Which Next Gen system do you think will have the best graphics?

But GT4 just looks a bit more real. I guess from a technical aspect DOA is better, and I do personally like the graphics more. GT4 just has a different style.

XBL Gamertag: Rampage99

" Basically, pollute the air all you want, your just speeding up the inevitable. Our future generations are f*cked as it is and there' s really nothing we can do about it. Have a nice day "

I agree Rampage..

I do feel that DOA does have a more animated coating in it' s graphics. On the contrary, GT4 seemed picture perfect to me. Although there were some jaggy issues..

But, yes, those carboard cut-out audiences in GT4 take away the full graphic appeal, but the car-models are nothing short of ultra-realistic.

GT4 versus PGR or Forza seems like a more logical comparison. In that case, GT4 is first one out. I still think PGR2 has better graphics than Forza. What do you think?

Forza looked nice but not as nice as I was expecting. PGR definately beats out Forza. I really haven' t had much play time with GT4 to really compare it to PGR2 either. Hell, I' ve played very little of both.

XBL Gamertag: Rampage99

" Basically, pollute the air all you want, your just speeding up the inevitable. Our future generations are f*cked as it is and there' s really nothing we can do about it. Have a nice day "

Realistic does not equal better though, personally I still very much prefer the fantasy-like visual style of Namco' s Ridge Racer V over Gran Turismo 3 and even 4. Namco' s games have pretty cool art direction a lot of times. While the Gran Turismo games utilize a much more realistic visual style the designers seem to just pay attention to the main graphical elements such as the cars and scope of the backgrounds but either ignore minor little details OR just ran out of available power.

Now if Sony let Namco develop Gran Turismo 5, hehe I' m sure you' d see plenty of little background details like helicopters flying by, airplanes taking off, Jin Kazama getting his a$$ kicked in the background, and much more.

Terry Bogard - currently the most Unhelpful member of the Kikizo forums.

I guess you' re right. Well that means the PS2 has yet to make a title look better than DOA3, an Xbox launch title.

XBL Gamertag: Rampage99

" Basically, pollute the air all you want, your just speeding up the inevitable. Our future generations are f*cked as it is and there' s really nothing we can do about it. Have a nice day "

Well that means the PS2 has yet to make a title look better than DOA3, an Xbox launch title.

One PS2 game DOES look better and that game is Dance Dance Revolution

Terry Bogard - currently the most Unhelpful member of the Kikizo forums.

Yeah dude, DDR is totally the best looking game out there....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

XBL Gamertag: Rampage99

" Basically, pollute the air all you want, your just speeding up the inevitable. Our future generations are f*cked as it is and there' s really nothing we can do about it. Have a nice day "

It' s a freaki' n game man

Wow, thats a relevent statement. Maybe you should use the " quote" feature when you reply to a post on an earlier page. And yes, DDR is a great looking game, but it will never compare to Midway Arcade Treasures.

I dont want to celebrate, I want to sell you hate.

And yes, DDR is a great looking game, but it will never compare to Midway Arcade Treasures.

Forget that, Konami Arcade Game Collection for the GBA is where it' s AT as far as video game graphics go. That game will make you go " Halo WHO?? Dead or Alive
Ultimate WHAT??"

Terry Bogard - currently the most Unhelpful member of the Kikizo forums.

Pac-Man made me wet my pants when I first saw it. Those ghosts looked so damn real! that was the best survival horror game ever!!!! Damn those life like graphics. the nightmares that game caused...

XBL Gamertag: Rampage99

" Basically, pollute the air all you want, your just speeding up the inevitable. Our future generations are f*cked as it is and there' s really nothing we can do about it. Have a nice day "

Those ghosts looked so damn real! that was the best survival horror game ever!!!!

LOL!
That just proves that Capcom is full of crap about Resident Evil establishing the survival horror genre, it was Pac-Man all along!!

Terry Bogard - currently the most Unhelpful member of the Kikizo forums.

It was Pac-Man! Don' t let anyone tell you different.

XBL Gamertag: Rampage99

" Basically, pollute the air all you want, your just speeding up the inevitable. Our future generations are f*cked as it is and there' s really nothing we can do about it. Have a nice day "

Back when I first played Resident Evil 4 there was something very familiar about the game but I just couldn' t my finger on just what it was at the time. Now that I think about it, the game seemed to be heavily influenced by Pac-Man. The way you' re involved in a non-stop chase with no place to hide until you clear an area was definitely a Pac-man influence.

