BioWare reckons there's still "a lot more power" its future releases can get out of the Xbox 360 hardware.
Speaking in our just-published Mass Effect 2 interview, producer Adrien Cho said the developer hasn't yet "peaked" on Microsoft's console.
"For this game, we've squeezed even more out of the Xbox 360," he said. "Mass Effect 1 when it came out I think represented this watershed moment; it was a benchmark, it was really innovative in many ways. But we knew at that time there were many ways in which we could improve, it's just time limitations. So given two more years of development our artists, engineers and programmers have learnt how to extract more out of the engine.
"Have we actually peaked? No. I was the technical artist on the first game and what we do is build things a lot smarter to avoid some of those issues like texture pop-in in the sequel," he added. "But I don't think we've reached that ceiling yet; there's actually a lot more power that we can get out of the 360."
Cho said that he believes Mass Effect 2 will represent "one of the first games of the second generation," and that the lifespan of the Xbox 360 is "at least a few more years".
Yep, it sounds very good and it's nice that they are bigging up the 360 - which isn't surprising considering they are making a 360 exclusive. However, didn't I just read this in the previous interview that you posted, CVG?
Marky Marky Mark. You should know by now that they always chop up their interviews to get as many articles as possible from them. And if they can incite a riot then of course they will do!
@Zero_Cool Bullsh*t. My PC can't throw out 360-quality graphics on new games at 60fps. I can't afford the upgrades required to do it. Handy then that something I bought 2 years ago can.
Marky Marky Mark. You should know by now that they always chop up their interviews to get as many articles as possible from them. And if they can incite a riot then of course they will do!
I know, I know. It's no wonder that I am a cynical bugger, visiting this site so often.
Anyway, I filled my suitcase to the brim last time I went on holiday.
I reckon that with a bit of extra time, I could have fitted a couple of extra pairs of socks in there.
Of course its PR bulls**t.They are using the Unreal 3 engine again. What more is there to get out of? You work with the engine you have unless they are actually optimising the U3 engine and i'm not sure if Epic will let that happen.
Of course its PR bulls**t.They are using the Unreal 3 engine again. What more is there to get out of? You work with the engine you have unless they are actually optimising the U3 engine and i'm not sure if Epic will let that happen.
they can edit the engine, i think thye even say so in the interview posted recently.
To everyone saying it's PR bull, do you not remember every single console ever? Come on! Compare any game from the beginning of a console's lifespan to one at the end. Tekken vs Tekken 3 on PS1, for example. Developers always learn how to get more out of these boxes after a few years.
Well, technically, they're not. Because ME2 is coming out on XBOX and it looks absolutely frickin' sweet. I love the irony of you calling someone a fanboy your post, as whilst you typed it you evidently had your willy in your PC's USB port.
Well, technically, they're not. Because ME2 is coming out on XBOX and it looks absolutely frickin' sweet. I love the irony of you calling someone a fanboy your post, as whilst you typed it you evidently had your willy in your PC's USB port.
@Zero_Cool My PC can't throw out 360-quality graphics on new games at 60fps. I can't afford the upgrades required to do it.
That's because your PC is a piece of s**t. Away and play on yer xbox. Fanboy.
Consoles are s**te, technically.
Then PC's are s**t, 'financially' speaking. My £900 odd quad core PC from May 2007 can barely run L4D at a really low res. I know I could buy a new gfx card, but then I'd have spent a grand on the thing!
Not saying anything is better than anything else, but the whole comparison thing is boring when you're talking about something that costs 3 times as much or more!
Then PC's are s**t, 'financially' speaking. My £900 odd quad core PC from May 2007 can barely run L4D at a really low res. I know I could buy a new gfx card, but then I'd have spent a grand on the thing!
Not saying anything is better than anything else, but the whole comparison thing is boring when you're talking about something that costs 3 times as much or more!
It'll be your GPU. I've got a quad-core system (intel i5) with a ATI 5850. Every game runs sweet as f**k. Seriously, get that GPU sorted out!
Well, technically, they're not. Because ME2 is coming out on XBOX and it looks absolutely frickin' sweet. I love the irony of you calling someone a fanboy your post, as whilst you typed it you evidently had your willy in your PC's USB port.
everything on pc these days is gimped or tied to a steam account. bollocks to that, and the hassle pc gaming naturally involves.
Every game is tied to a Steam account? No it's not. Yes you've got Steam, but you've also got: Direct 2 Drive, GOG, Greenhouse, Metaboli, Gametap, Gamersgate, EA Store, GFWL, GAME (yes you can download PC games there), not to mention countless developer stores.
consoles get the best games anyway
i only buy console exclusives, the rest is bought on PC. I've got more games on PC than my consoles!
Plus you get the best versions on PC i.e. Bioshock, ME, Oblivion, GRID, Dirt 2, Burnout Paradise, Fallout 3, Gears of War, Halo, Halo 2, The Orange Box, etc, are all superior on PC.
