Xbox 2 and PlayStation 3 screenshots revealed in Game Informer
by Ben Zackheim 
{ Feb 9th 2005 at 10:25PM }
It isn't every day that a mainstream publication comes out and declares some screenshots to be from the next
generation of consoles. Sure, you have some hints in Gamespot about Elder Scrolls IV and The Godfather, but there's
always this sense that the images could be from the PC version too. Well, not this time. Game Informer is coming right
out and saying it.
These are next gen console shots.
The game is called Condemned, by Sega, and it looks pretty freaky. But a little "current-gen" PC, to be honest.
So here they are. What do you think? We may need to see the magazine up close to make the call.
[Thanks Josh!]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Powda_P @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
im not impressed at all
ajl @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Maybe I too am jaded. I remember when I first saw Saturn images and almost fell off my chair. This doesn't do it for me.
Jerrybean @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
I may be wrong, but these just PC screenshots of a game in development. Yeah, they may be targeting it toward the XBox2 and PS3, but how exactly does that make these images into XBox2 and PS3 screenshots?
Will somthing like this stress the consoles, pushing them to their limits, or will this be looked back on as one of those emarrassing "first generation" games?
Armen @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
this looks nothing like the previous mock-ups of next gen capabilities. What happened to the football player and car pics that looked REAL. My Desktop can produce better looking graphics.
SetupWeasel @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
What were you expecting? Look at the graphics this generation. We went from the blocky 3D of the PS1 and N64 to the refined 3D of a Halo or a RE4. The law of diminishing returns is about to kick in. You will see an improvement, that is for sure, but if you are expecting the kind of breakthrough you witnessed in previous generations, you ain't gonna see it.
lenny @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
I am not impressed with the graphics,Now if it looked like M.VICK throwing a pass to Terrel Owens like that commercial then i would be impressed,I will still buy X2&Ps3.
lenny @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
I am a big sports fan,the xbox has alot of flaws,I just hope that the new x2 wil be flawless,wishful thinking.
Tim? @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Personally, I'm more excited about the convergence possibilities. I've bashed them before, and labelled them "desperate attempts" but there is still something to be said for all your electronics working together in a borg-like synchonicity. It's hot. Morbidly so.
Luke @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
DOOD MAN IS THAT THE NEW GAMEBOY!?!?!?
Kidding. I don't know. Screenshots alone don't tell us much. It's how it all looks in motion really.
Besides, the early games of any console are always relatively jagged compared to later in it's life. RE4 would have been an impossible launch title.
Having said that, GameCube did launch with Rogue Squadron, so maybe I should put my foot in my mouth?
I'll take my cue from Bishop. "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid."
SetupWeasel @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
I don't like convergence for a few reasons:
1) I don't like paying for things I don't want.
2) I prefer certain appliances from certain companies.
3) If I want something I usually have it by the time someone tries to converge it into something.
4) Many times quality suffers from the attempt to keep cost down.
I've never understood it.
mark @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Look at the success of the iPod as an example of the limits of convergence. Why Sony and Microsoft think the public will go for convergence is beyond me. (Actually, it does make sense from their perspective: It's all about controlling the content of other media, besides video games, which both companies have vested interests in.)
In many ways, I hope Nintendo comes out on top in the next round (and I'm no fan of the Big N), with a game console that just, you know, plays video games, and does so at a cost less than the next bloated offerings from Microsoft and Sony.
ill trooper @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
OK, why don't you guys just relax? Are you crazy? Those 'zombie game' screen shots look GREAT (revisit the PDA/control panel one), and it's only one developer and their one game. Maybe their people don't yet know how to tweak the box as well as someone else will. You're just being a bunch of knee-jerk goofs, eager to hate on things.
If you saw those screens in motion, fluid and flexing the lighting I'm sure they have, you would wet your pants in anticipation.
I'm looking forward more to HD gaming and improvements in frames per second for realism, not games that up the visual ante so high that the motion is clunky (Ghost Recon 2 anyone?). I'm sure there is a lot we are not seeing, like game and AI complexity and more detailed texture maps at close proximity...