Terry Bogard - currently the most Unhelpful member of the Kikizo forums.

i really like the ps3 graphics.i think the ps3 will have the best graphics.i cant wait to get the ps3

<img src=" http://tinypic.com/1ij49v" >

ORIGINAL: Terry Bogard

Back when I first played Resident Evil 4 there was something very familiar about the game but I just couldn' t my finger on just what it was at the time. Now that I think about it, the game seemed to be heavily influenced by Pac-Man. The way you' re involved in a non-stop chase with no place to hide until you clear an area was definitely a Pac-man influence.

Yeah then every now and then you find a gun or ammo and that' s like the power ups in Pac-Man. You finally have a chance to fight back. Resident evil is such a rip off of Pac-Man.

XBL Gamertag: Rampage99

" Basically, pollute the air all you want, your just speeding up the inevitable. Our future generations are f*cked as it is and there' s really nothing we can do about it. Have a nice day "

Well, I have yet to see an Xbox game that really beats DOA3 or DOAU in the graphics department, let alone a ps2 one. However, Namco and Sega are much better at designing characters and it shows when you compare DOA to their fighting game franchises. The backgrounds are still untouchable.

Artistic merit is more important than technical excellence

ORIGINAL: dismiss

Well, I have yet to see an Xbox game that really beats DOA3 or DOAU in the graphics department, let alone a ps2 one.

What?! Splinter Cell 3! Gah!

XBL Gamertag: Rampage99

" Basically, pollute the air all you want, your just speeding up the inevitable. Our future generations are f*cked as it is and there' s really nothing we can do about it. Have a nice day "

Riddick' s look better to me though not as vivid, well actually they only look better if you think realistic is better. I think Resident Evil 4 has good graphics also I mean did you see the water when your in the boat fighting the monster and also when it' s raining right after that.

Anyway I hope Revolution does have the best graphics,but I think the Xbox 360 most likely will (I dislike sony game systems although the ps3 actually looks worthy, but im still not gonna buy one).

Splinter Cell 3 was the best looking game this generation.
then there is the little game called Ninja Gaiden.

Forza was the best looking racing game,PGR2 was close second if not on par.

DOAU is the best looking fighting game.DOA on dreamcast looked amazing.

GT4 had some of the worst car textures that ive seen (it was like my tv was running at 16 colors) And i was running the game in 1080i which wasnt really 1080i in the first place.

XBL Gamertag:RUSSIAN mobster
XBL Games:Splinter Cell:PT,PGR2,Mech Assault, Crimson Skies, MM3, DDR, Rainbow Six 3, Unreal Championship, NFL2k3, Moto GP, Tetris,RalliSport Challenge 2,HALO 2.

1 - Rev
2 - PS3
3 - Xbox

It' s obvious the first console to release always has the worst graphics the last one has the best thats how it went this gen:

PS2 released first - worst graphics
GCN released second - middle graphics
XBX released last - best graphics.

And for your smart asses that are gonna say Cube & Xbox came out at almost the same time STFU because Cube was released in Japan way before it launched in the US, thus it is a considerably older console than Xbox.

DC came out a year before PS2. DC owns PS2 in many games.

"If you knew how good I am you would think I'm modest."

Evil man, I think, nay, I know you have a point.

Genesis (1989) < SNES (1991)

Saturn (1994) < PSX (1995) < N64 (1996)

DC (1999) < PS2 (2000) < GCN (Nov. 15, 01) < Xbox (Nov. 18, 01)

Xbox 360 (2005) <?> PS3 (Early 2006) <?> Revolution (Mid 2006)

C' mon, do the math.. (Although I feel like an Evil Man myself..)

" Nintendo' s an innovator,
Sony' s an imitator."

Yet, for some reason, it' s Sony that gets all the credit.

1 - Rev
2 - PS3
3 - Xbox

It' s obvious the first console to release always has the worst graphics the last one has the best thats how it went this gen:

PS2 released first - worst graphics
GCN released second - middle graphics
XBX released last - best graphics.

And for your smart asses that are gonna say Cube & Xbox came out at almost the same time STFU because Cube was released in Japan way before it launched in the US, thus it is a considerably older console than Xbox.

Evil Man, that is ignorant. Nintendo will probably have the worst graphics chip due to " keeping the cost affordable for 10yr olds errr... I mean the average Nintendo gamer" . From now on try to base posts on logic and facts, here I' ll give you an example:

The list as far as my understanding will probably go:
1. XBOX360: they are using a 500MHz graphics chip
2. PS3: I havent seen it as fact but the majority says that the chip was cut to a 400MHz chip
3. Revolution: Nintendo would rather tout creativity and innovation over graphics, and with the decision to not support HD some might believe the chip they are using isn' t powerful enough to support it.

