Xbox 360 devs reaching the 'upper end' of the console's graphic capability?

According to an interview with Epic Games' senior producer Rod Fergusson, developers for the Xbox 360 may be reaching the outer edges of what is graphically possible with the console. In an interview with Gamasutra, the Gears of War / Gears of War 2 head says that recent advances and refinements are pushing the system further than expected, though he still believes there's some room to grow. In Fergusson's words: "I think we're certainly approaching the upper end of it, as far as what developers are able to do with it, but just looking at all the demos we saw today -- ours and others -- it's clear that all the games just keep improving, and keep pushing that bar." Of course, there's a long gap between pushing a system to its limits and starting to look around for its replacement, though since we all know another iteration of the Xbox is inevitable, none of this news should come as any surprise. They have a name for things like this... progress.

[Via GameDaily]

[Jonathan @ Sep 4th 2008 9:31AM]

Still not entirely sure how to play Pitfall.

[NHAnimator @ Sep 4th 2008 10:33AM]

Unfortunately, it was my favorite when I was younger and I played the hell out of it. It seemed to me the first game that broke ahead of Atari's boring collection in regards to the use of the system's graphics.

Also unfortunate is the fact that after seeing the above pic, I cannot get the sound effects of the game out of my head.

[Smoke_me_a_Kipper @ Sep 4th 2008 10:49AM]

Don't fall in the pits.

[Ridgecity @ Sep 4th 2008 11:59AM]

avoid falling into pits, hence the name.


I'm surprise they say they have reached the system whole capacity until now, I've seen a whole bunch of games running at 30fps only for a couple years...Isn't that a limit?

[Scott @ Sep 4th 2008 1:06PM]

did you have to try to get to the end for a reason? if you dont want to fall in the pits you could just not move. But that dosent seem like a good way to play a game.

[jupiterthunder @ Sep 4th 2008 6:32PM]

Maybe I can help. Was it the button or the stick that was confusing you?

[TRAFFICBLOWS @ Sep 4th 2008 8:52PM]

I agree!!! Do you go to the left or the right?!??!!

[Zinger314 @ Sep 4th 2008 9:32AM]

I thought Pitfall was made by Nintendo, not Activision.

[Jonathan @ Sep 4th 2008 9:36AM]

that's a common pitfall.

[Kspraydad @ Sep 4th 2008 9:53AM]

Super Pitfall is a 1987 Japanese video game for the NES developed by Micronics for Pony, and released in the U.S. by Activision. It was the first game ever that Activision published for a system made by Nintendo and it was based upon Activision's earlier Pitfall series for the Atari 2600.

[Kamokazi @ Sep 4th 2008 9:36AM]

There's only so mch you can do with 3(4?) year old GPU technology.

No, I'm not being a PC gaming snob! *hugs his GTX 280*

[Tim Spence @ Sep 4th 2008 9:46AM]

Is that the GTX 280 that costs more than an entire Xbox 360 on it's own?

[Znarfaggle @ Sep 4th 2008 10:40AM]

Tim: true, true. but then again all i had to do to make my pc run as awesome as my friend's xbox was buy a $120 radeon hd 3850.

and don't tell me that i had to buy the entire pc. i bought that for work/study purposes. comparing an $800 piece of computing that can do everything short of making my breakfast with a gaming console is silly.

[Rig @ Sep 4th 2008 10:56AM]

Right and how many titles will be released on the PC this year? 20-30 if you count the Popcap games?

[Notung @ Sep 4th 2008 10:58AM]

@ZNar...

yeah, baby, the same 800$ rig that looks quite "cool" nex to to you Kuro

[konshuss @ Sep 4th 2008 11:14AM]

your computer DOESN'T make your breakfast?


sucker.

[Kamokazi @ Sep 4th 2008 11:44AM]

@Rig

If you count Popcap titles, that might be a good weekly total, haha.

The quantity of PC titles is pretty competitive with a single console, the numbers are actually about the same. And I'm talking, full, boxed, retail games, not popcap junk (if you include that stuff, the number absolutely dwarfs consoles). They just don't have the volume of console game sales, so they don't get stocked nearly as much in stores, and they don't get as much press either. But even my local Wal-mart carries about as many PC Games as they do for any one given console.

There are good and bad with both PC and consoles...neither is a better platform than the other, it just depends on what you prefer. This is just one particular area which is a con for consoles and a pro for PCs. On the flip side, PCs are more exspensive to maintain this way (but not nearly exhorbitant as many people think...many people could add a $200 video card to their exsiting PC and get very good performance, comparable to consoles.) And to some people, a $660 card is easily worth it. (although it does hurt a little bit seeing it sell for $400 now...)

[Cat Beater @ Sep 5th 2008 4:27PM]

Exactly, i love PC gaming...but PC gaming titles are far limited compared to console variety. So those fancy GPU's are worth it depending on what you use/ need it for.

Shame on those who buy one just to play WoW....Or some other MMO...

Oh and Crysis...suX..just felt i should put that out there...
I dont care how good it looks...
Story, concept....the who shabang...... Fail....
But it shuure looks pretty eh?