As for convergence, it really didn't get in the way when the PS2 played DVDs did it? I think we'll be all right.
I'll see you guys in line for both new consoles, with the rest of us.
metal_mickey @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Look carefully, the textures are rich and with lots of depth, and sharp as hell.. The shadows and lighting are acurate and the effects look great. What I am excited about it the ART DIRECTION, I believe the next gen, will give greater scope for artistic expression in games. If the game runs smooth as silk then it will be beautiful I think, this is more important than polygons. Though, what I would be excited about seeing is first Team Ninja Next Gen.
WizarDru @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Screenshots are all very well and good...but it's framerate, detail and complexity that I care about. I expect it to handle RE4 detail and deliver an equal framerate. It still suprises me when I see new games that can't match a game like Splinter Cell, Soul Calibur or Silent Hill 2 for visual splendor.
More importantly, is it just me, or does this game just look like more of the same old FPS boredom? I've already got Doom 3 and Half Life 2, thanks. Oh...they're not zombies, they're just scabby homeless people? C'Mon Sega, what's going on? I know you can't bat a Shenmue out of the park every time, but can't we do a little better than that?
Sorry, but it seems to me that when the article is blathering on about the same kind of interactive environments just like every game has since Quake II, I get a little jaded.
NIGHTCRAWLER @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
those screen shots could be produced by any PC with 2Ghz processor, 1GB DDR RAM, and a geforce 6800 ultra. but if you look at the graphics from some of the forst XBOX games you will se that graphics have gone a long way on that one console. think of those graphics not as its max, but as it minimum. there is room for improvement on any console.
Kamalot @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Sorry. I'm not impressed either. If this is what they have to offer right out of the starting gate, then this generation is going to be a flop.
There was a definate WOW when looking at the first Dreamcast / GameCube or Xbox screens. If you were coming from the PS1, then the PS2 looked sweet.
Coming from this generation of consoles, looking forward to the next, these simply aren't impressive.
Average Joe won't be able to tell the difference between the first picture and Splinter Cell. People can argue that Doom III or Chronicles of Riddick look as good as the second screen.
The big three companies are going to find it difficult to convince people to drop $400 on slightly better graphics.
Carl @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
I think you guys are confusing PC's with Consoles a little too much.
PC's have always had better graphics than console games. They just do. Newer video cards come out, things advance more quickly. The PS2 and the XBOX are not on the same level as the graphics capabilities of a high end computer game.
HOWEVER the next gen consoles will be. To most console gamers that will be enough because a large percentage of console gamers don't play computer games.
Are the shots only as good as Doom III or Chronicles of Riddick? Sure... but those are PC games you are comparing them with. Remember that.
Chris Maguire @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Like others have said, I think we need some high-res video to be able to tell what's actually going on in there.
The wow factor is going to have to be pretty high, though, if the companies expect people to upgrade their systems. There's been a lot of talk about how much better PC games look that console games, and that's true to an extent, at this point in time. When you compare the computer games of today to the consoles of 4 years ago there is definitly a visible difference -- but, in my experience, I've always felt that consoles surpass their PC brethren when they first come out of the gate.
When the gamecube was released, I know my computer couldn't push anywhere near comparable detail at the framerate I saw in Super Smash Bros. Melee.
While the hardcore gamers and the early adopters (yes, they can be 2 different groups) will hungrily pick up any new technology that is released, will the other segment of the market be able to tell the difference between this generation and the next? Are the differences great enough to make parents think this is a worthwhile thing to buy their children?
I guess we'll find out soon enough!
Kamalot @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Chronicles of Riddick and Doom III are Xbox games also.
You should keep in mind that the new consoles are not expected to ship for at least another year. Most likely, holidays 2006. At that time, these kinds of screen shots will look even less impressive as newer games are released for PC and consoles.
I also agree with Chris. Typically, when a new console comes out, it blows away what PCs can do at the time. Dreamcast and GameCube really pushed graphics way beyond what I you could do on a consumer PC. Compare Rouge Squadron II to Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Both are from 2001 yet Wolfenstein looks chunky and primitive compared to Rouge Squadron II, a game that holds up as a visually stunning one to this day, complete with fancy effects such as bump mapping (missing on PC games at the time).
