realized that everyone has differing opinions and they're entitled to them. You needn't take every perceived slight to the Gamecube so personally. It's a good system, with good games and with it's own flaws. Just like the Xbox and PS2. I happen to own all three and I like each for different reasons. Try not to turn everything into a system war argument.

[Tamrok]

Originally posted by joshhinkle


Code Veronic was just an exception, and likely the last time we'll see a non-prerendered RE. At least until consoles are capable of doing real-time graphics that look that good anyway.

I really don't want to argue about this anymore. However, you just proved my point with your last sentence, which is: The reason Resident Evil used pre-rendered backgrounds was because they could not achieve the same results using real-time graphics on the Gamecube. And to forestall any further argument, I am not implying that Xbox or PS2 could do it, either.

[Josh H]

I"m not objecting to a "perceived slight against the gamecube." I own a GCN and PS2 and could care less what people say about them.

I also don't object to your choice of game. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on what looks the best. I just think your criteria is illogical, started by your first post.

Originally posted by Tamrok
Although Resident Evil looks nice, it uses pre-rendered backgrounds which isn't as technically impressive as the real-time graphics of DOA 3 or Halo.

It sounded to me like you were saying RE looks better than DOA3 or Halo, but even though it looked better you wuldn't rank it above them because it wasn't as technically impressive.

It's definitely prerendered because that's the only way the current consoles can produce graphics that look that good. I agree with that.

However, I don't see why it would be ranked any lower because of that.

If the consoles where more powerful, and RE looked the same done in real time would you rank it at the top of your list?

That's what doesn't make sense to me. The way the game looks is what matters in the end, not the methods used to achieve the look.

[Zodo]

So basically, people are saying "Resident Evil looks the best, but doesn't have the best graphics"?

That makes no sense...
That stuff about 'technically empressive' is just stupid imho.

I say "RE looks the best...ie: RE has the best graphics".

[Tamrok]

Originally posted by joshhinkle

It sounded to me like you were saying RE looks better than DOA3 or Halo, but even though it looked better you wuldn't rank it above them because it wasn't as technically impressive.



Well, there's the confusion then. I was not saying that I thought RE looked better. I've mentioned repeatedly that I thought RE looks nice but never agreed it was the best. I was saying that contrary to some other people's opinions, I thought Halo or DOA 3 had the best graphics. I was merely explaining why I didn't agree that RE had the best graphics. You think it does have the best graphics and that's fine. I just disagree.

[Josh H]

Then this was all just a misunderstanding.

You're certainly free to say those games look better, as they do have very nice graphics.

I simply thought you were saying RE looked the best, but you were putting the other two above simply because the developers used prerendered graphics, rather than real time graphics to achieve the effect.

I think you'd agree that that would be very silly logic, and see where I was coming from since I thought that was what you were saying. :D

[Tamrok]

Originally posted by Zodo
So basically, people are saying "Resident Evil looks the best, but doesn't have the best graphics"?

That makes no sense...
That stuff about 'technically empressive' is just stupid imho.

I say "RE looks the best...ie: RE has the best graphics".

I don't know about others but I never said "Resident Evil looks the best." It looks good but in my opinion, not the best. You disagree. Good for you. Let's move on...

[finbogg]

Originally posted by The Bus
Then others appreciate the graphics of Resident Evil or (for me) the graphics in Ultima: Online (some of the best 2-D art I've ever seen in a 2-D game) or the new direction Nintendo took with Yoshi's Island on the SNES.

Ah a man after my own heart....I still love the days of the well drawn and animated sprite games. Sometimes I think games try too hard to push stuff into 3D and it looks like crap. Warcraft II has some of my favorite graphics and it's "just" 2D.

That being said, I want to weigh in again on this subject. In looking at technical merit and "prettiness" I'd have to say DOA 3 does really incredible stuff. The backgrounds are immense and more importantly interactive. Snow deforms to character footsteps, leaves stir, bricks crack and neon lights shatter. For me, this sways it towards DOA.

Resident Evil looks truly amazing, and I'd run out and buy it if I had the cash, but the environment has only limited interactivity (and I'm sure someone will slap me down if I'm wrong).

Now, the arguement that seems to be holding precedence here is more about what makes game graphics good. Is it pretty backgrounds, good character models, interactive environments etc? I would argue, that all these combine to define good graphics but if you're trying to find the "best" graphics you also need to look at what the games are doing to push the envelope TECHNICALLY. What is cutting-edge about the game? What will other games be emulating from now on? I think "prettiness" and technical merit are both integral to deciding the "best graphics"

Of course....this doesn't mean you guys will come to any agreement

There are many parts to what makes up graphics for a game. Models, lighting, textures, animation, physics engine etc. Each of these could be used as a ranking system for games (Like I think HALO has the best textures and RE has the best lighting etc.) Well I guess that's a whole other thread in the making.

[Josh H]

I agree that many things come together to form the games graphics and influence whether they are great or not.

However, I simply feel that it's the end result, the total package, that should be judged as that's all that really matters in determining what game has the best graphics.

Halo and DOA do somethings better than Resident Evil, and Resident Evil does somethings better than both of them.

I personally think that overall RE looks the best, others go with one of the other two.

That's just a difference in opinion and perfectly fine.

The argument was nothing more than a misunderstanding.

[YujiNaka]

So i guess a tie of DOA3 for Xbox and Resident Evil for Gamecube?

With Halo coming in a close second?

Will give RE another look, but I'd would have to say DOA3 is by far the best looking game, techincal specs or not, of any I have ever seen.

I wont what they'll do for DOA 4? Xbox? Xbox 2?

[Josh H]

Hopefully they'll focus on the gameplay in DOA 4 more than the graphics, and try to get it on par with something like Soul Calibur.