I dont want to celebrate, I want to sell you hate.

Actually to get a little technical, the Saturn wasn' t launched that far ahead of the PlayStation and thus wasn' t much older at all. The Sega Saturn hit Japan in late November of 1994 and the PlayStation launch followed close to two weeks later near the beginning part of December. In the U.S. the PlayStation kept its 9/9/95 launch date whereas Sega rushed their Saturn to the U.S. market in May of 95 instead of keeping their original September launch date. The Saturn trounced the PlayStation in the 2D department whereas the PlayStation trounced the Saturn in the 3D department.

The Dreamcast hit Japan on November 28, 1998, PS2 hit Japan sometime during March 2000.

Terry Bogard - currently the most Unhelpful member of the Kikizo forums.

Oh, see, I was talking about the U.S launch date: September 9th, 1999.



Ironic..

" Nintendo' s an innovator,
Sony' s an imitator."

Yet, for some reason, it' s Sony that gets all the credit.

the 360 is gonna be the best with all of the Square Enix games. It' s their specialty.

ORIGINAL: immortaldanmx

1 - Rev
2 - PS3
3 - Xbox

It' s obvious the first console to release always has the worst graphics the last one has the best thats how it went this gen:

PS2 released first - worst graphics
GCN released second - middle graphics
XBX released last - best graphics.

And for your smart asses that are gonna say Cube & Xbox came out at almost the same time STFU because Cube was released in Japan way before it launched in the US, thus it is a considerably older console than Xbox.

Evil Man, that is ignorant. Nintendo will probably have the worst graphics chip due to " keeping the cost affordable for 10yr olds errr... I mean the average Nintendo gamer" . From now on try to base posts on logic and facts, here I' ll give you an example:

The list as far as my understanding will probably go:
1. XBOX360: they are using a 500MHz graphics chip
2. PS3: I havent seen it as fact but the majority says that the chip was cut to a 400MHz chip
3. Revolution: Nintendo would rather tout creativity and innovation over graphics, and with the decision to not support HD some might believe the chip they are using isn' t powerful enough to support it.

Gamecube was affordable for the 10 year olds and still had better graphics than PS2, what' s your point? Logic suggests that the consoles that come out later have better graphics simply because the prices of the hardware parts go down, similiar to a computer, i.e. if I build a computer for $2000, a year later I can build a better one for $1500, because technology advances and the price to make the hardware goes down.


As far as the saturn goes, it was primarily a 2D console and it shows in all its 2D games which were far superior to any 2D the PS1 could do, however it was capable of producing pretty good 3D graphics but its life was cut too short (it was dying by 97 and totally dead by 98, so it hardly had a 3 year life span) so I feel that the potential of its 3D was never fully taken advantage of, when you compare games like Panzer Dragoon Saga to the PS1 titles that were available in 1997, it look pretty damn good in comparison, however PS1 kept going well beyond 1997 so it eventually saw games with much better graphics like Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo 2, Final Fantasy 9, etc.

Zzzing!!!

You have a point, Evilman. And I think Mr. Immortal there has been fooled by the great art of bias.

" Nintendo' s an innovator,
Sony' s an imitator."

Yet, for some reason, it' s Sony that gets all the credit.

ORIGINAL: Evil Man

ORIGINAL: immortaldanmx

1 - Rev
2 - PS3
3 - Xbox

It' s obvious the first console to release always has the worst graphics the last one has the best thats how it went this gen:

PS2 released first - worst graphics
GCN released second - middle graphics
XBX released last - best graphics.

And for your smart asses that are gonna say Cube & Xbox came out at almost the same time STFU because Cube was released in Japan way before it launched in the US, thus it is a considerably older console than Xbox.

Evil Man, that is ignorant. Nintendo will probably have the worst graphics chip due to " keeping the cost affordable for 10yr olds errr... I mean the average Nintendo gamer" . From now on try to base posts on logic and facts, here I' ll give you an example:

The list as far as my understanding will probably go:
1. XBOX360: they are using a 500MHz graphics chip
2. PS3: I havent seen it as fact but the majority says that the chip was cut to a 400MHz chip
3. Revolution: Nintendo would rather tout creativity and innovation over graphics, and with the decision to not support HD some might believe the chip they are using isn' t powerful enough to support it.

Gamecube was affordable for the 10 year olds and still had better graphics than PS2, what' s your point? Logic suggests that the consoles that come out later have better graphics simply because the prices of the hardware parts go down, similiar to a computer, i.e. if I build a computer for $2000, a year later I can build a better one for $1500, because technology advances and the price to make the hardware goes down.