Typically, Consoles wow us every 5 years with a new graphics leap while PCs steadily get better and better.
This time, where is the wow? It isn't in these screens or in EA's new screens of the Godfather game they are showing off.
Maybe graphics aren't the next big leap?
Luke @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
I'm hearing a lot of people say that they essentially agree with Nintendo with regards to the next generation. That while we all want graphics to look better, it has to be more than that. The industry can't afford to just keep pumping out the same games over and over again with nothing more than graphic upgrades. If that happens, the industry may plateau (something which maybe is inevitable).
WizarDru: You have a point. This does seem to point to the same old game with a new outfit. "Look at how much more detail we can cram in". That's definitely exciting, but there has to be more.
That's why I am unapologetically throwing my support behind The Revolution. Though I will probably end up getting the PS3 (and maybe the Xbox2).
Though I should clarify. While I definitely support Nintendo's revolution, and hope for the best, the reality is that they may unvail something that ends up being very similar.
Can't wait til E3.
striegs @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Considering that this is an early build, I like the gritty textures that the walls have, but I'm sure a similar effect is possible using pre-rendered backgrounds, a la RE4.
Now, what would be really cool is if the zombie blood you will inevitably splatter everywhere flowed down the walls in real time, eventually collecting in bloody pools on the floor (gradually tinging the carpet red as it spread outward, of course).
Oh, and if you happen to step into a pool of zombie blood, it will not only inflict damage on you (from the zombie blood cells), but you will leave a trail of bloody footprints as you walk, allowing the undoubtedly spectacular zombie AI to more easily track you down. Of course, by finding a fire hose (or by triggering the sprinklers with a flamethrower) you can rinse yourself off and erase any trail you may left behind (and each individual drop of water will be rendered separately, I expect, and will distort the visible spectrum as it passes in front of your eyes according to the most pertinent light source).
High expectations? You betcha.
TCG @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Silent Doom 3: The Office Complex?
I long for the day when graphical detail can't be enhanced any further, so we can all actually start focusing on GAMEPLAY again.
SetupWeasel @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
"Now, what would be really cool is if the zombie blood you will inevitably splatter everywhere flowed down the walls in real time, eventually collecting in bloody pools on the floor (gradually tinging the carpet red as it spread outward, of course)."
That is probably going to be the most impressive thing in the next generation, the ability to have more stuff on the screen at the same time. As a hockey fan, it's always been a dream of mine to play a hockey game where the skaters' tracks are left on the ice like in real life. The games today have an algorythm that makes the ice look more marked up over time, but doesn't actually remember each individual track.
Having said that, this is really the icing on the cake. We already have the cake, and it's pretty good. Detail is great, but it isn't necessary to produce games. Next-gen console graphics will only add the ability to have large armies, fleets, or groups to the gameplay that is available now. In other words, the cake is close to as good as it gets right now.
Kamalot @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
While I agree with a lot of the sentiments expressed in this article, I'm not throwing my weight behind any of these consoles until I can actually play them.
I suggest everyone retain an open mind. It is very early in the game to be picking sides.
Luke @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Something else that I look forward to in future generations is unique enemies. As cool as games like RE4 are, it gets a little weird shooting the same villagers twin a million times. Someday, it would be cool if every enemy you encountered had a different look. They can be "similar", but if they all looked differently.
Also, if they all acted differently. Take a game like Halo. While the AI for the characters evolved as the game went on, it would be cool if each individual acted totally differently. You can more or less guess exactly the time of moves that any said character would do based on what "type" they are. It would be cool if there were some "grunts" who were surprisingly better than average and some Hunters who should have called in sick that day.
That kind of unpredictability would add to the realism.
And I was using Halo and RE4 as examples of course, the same critique/vision could apply to any game.
Luke @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Okay, I didn't explain myself well, but hopefully you get my point!