[YujiNaka]

Considering that this conversation is about graphics, all 3 pages of it... Most would assume when I ask what they'll do with DOA 4, that it is question about the graphics.

But thanks for your off-topic opinion on gameplay, joshhinkle.

[discostu1337]

this turned into a resident evil thread :)

Anyways, I just got ICO for PS2 and would have to say it has some of the best gfx Ive seen. Incredible architecture and animations.

[brianluvdvd]

DOA3 on Xbox.

[kjohnl]

Shenmue II

[Josh H]

Originally posted by YujiNaka
But thanks for your off-topic opinion on gameplay, joshhinkle.

Your welcome. ;)

My gripe was still graphics related though, as the point I was making is that the DOA series (IMO) is a prime example of developers putting to much emphasis on graphics and not enough on gameplay.

[YujiNaka]

well thats your opinion, whereas mine would be that the gameplay is quite good and I have alot of fun playing it, similar to the fun I had playing the original VF and VF2 back in the days of 32x and Saturn.

[Josh H]

Don't get me wrong, the DOA series doesn't suck. It's just not nearly as good as Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibur, Tekken, etc in my (and many fighting game fans) minds.

It looks great, and would be the cream of the crop if it had a little deeper fighting engine.

It seems more like it's aimed at the casual fighting game fan as it's very easy to pick up, pretty button masher friendly, and too reversal happy for my tastes.

[ScandalUMD]

Originally posted by Tamrok


Well, I guess that's your interpretation of best graphics which your certainly entitled to. However, I have always associated best graphics with polygon counts, texture quality and resolution, animation, bump mapping, particle effects and the type of lighting employed (such as real-time lighting vs. lightmaps). To me, graphics is a technical catagory. Using your example, Resident Evil (due to it's use of pre-rendered backgrounds) isn't as technically impressive graphically as other games. Where Resident Evil excels is in it's art direction. It uses a washed out color palette and moody lighting to create a dark mood. However, from a technical perspective, the only real impressive feat is the high polygon character models and particle effects. If "best graphics" is simply what looks the coolest then you would probably have to pick some game that uses a lot of pre-rendered cutscenes like Final Fantasy X or something. They look great but it's really just a movie clip.

I disagree with your assessment. Before the Gamecube version of Resident Evil, I considered prerendered environments to be far inferior to real-time graphics. However, this game really changed my mind. All the things I disliked about pre-rendered graphics before have vanished in RE. I'd always considered prerendered environments to be flat and static, but in RE, everything is animated, and they used a lot of clever real-time effects on the prerendered rooms in order to really give them a sense of depth and space.

All the "seams" I was used to seeing in other prerendered games were smoothed out in Resident Evil. Real time lighting on the character perfectly matched the pre-rendered lighting on the environment at all times. Perfect real-time shadows and reflections ensured that the character never seemed to be walking around on a "flat" background. And I don't recall seeing a single instance of clipping (Eternal Darkness was full of clipping).

Actually, after seeing Resident Evil in action, I now think pre-rendered graphics should still be the way to go for most adventure games and RPGs, if other developers can implement them as well as the Resident Evil team.

The only remaining consequence of the prerendered environments. What this boils down to, in the end, is that the view has to move by cutting, rather than panning, which doesn't bother me in the least. The cuts are really more in line with the "horror movie" look of RE than the swooping pans of the (inferior) Eternal Darkness.

As for graphics, for most people, they just boil down to what looks better, and Resident Evil looks better than everything else.

[Trigger]

DoomIII for Xbox.

[zig]

Originally posted by Trigger
DoomIII for Xbox.

er.. I don't think you can count games that don't exist and aren't even officially announced.

[IIG]

Why are people arguing about each others opinions. Anyway, Resident Evil for the GC is the best looking game I've ever played, and that includes just about all the other games that have been mentioned in this thread.

[agent2099]

You should just make it easy for everyone.

The topic should say, "what is the best looking 3D game." :)

[Trigger]

Originally posted by zig


er.. I don't think you can count games that don't exist and aren't even officially announced. Okay. At E3 I was told that it will end up on Xbox. I didn't see an Xbox version of it, but what I saw looked damn sweet. Robotech for the Xbox has some sweet graphics.

[ScandalUMD]

Originally posted by Trigger
Okay. At E3 I was told that it will end up on Xbox. I didn't see an Xbox version of it, but what I saw looked damn sweet. Robotech for the Xbox has some sweet graphics.

Who told you that? I think they were demonstrating the game on a high-end workstation with two of the newest ATi cards, and they still said the settings weren't at the highest. In fact, they used the ATi instead of the Nvidia because they said Nvidia's card was slightly behind in this generation because they'd devoted too much effort to working on the Xbox.

They are building this game for hardware that doesn't even exist yet. I highly doubt a version of it will ever run on any of the current consoles.

[Trigger]

Originally posted by ScandalUMD

They are building this game for hardware that doesn't even exist yet. I highly doubt a version of it will ever run on any of the current consoles. Well... since the game is set to come out sometime before the next E3, I'm sure the game will run fine on anything GeForce 3 or newer. The enhancements will all be scaled back for slower video cards, but the nVidia graphics controller in the xbox has nearly all the features that this game will make use of. At lower resolutions, it'll probably be able to handle the game. I'm sure I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. :)

So how about that Robotech. :)

[Tamrok]

Originally posted by ScandalUMD


They are building this game for hardware that doesn't even exist yet. I highly doubt a version of it will ever run on any of the current consoles.

John Carmack (the man responsible for programming the graphics engine) has said publicly that the Xbox is capable of running Doom III. It will not run at the higher resolution of the PC version but he has already said that it can be done (and most likely will be done).

[Groucho]

Why don't we simplify the debate and limit the discussion to games that are already out, mmm'kay?