As far as the saturn goes, it was primarily a 2D console and it shows in all its 2D games which were far superior to any 2D the PS1 could do, however it was capable of producing pretty good 3D graphics but its life was cut too short (it was dying by 97 and totally dead by 98, so it hardly had a 3 year life span) so I feel that the potential of its 3D was never fully taken advantage of, when you compare games like Panzer Dragoon Saga to the PS1 titles that were available in 1997, it look pretty damn good in comparison, however PS1 kept going well beyond 1997 so it eventually saw games with much better graphics like Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo 2, Final Fantasy 9, etc.

Evil Man I can almost guarentee that your theory will be proven wrong this gen. Nintendo simply doesn' t have the funds available to them to shove the latest and greatest technology in their console. They can' t afford to take a loss on each console sold like Microsoft and Sony. If they did they' d most likely go out of business. Even Nintendo themselves have confirmed that the console will not be as powerful as the XBOX 360 and PS3. The fact that the Revolution doesn' t support high definition pictures (720p 1080i, etc) should be an indication that the console will not have the power to process such high resolution graphics.

It will be a more affordable machine from the beginning ->
Nintendo won' t take a loss on each console sold ->
Nintendo will stay in business!

Having said that the difference isn' t likely to be too great between all three conoles. But the fact is that the Revolution won' t be the most powerful machine out there.

Hu-uh.

Doesn' t have the funds?? Doesn' t Nintendo have a networth of four billion? I don' t think funds is an issue. Just because they said gameplay is more important than graphical performance, it doesn' t mean the visuals aren' t on par with competitors. Afterall, Nintendo said graphics isn' t a priority when they announced the gamecube, and lord and hehold, it can perform better graphics than Sony' s system. (And Sony' s a much wealthier company than Nintendo, mind you)

As for graphics, Nintendo gets it' s card from ATM, the very corporation Microsoft gets it' s 360 chip as well, so don' t tell me it' s a financial issue. SO, there' s no reason for Nintendo Revolution to be graphically and technically inferior to PS3 or 360 in any fassion. Unless it' s just a tad inferior, then okay.

Besides, these numbers Sony and Microsoft throw at you mean nothing. Do numbers show at all on your TV? No. 400 MHZ, 700 MB, 16:9... let' s just see how the games look on your TV and end it.

" Nintendo' s an innovator,
Sony' s an imitator."

Yet, for some reason, it' s Sony that gets all the credit.

Damn you are overly Nintendo biase....

Okay, where to begin... To start with Nintendo' s net worth of 4 billion dollars isn' t money readily availible to throw out there. That' s the inclusion of all their sassests that they have in their possesion. MS lost a total of over a billion dollars on the Xbox.They have that type of cash to throw around. They could care less about a petty billion dollars. They spent over a billion dollars developing the 360 as well. Why? They have a lot of money. Now we look at Nintendo. If they expect to have a console as powerful as the 360 they' d most likely have to use around the same amount of money to develop it. If Nintendo threw out a billion dollars in development they' d loose a quarter of their entire company. For some reason I highly doubt that they are willing to sell off a quarter of their assets just to design the console.

Moving on, specs mean a lot. Sure MS and Nintendo have the same graphics card manufacturer, that means nothing. All three next gen consoles have IMB processors and each processor it very different. Same goes with the graphics cards. If Nintendo wants to keep the price down they will need to use a less powerful graphics card. If the Revolution comes out a year later that still isn' t a long enough time for the hardware to come down in price significantly. MS is using a custom built ATi (not ATM...) graphics card with integrated memory. Looking at this, the 360 will have better graphics. The most caparable graphics card ATi is making won' t be out on PCs for at least a couple generations of computers.

Nintendo could get something close to the general power of the 360' s card but because of that integrated memory that is exclusive to the 360 GPU the 360 will have a good lead in terms of graphics. That memory will free up CPU usage and things like Anti-aliasing and other touch up effects will all be taken care of by that integrated memory without a drop in system performance. Then about the whole HD thing... if the Revolutions card doesn' t support high resolutions it' s not that powerful of a card period. Most GPUs out right now can handle HD. If the Revolutions card can' t support it... well hell. Just think about it.

How did you put it? You have...

been fooled by the great art of bias.

XBL Gamertag: Rampage99

" Basically, pollute the air all you want, your just speeding up the inevitable. Our future generations are f*cked as it is and there' s really nothing we can do about it. Have a nice day "

If you don' t think graphics matter go play Playstation 1.

"If you knew how good I am you would think I'm modest."