Kamalot @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
I think the ideas people have here are cool but don't add a lot to the overall gameplay experience. Sure, you could have an 'enemy randomizer' that will assemble a unique viliger based on various parts and apply random visual differences (stickers) and traits(limping, voices, etc) to create unique baddies. While this would be very cool what does it really add to a game where you are just gonna shove your shotgun in his face and blow his polygons all over the screen anyways?
Truthfully, I believe that kind of 'feature' is what is bloating the development cost of games today. How much time and effort would have to go into modularizing your villager parts, making sure they all work together and then implementing that into the game? Think of all of the various animations needed for each part. What benefits are there? Wouldn't it be much easier to develop a bakers' dozen villagers with their own textures and animations and recycle them as needed?
Here too, I use Resident Evil as an example, but any game will work.
All in all, I think we need to remember that games are games. Enemies are there for a purpose. If they fulfil that game purpose, which is usually to collect ammunition from the delivering player (heh), then all is good. I would rather have better AI than unique looking villagers. Marines in Half Life (1) come to mind as being some of the most exciting enemies to fight. The way villagers will climb through windows and relentlessly hunt you in Resident Evil is right up there with the greats.
WizarDru @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
I see what you're saying, Luke, but cosmetics like that require a lot of extra time and resource. All of those villagers models and textures require a lot of extra work (not just in design, but in testing, balance and so forth). Consider that if you make it random if a villager is fat or thin, that you now have to be concerned with clipping errors for the weapon they carry or the environment they interact with.
Kamalot hits the nail on the head, here: the first time I encountered the marines in Half-Life(1); I tossed a grenade at them, chuckling to myself at the stupid AI...and then one picked it up and threw it right back at me, and I ran like crazy, filled with terror. The villagers in RE4 can be like that, too. After I killed on villager with a rifle, the other started ducking and weaving as he ran at me, making it hard to hit him. The unpredictable AI made them memorable and enjoyable encounters.
(and when the villagers got ladders and started coming in the windows of the second-story building? Awesome. It was like playing Night of the Living Dead. Very impressive).
Kamalot @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
The problem with great AI is, it does not come through well in screen shots on the back of the box.
I think that mentality hinders a lot of games. What could have been a great game is often watered down to nothing but a so-so game with shiny graphics, 'cause graphics sell.
Luke @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Kamalot and WizarDru: I totally see what you mean, and yes making each individual enemy look different would be nothing more than cosmetic. It also might end up taking too much time and I am sure that there would be clipping errors and such. But I still think it would be a cool idea and that seems to be the direction games are moving in.
Ultimately though, you are right, it really doesn't matter much what they look like.
The other more important idea though, sounds in line with what each of you were saying. I am not doubting that AI has gotten WAY better, and that the more intelligent "learning" AI of todays games makes it a hell of a lot more challenging and fun. But I just want to slightly expand that. It would be cool if some enemies who were relatively easy most of the time, occassionaly surprise with their above average "AI", defense, and, well, stamina. And if on the other hand, some enemies who are usually badasses totally drop the gun and screw up royally.
Take Halo as an example. Again, the grunts are pretty simple to defeat. They get tougher over time, but you pretty much know how they are going to move, how they will run, and what they will do.
It would be cool if it was somewhat random in what they did. Sometimes there would be a more fearless one that would organize others into a standoff, and sometimes there would be a big Hunter type enemy that runs away because it get's freaked out in a fight.
Most of the time, the characters would fit into their "types", but the occassional mixup would be cool.
Oddly enough, I don't even like First Person Shooters very much, so the idea of putting your shotgun in someones face to blow their polygons apart (that was an awesome expression by the way) doesn't matter much to me. But I could see this "random" AI benefitting other games as well.
Good work people. Keep it up.
Markus @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
This has been the most enjoyable discussion of next generation consoles I have had the pleasure of reading. Thank you all for not degenerating into fanboys!
Paul @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
These screenshots do indeed look like doom 111 or half-life 2 produced on a PC not dissimalar from mine or yours, and considering there are no working PS3's or xbox 2's they probalby are !!
n3tfury @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
TCG said:
"Silent Doom 3: The Office Complex?
