Xbox 360

[Mormon]

the 360 hasn't been pushed to the limit.

[Pilot_51]

Here's one for you: define "pushed to the limit".
There is no hard-cut limit on technology, so it needs to be said.
It's goes without saying that developers have pushed games "to the limits" during development and reduced the quality for the end product so it never lags.
One aspect of programming (such as graphics) can hit that so-called limit while another aspect (such as physics) doesn't hit that limit and therefore the limit as a whole isn't hit even though the end-user thinks it is. Plus there are often new engines introduced during the life of a system that improve the detail of a game while reducing the hit on performance. Which means the limit can be hit but the detail of games can still improve without hitting that limit.

[Wraith]

So Pilot are you saying a console can never hit its limit?
Or....?

[ShadowMarth]

The particular efficiency of the game engines has a lot to do with it. I sincerely doubt that any engine ported from PC (See Unreal, Source, Quake, Crysis) would run as efficiently on a console. So naturally, a console-exclusive developer can squeeze much more out of the box. Doesn't much matter though, since new PCs already come with better hardware than consoles in most cases.

[Pilot_51]

I'm just saying I don't see any exact limit of the capability of a system either graphical or otherwise. Give developers enough time with one system and eventually they'll probably create the technology to do things that the system was never expected to be able to do. I like to use the BlueRoses engine for the GBA as a great example of that.
Processing power is defined and creating a game to use all of it is simple, so simple that it can't really be "the limit". Chucking out more detail into a game while staying under that limit is another thing that doesn't have a defined limit and personally I think, even though it exists, such a limit has probably never been hit for any system. My question is, what would be considered a realistically reachable limit between those two limits?

[ShadowMarth]

Now, it's a fairly immeasurable thing you're talking about here, so I doubt it's saying much to say that no console has ever been pushed to its fullest means a whole lot. It's really the way the games use the hardware that is undefined, rather than the power of the hardware itself.

[Pilot_51]

The thing is, I'm certain that the processing limit has been hit early in the life of every system, maybe even PS3. That processing limit is the bare minimum limit and the absolute best detail that can possibly be crammed into that processing limit by a game engine is the absolute maximum limit. I think it has happened plenty of times where people say the limit is hit and then better looking/performing games come out for that system, so I think the limit as most people see it is very close to the processing limit. It's sort of defined by a balance of what people expect from the system and the performance that they see, so in most cases it has a personal definition. A game can hit the limit on all hardware and maintain good performance, but the detail can still be increased at the cost of performance, and that's where personal preference comes in play to determine the limit. Some people only want to play with 60+FPS and some people are fine playing with 20FPS.
I hope I'm making it clear enough for everyone to understand.
I think it's safe to say that I've concluded "the limit" as it's commonly used to be a variable defined by the player.

[Wraith]

The Nintendo Gamecube is a prime example of a console reaching its limit one way or a another.
Games like Resi 4 and Legend orf Zelda Twilight Princess...
Nintendo Pres Regie said that Zelda was pushed to the limit on all its functions....
So has resi....but those games are 2 years apart
meaning that the gamecube would have had to have peeked during 2006
What are ur thoughts on that?

[Sparks]

Originally Posted by Wraith

YEs, Xbox360 is good.....but I woudlnt call great.....the hardware isnt all the special....liek come ON! IT LAGS ON OBLIVION!

I personally have never experienced any "lag" on Oblivion, and i've got the equivalent of three maxed characters on it.
The only thing that could be vaguely considered lag in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is the load-up of the occaisional patch of frippery. (bushes, grass, flowers etc.)


And i agree with Pilot on this one. There can't possibly be a final limit as considered by absolutely everyone.
Me, i can happily play a game with 20-30fps if it plays well enough to pull off the low fps, (E.G WoW) whereas i know a couple of people that won't play a game if it can't cope with at least 50+fps, no matter of graphics.
I think the only time everyone can agree on a "final limit" of a console, is if a game gets created that can balance the fps and graphics/physics out perfectly.
But then that last sentence, begs the question: "Define the perfect balance"

Wraith, the fact that the games are 2 years apart is irrelevant, because both games incorporate different aspects as their main targets.
For instance, Resident Evil concentrates more on the lighting effects and mood whereas Zelda is traditionally about the gameplay and physics.
You can't tell me both those games are trying to achieve the same things?

This post will probably be considered a load of nonsense, and that may be because i don't know enough technical words for what im thinking. >.>

[ShadowMarth]

It's not that there is no limit, there is. It's that no game can possibly use all the individual pieces of hardware with perfect efficiency, and therefore no game can ever be called the most powerful that could possibly be achieved on the console. It's a meaningless distinction.