Yes, I am aware of assets, operating costs, employees..... that was an ignorant statement. Do you really think Microsoft is spending upwards of a billion on the console? Damn, have I been wrong. And I don' t think I' m bias. It' s just with all the trampling of Nintendo around here, most of my posts are contructed in it' s defense. Sorry if alot of my posts seem half-assed, I just don' t know as much as you guys. But never blame a man (or is it boy?) for trying. And about the bias, I more than realize Nintendo' s flaws. It' s true in some respects, many of Nintendo' s business decisions are mind-numbingly stupid. But those flaws and insults are already well-realized in forums, so why repeat, right? So, I try to stay optimistic about Nintendo and their decisions and support, because, you know, that' s nice and all.

" Nintendo' s an innovator,
Sony' s an imitator."

Yet, for some reason, it' s Sony that gets all the credit.

Yes, I am aware of assets, operating costs, employees..... that was an ignorant statement. Do you really think Microsoft is spending upwards of a billion on the console? Damn, have I been wrong. And I don' t think I' m bias. It' s just with all the trampling of Nintendo around here, most of my posts are contructed in it' s defense. Sorry if alot of my posts seem half-assed, I just don' t know as much as you guys. But never blame a man (or is it boy?) for trying. And about the bias, I more than realize Nintendo' s flaws. It' s true in some respects, many of Nintendo' s business decisions are mind-numbingly stupid. But those flaws and insults are already well-realized in forums, so why repeat, right? So, I try to stay optimistic about Nintendo and their decisions and support, because, you know, that' s nice and all.

You are right to defend Nintendo, but you have to admit it is hard to do. (Exept for the DS)

I also have heard Iwata say the Rev will be " consumer friendly" , but Game Informer stated that it has a 600MHz card in it!

I' m sure this was a mistake, but what a mistake it was!
I am hoping this is true, however.

I will be buying the X360 for the graphics (Those faceplates are absolutley awesome to, they look way better when on the system) and the Rev because, well, I' ve always bought Nintendo on day one.

Why no PS3?

After waiting so long for the PS2 with all it' s promised stuff...well, you guys should know.
As a consumer, I don' t enjoy being lied to.

Defending Nintendo in forums is the biggest challenge in my everyday life. Calculus? Easy! Defending Nintendo? Hard freaking work.

By the way, I read this great article that was posted on http://joystiq.com/

It was talking about Sony' s cockiness with PS3, and how their pronouncements are always negative (price, possible late release date, no more exclusive FF, cancelling router..). Anyway, it' s titled " Is Sony pulling a Nintendo?"

I' m sorry, but I can' t defend that. It' s so freaking true. I see a PS, N64 cycle coming along, PS3 of course being N64..

" Nintendo' s an innovator,
Sony' s an imitator."

Yet, for some reason, it' s Sony that gets all the credit.

I also have heard Iwata say the Rev will be " consumer friendly" , but Game Informer stated that it has a 600MHz card in it!

Yeah, I heard that too. Now that' s a slap in the face, huh?

" Nintendo' s an innovator,
Sony' s an imitator."

Yet, for some reason, it' s Sony that gets all the credit.

Yeah, I heard that too. Now that' s a slap in the face, huh?

Yeah, problem is, it really won' t have enough memory to make use of it.

oh well...

It was talking about Sony' s cockiness with PS3, and how their pronouncements are always negative (price, possible late release date, no more exclusive FF, cancelling router..). Anyway, it' s titled " Is Sony pulling a Nintendo?"

I' m sorry, but I can' t defend that. It' s so freaking true. I see a PS, N64 cycle coming along, PS3 of course being N64..

That brings back some memory' s...

" N64 to use Cartridges?"

What a year for Nintendo fans.

I lost all fanboism with Nintendo when Gamecube came out.

I sure hope the Rev does something great, but I don' t see any FPS' s coming to thier lineup for q long while.

I think Revolution might be more powerfull than PS3 - it' s always the case with Sony - some demos some stupid specs that don' t show nothing and then the system arrives and it just sux.

Nintendo? just the opposite - I think that Metroid Prime is one of the best looking games of this generation - it' s simply amazing.

MS on the other hand is also giving specs and showing demos ,but they don' t lie that much :)

I expect it to be 360>REVO>PS3 - people(developers) say that PS3 will suffer jaggies at the begining - that doesn' t seem to be something new.All we' ll hear is " it' s powerfull but hard to develop for"

Nintendo says that they do need new technology but they will use it differently - now what good is revolution or innovation at the cost of no progress on the main front?
I think that excluding HD from REV gives them ability to lower costs while maintaining graphics on SD TV very alike for all systems.