Are you sure you owned that PC? Or was it just the cliche quotes on the net you read and posted!
It's all about how you want to spend your money. Keeping up to date with PC games means updating your rig all the time. I used to be a hardcore PC gamer who mocked console players until I did some maths.
I'd rather spend out once per generation and put the onus on the developers to improve their systems than buy a new PC bit every few months.
It's all about how you want to spend your money. Keeping up to date with PC games means updating your rig all the time. I used to be a hardcore PC gamer who mocked console players until I did some maths.
I'd rather spend out once per generation and put the onus on the developers to improve their systems than buy a new PC bit every few months.
Different strokes for different folks. I want solid frames rates and resolutions that would be impossible on a console. But that's just me, along with millions of others i suppose...
the thing about PCs and Consoles. Pcs can easily be upgraded with the latest graphics and sound cards, but consoles, you are limited to what you can change. I think in the long run Pcs are better in many ways
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, they're just different. Not better, different. I'm playing Dragon Age on the PC at the moment, and I'd never switch to play it on a console. By the same token, I don't play footy games on my PC. Not really sure why, but they just seem better suited to consoles, in front of the telly with mates.
My PC is over 5 years old now, in that time I've spent £50 on a graphics card and about £10 on RAM, and it plays Dragon Age pretty damned well at 1080i equivalent. So you don't have to spend that much to keep a PC in shape, just don't buy stuff that's only just been released. You can get what would have been the best graphics car 4 months ago for naff all if you wait.
and consoles get the best games anyway, thats a fact.
*sigh*
No, it isn't a fact - it's opinion.
Personally, I've not used a PC for gaming in years. I'm quite happy with what a console can provide on that front - it's just a lot more convenient for me. However, I do accept that there is a lot more scope for those that do use (and update) their PC.
I was very jealous when I saw Dragon Age on the PC too - looks utterly fantastic and is, without doubt, the best version of an incredibly good game.
Does it actually matter? Let people play what they wanna play and everybody can get on. Oh wait, totally forgot this is the internet... Better throw some flaming into my comments quickly.
XBOX360 gamers are the best. PC and PS3 gamers are a bunch of bummers.
Oh good, another argument about who has less charisma....joy.
In other news, I'm hoping to get a black wii for christmas. It's full of shovelware, too expensive for what it is and looks crap through a hd tv but.....there's just something about the nintendo's games when they put the effort in.
Anyway, Bioware.........the purveyor's of the overhyped under developed RPG. Loved Knights of the Old Republic but they haven't really tried to better it. Dragon Age was good until I realised that you actually had to load in not just sections of the world but each part of cities, totally ruining the immersion and sense of place. Mass Effect was a broken shooter with lots of talking, clumsy controls and superfluous exploration wherein you bouncing your buggy over mostly vertical terrain to find beacons. Rivetting stuff indeed. It was about as open ended as Mario 1 but as you had the special ability to talk the hind legs off a donkey and spend most of your time struggling to use the inventory people think it's an RPG.
Hmm, as you can tell I didn't go much on Mass Effect.....now with EA publishing it it'll have more NPCs trying to break the 4th wall just to sell me a quest that really should have been in the game.
@ledickolas: Did you play "Dragon Age" on the PC or one of the consoles? I'm still playing "Dragon Age" on the PC and while there are loading screens (the map traveling somewhat cleverly disguises the fact that its a loading screen,) when leaving main locations, I have near instantaneous loads when leaving one area of a local map area and entering another.
@ledickolas: Did you play "Dragon Age" on the PC or one of the consoles? I'm still playing "Dragon Age" on the PC and while there are loading screens (the map traveling somewhat cleverly disguises the fact that its a loading screen,) when leaving main locations, I have near instantaneous loads when leaving one area of a local map area and entering another.
i play(ed) it on the ps3, and the loading times were even short on that, with its slow reading capacity. though i cant remember if i installed it to my HDD or not, if the option was given, im sure i did, but im not entirely sure it was.
i find PC gaming to be.. uncomfortable. mostly because i have a laptop, i assume, but i want a portable computer, and cant be bothered to shell out for a stationary one as well. i only really use it for older games you cant come by in stores anymore. Fallout 2, Morrowing etc, System Shock etc.
i am much more comfortable sitting in my chair with my wireless gamepad than any poor sod with a £2500 rig, im sure. who cares about 60fps? anything above 40 and you cant spot the difference. its just elitism at its worst.
Yep, it sounds very good and it's nice that they are bigging up the 360 - which isn't surprising considering they are making a 360 exclusive. However, didn't I just read this in the previous interview that you posted, CVG?