[thethirdmoose @ Sep 4th 2008 5:16PM]

A GTX 280 is totally unnecessary. I can play Crysis on very high (with AA off, admittedly) on my $130 8800GT. It looks way better than anything on the xbox - higher resolution, too.

[Kamokazi @ Sep 5th 2008 9:06AM]

I had a 8800GTX (I had been using it for 18 months when the GTX 280 launched in June, so I thought I was due for an upgrade). I had been playing Crysis on Very High for most settings, and 4xAA. It was noticably choppier then (but quite playable), this has GREATLY smoothed out the gameplay and I upped the few settings I had turned down to max.

The GTX 280 makes a bigger difference when you run higher resolutions, like 1920x1200. I'm also not a big fan of SLI, it still has too many compatibility and other issues for me (especially when playing less mainstream games that still have demanding graphics)...this includes the dual GPU cards like 9800GX2. So I opt for the fastest single GPU card possible.

I'll be the first to admit that there are much better price/performance ratios out there (the 8800GT only recently hit the $130 mark with MIR, it was still just shy of $200 back in June months ago). But the difference in performance was just enough to warrant the upgrade price for me. (I was still able to get $270 out of my 8800GTX on eBay, which softened the blow).

So a GTX 280 can be necessary, it's just not the best value...not by a longshot. But I dump most of my disposable income into my PCs, because that's what I like to do (After I pay Sallie Mae...ouchie). Back when I was in high school and college, I sure as hell would not have bought a GTX 280, even if I would have been able to afford it. I'm not one of those who likes to use his system specs as an e-peen, I was just making a point that current consoles have dated GPUs in them that PCs don't have to worry about. And maybe I do hug my GTX 280 somtimes...but that's none of your business.

[Nomi @ Sep 4th 2008 9:39AM]

I sucked at Pitfall. :-(

On a side note: I wonder what PS3s upper limit is...

[Alex @ Sep 4th 2008 11:02AM]

Pitfall?

*Awaits influx of Low-Rankisms*

[charlie @ Sep 4th 2008 9:39AM]

Uhh, did programmers ever figure out how to multithread their games to take advantange of the 3 processor cores?

[andyg8180 @ Sep 4th 2008 10:08AM]

no... they failed sewing class

[Ryan @ Sep 4th 2008 10:18AM]

However, they passed through cooking class with flying colors. Cooking processors, that is.

[thatrotierkid @ Sep 4th 2008 10:46AM]

bam look at that bacon sizzle!

[Evan @ Sep 4th 2008 9:43AM]

Considering the majority of graphically interesting 360 titles max out at around 30 FPS (yuck), I would say the graphical capability is already a limiting factor.

[Canadian Bacon @ Sep 4th 2008 10:29AM]

Is this why games developed for the Xbox 360 and PS3 almost universally look better and run faster on the 360?

[Bryan Cook @ Sep 4th 2008 4:31PM]

Re: Is this why games developed for the Xbox 360 and PS3 almost universally look better and run faster on the 360?

This could be because up until now, the vast majority of games developed for both 360 and PS3 were developed for the 360, then ported (half-assed-ly) over to PS3. As word has it, the PS3 was more difficult to develop for. Sony seems to have eased the developer's pains as of late though ...

[Michael @ Sep 4th 2008 12:41PM]

That would be a decent enough argument if the PS3 was actually less powerful than the 360, but it isn't. The one thing holding back the PS3 is Sony. They hastily put it together and then expected devs to figure out the rest. Had Sony taken the time to create friendlier dev tools, the picture now would probably be quite different and this article may have come a lot sooner.

Microsoft's big win yet big loss was getting the 360 out ahead of the other two companies to ensure that they would be the first ones to produce the biggest and the best console at the time. If we look back in time at the Dreamcast, a very similar attitude was taken, yet where Microsoft succeeded, SEGA failed (though SEGA didn't have Live, and Microsoft's potential juggernaut competition from Sony's PS3 just hasn't gotten off the ground like the PS2 did in 2000). Which is too bad, because I don't think anyone would consider the Dreamcast as a failure by any means, just a good console that slipped between the cracks of innovation and left in the dust of newer, better technology, and stronger dev support.

[roach @ Sep 4th 2008 3:17PM]

A good chunk of multi-console games are developed on the 360 (advantage of being released early), so most games runs better and looks better on 360. And this is the reason EA was accused of creating games with lower FPS on PS3 compared to similar games on the 360. Regarding reaching of a console capabilities, that might be the case. But developers can alway do more streamlining on their own end. Some late PS2 games was so streamlined that their graphics could come close to early next gen console games.

[Extinction @ Sep 6th 2008 3:01PM]

I agree with the guy above me, SOME (not all) 360 games look better simply because they were made for it first. Just like how some PS2 games were better than the XBOX port. They were made for PS2 first. I have a launch PS3 title that's better than it's 360 equivalent (Full Auto on Ps3 runs at 1080p, and a much higher framerate) and there are many others.

[strider_mt2k @ Sep 4th 2008 9:48AM]

I'm gonna have to go find Pitfall somewhere now.

It's been a LONG time.

[one2gamble @ Sep 4th 2008 9:49AM]

gears of war 2 looked fantastic though I do wonder how much more they can really push the system. I would imagine Microsoft wants at least two more years out of the 360. I cant imagine they will let it get all that long in the tooth with the way technology has been progressing.

[brian @ Sep 4th 2008 9:53AM]

As long as they keep pumping out Halo map packs, right?

[PuBeLeSs @ Sep 4th 2008 9:50AM]

lame, but id like to see a new 360 come out soon :-/ im kinda over my 360 now no new games are coming out

[andyg8180 @ Sep 4th 2008 10:08AM]

thats because no one ever sells big titles in the summer... I cant remember a year where there were huge titles being released in the summer... Xmas time is when everyone makes the most money...

[DEEZNUTZ @ Sep 4th 2008 1:27PM]

Bioshock launched August of last SUMMER. Just sayin.

[Smoke_Dawg_187 @ Sep 4th 2008 9:51AM]

The 360 is a great system. It's one of the best systems I've ever owned.

[jimmyink @ Sep 4th 2008 10:10AM]

" says the caveman.

[The Joker @ Sep 4th 2008 7:53PM]

so easy even a caveman can play it.

[fischju @ Sep 4th 2008 9:52AM]

Considering the GPU it is based on, I'm suprised they can get Gears of War 2 out of it

[jonas @ Sep 4th 2008 10:00AM]

funny thing how it's superior to the ps3 gpu :)

[Zeus.:God @ Sep 4th 2008 10:02AM]

The Xenos is literally an early R600 with comparable amounts of power... Last time I checked, the HD 2900XT isn't a very weak card. Certainly more powerful than the GPU in the PS3 which is just a rebadged G70 from the 7800GTX.

[Ethan @ Sep 4th 2008 9:58AM]

From experience with the Wii, we all know that when developers know their platforms limits, they proceed to aim roughly nowhere near there. It's really the search for the unknown that keeps them going.

[Nate DiDonato @ Sep 4th 2008 10:04AM]

...and I say

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!"

Whether it's true or not, I gotta laugh. Seeing how the last Halo was just, um... shinier... and not really "impressive" graphically, this is just sad.

Games running with half resolution or half framerate is just unacceptable for a console that's supposed to be so powerful.
Well, actually it IS plenty powerful, but so was the Sega Saturn... just no one could figure out how the hell to program on the damn thing efficiently except for Sega themselves.
However, I'm sure companies like SquareEnix and other titans will figure out how to harness the 360's power more effectively than Epic, this is just one developer's opinion.

Games at a console's end of days usually look the best, just check out how good Ghostbusters is looking on PS2.
Later games on the original Xbox I felt were pretty strong graphically as well.
Heck, even Megaman 6 on the NES looked pretty darn good in comparison to older titles (don't believe me? Go compare it first!), which came out really late in the system's life.

BTW, notice I didn't mention PS3 once in this post even though I'm a very happy PS3 owner? I'm not here to start fights.

[Zeus.:God @ Sep 4th 2008 10:09AM]

"Games running with half resolution or half framerate is just unacceptable for a console that's supposed to be so powerful."

Yeah, kinda' like GTA IV running at 630-40p on the PS3 so it can have a better framerate than the 360?

[Static @ Sep 4th 2008 10:49AM]

"Yeah, kinda' like GTA IV running at 630-40p on the PS3 so it can have a better framerate than the 360?"

Using a multiplatform game to cover the failings of the system, typical.

Many popular "exclusive" 360 titles run at sub 720p
Halo 3 - 1152x640
Ninja gaiden 2 - 1120x585

Versus pretty much all of the PS3 exclusive which run at 720p and above except for the notably stinker HAZE.

And a surprising amount of PSN games are 1080p vs the marjority of XBLA titles which are 720.

[Zeus.:God @ Sep 4th 2008 12:49PM]

A multiplatform game would be the only meter for such a comparison.

Halo 3 was a worthless turd from a shitty company that made it big for having 2 decent games. Marathon and Halo: Combat Evolved. Halo 2 and 3 were nothing in comparison, and the graphics of Halo 3 were not only a letdown, but a downright lie.

Anyway, what's the average framerate for those PS3 exclusives? Care to share? From what I've seen on multiple searches is that most of the PS3's exclusives run at 30 FPS, many of them with drops lower than that. GTA IV for both consoles run at very similar frame rates, and the 360 has a higher resolution, and most other games exclusive to the 360 also run at 60 FPS, and GoW2 is expected to, as well, as it runs on the same or a newer version of the UE3 as UT3.

Also, if you haven't noticed, the difference between native 720p and native 1080p is pretty much not noticable when comparing the two at the same output resolution.

[Hotrod @ Sep 4th 2008 1:41PM]

I think MGS 4 and Ratchet & Clank run at 60FPS. Almost all PSN games run at 60FPS.