@ledickolas: Did you play "Dragon Age" on the PC or one of the consoles? I'm still playing "Dragon Age" on the PC and while there are loading screens (the map traveling somewhat cleverly disguises the fact that its a loading screen,) when leaving main locations, I have near instantaneous loads when leaving one area of a local map area and entering another.
i play(ed) it on the ps3, and the loading times were even short on that, with its slow reading capacity. though i cant remember if i installed it to my HDD or not, if the option was given, im sure i did, but im not entirely sure it was.
i find PC gaming to be.. uncomfortable. mostly because i have a laptop, i assume, but i want a portable computer, and cant be bothered to shell out for a stationary one as well. i only really use it for older games you cant come by in stores anymore. Fallout 2, Morrowing etc, System Shock etc.
i am much more comfortable sitting in my chair with my wireless gamepad than any poor sod with a £2500 rig, im sure. who cares about 60fps? anything above 40 and you cant spot the difference. its just elitism at its worst.
Must admit I always thought it was anything above 60 FPS and you couldn't notice the difference with higher FPS. Although back in the Quake 3 days there were only certain jumps etc you could do at 120 FPS.
@ kfd I played it on console. I respect the fact that the game is stronger on PC but what I am criticising is Bioware's design principals.
They obviously want you to be immersed in their product what with the amount of time and effort gone into the scripting and voice acting plus all the different outcomes. However all this is undone when the world is just a collection of areas that you load in from a map screen. It takes you completely out of the game world, I am too aware that they are just all independent areas floating in the digital space with only with a couple of exit points (wormholes) that take me back to the hub map.
I like the conversations but to me Dragon Age is no more technically proficient than KoToR at getting it's point across. I was far more immersed in Ocarina of Time's world and that starred a similarly mute character over 10 years ago.
...and i've never enjoyed gaming on a pc. I don't enjoy the work involved. I'll take lower spec and ease of use anyday.
I do recognise that the building and stabilising of a PC is also part of the appeal to PC gamers. They're the new age air fix modellers to me, I'm all about the immediate gratification.
ooh I think you might come into a bit of a sticky gluey mess for that generalisation mate
Fixed.
He has a point about how some PC gamers tweak every part of the PC for 10-20 extra FPS in their games and monitor every aspect of this every day. To me it is too much hassle now, but each to their own (I used to be like that years back). Now I prefer consoles for most of my gaming, half because of ease of use etc and half I cannot afford to upgrade my rig yet. For most part PC's nowadays do offer hassle free gaming (only ever had 2 games refuse to work in over 10 years of PC gaming).
Well its good to see the arrogant Big-rig fanboys uniting the 360 and PS3 fanboys and the casual PC users against them...
As others have said, 5-15 years ago I was mad about PC gaming - you could only do justice to shooters on the PC, it was almost always the lead platform etc etc. While I agree that strategy, adventure and traditional RPGs work better with a PC and mouse controls, ever since GTA3 I've been noticing that 3rd person games play better on the consoles (which by and large have been the launch/optimised platforms) and I've learned to cope with first person mechanics on a console in the last 4 years...
PCs can churn out awesome resolutions, bells and whistles, but unless you are extremely rich/diligent/anal you can't keep updating CPUs and GFX cards at a fast enough rate to keep at the top of your game graphically and gameplay wise.
I remember revisiting older games like Half Life 2 down the line when I had upgraded my PC, and I dug the additional tweaks, but by that time I'd completed the game once, and the engine was starting to flag a little, so nothing jumped out as revolutionary.
Both current gen consoles are very often the lead platform(s), or at least a very serious consideration for new games, and aside from the odd load time, res or frame rate issue (which are generally less troublesome than those visible playing a new PC game on a 1-2 year old PC) these play very well.
Dragon Age was led by the PC platform and played differently there from the consoles. I'd argue it is better on the PC, but still eminently playable and just as immersive on the consoles (textures ARE patchy at best though).
In conclusion, if you have the dedication to constantly update hardware and drivers, you can tweak the very best out of games on the PC, and a number of genres play better. Also the PC gaming market drives development at ATI and NVidea and that benefits the consoles so all good.
If you want to sit back and relax while playing, and guarantee an often identical visual and immersive game experience, the consoles provide that in spades without a constant worry about drivers and upgrading. Straight from the box gaming on a huge HDTV and no checking specs and taking into account the purchase of a new graphics card for the next must have game...
The only reason to ardently defend PCs over consoles is a personal preference, a sometimes well-founded case of technical snobbery or an enjoyment of having to work hard for your games even before you open the DVD.
It is saying something that from being the lead platform for many games in the PS2/Xbox era, the PC has dropped to "neck and neck" if not actually behind in terms of being the lead platform for development of blockbusters these days.
ooh I think you might come into a bit stick for that generalisation mate
I meant it affectionately, I've got friends that get a real kick out of dismembering PCs and putting them back together. To them it's a game in itself.
These are the guys that back in the day loved warhammer and airfix models, you can't deny the correlation
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
!