I long for the day when graphical detail can't be enhanced any further, so we can all actually start focusing on GAMEPLAY again."
he just owned this entire discussion.
BORED @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
I guess I don't get it.
I don't play videogames because they have fancy rendered backgrounds and hour-long CGI animated stories. I play them because they are fun. I'm sick and tired of game companies putting the game play at the bottom of the list while spending years making sure the lighting looks realistic for their videogame about blood sucking zombies, Helllloo maybe you should check the plot folks. If I wanted realism I would walk outside. Is it too difficult to actually put some thought into making a videogame fun to play? Why is it I feel like I'm the only one?
Will Steele @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Look up the teaser for Dark Sector and tell me you're not impressed. That is something that demonstrates the true capabilities of these next generation consoles. Between Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo they will all be using the same three cpu cell technology. Granted they are all different enough that they can get their own patents, but IBM is happipy in the middle making the chips. I have the SDK for xbox2 on a Powermac G5 (that's how it comes) and I can tell you that you will be blown away by what these next gen systems will be able to handle. You will often forget that the characters on the screen are not real. As for all you who are worried about frame rate issues (usually geeks that spend all their time seeing what resolution and framerate they can get doom to play at) these game systems are designed for play on HD systems at 1080i. Home tv systems, or any system for that matter puts out a max framerate of 30 fps (1080i) and in some cases 60 Fps (720p). It is entirely pointless to do otherwise. So just stop babeling about framerates. This round of systems all comes down to the detail of imagemaps, the recreation of lifelike movement, new AI technology, and the games themselves. Many games will be able to be recompiled with high definition imagemaps and more lifelike gameplay. This could add a whole new angle to gaming. Finally, I would like to point out that very few games came close to using the full potential of the 1st Xbox. The xbox was well beyond it's time. Play DOA3 CSR on a 6 ft tall HDTV screen at 1080i and you will see that it cleans the floor with the PS2 and N64. We owe a big thanks to Microsoft for raising the bar on gaming and inspiring greater competition to create the best game consoles. We are still one or two generations away from gaming that's indistinguishable from real life, but Xbox2 and PS3 will be damn close, i've seen it.
Luke @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Will Steele: Calm down man! You are starting to sound like a Prophet or something. An oracle of sorts. "i've seen it!" AMEN!
Anyway, I did think it was funny how you compared the Xbox to the PS2 and the N64. Um, yeah, the Xbox is a million times more powerful than the N64. That's not much of a shocker!
People who "babble" about frame rates are not bringing up moot points. The reality is, slowdown sucks, and even games on the mighty Xbox experience slowdown and that really does take away from a fun gaming experience (doesn't ruin it, but it's kind of a drag, literally I guess).
Anyway, lots of info. Thanks for sharing.
Usher's Killer @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
You can give me all the damn polygons and zombies you like SEGA, but all I ask for is SHENMUE 3 (or the entire series as one game).
Joseph Wilson @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
The graphics fucking suck ass, wtf my xbox 1 can already produce graphics like that. Just look at games like halo 2 xbox, Doom 3 xbox, Painkiller Xbox, and wtf is this shit? I could understand if these screenshots are from the ps3, but if these screenshots are from xbox 2. I am not sure which console I am getting, all I know is that I will buy the best graphics console which ever that may be, it should be xbox 2. If xbox 2 doesn't have better graphics then ps3, I'd be quite suprised. But these screenshots are embarrassing to microsoft if its for xbox 2. I mean come one this looks like xbox 1 screenshots. For fucks sake.
metal_mickey @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
brand loyalty is a funny thing. Yes, I own an xbox, because I believe it to be the best, but I wish I owned a PS2 for GTA, which is an amazing game. However, I doubt the PS3 with 'suck', as, if what we are reading (and I assume you all read), about the CELL, the PS3 will quite possibly be mind blowing in the way we all dream of when we think of 'next' generation. I also wonder how many of you are around since the 'first generation', and I still love every time it comes round to this time again :) (still)
metal_mickey @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
.... and have faith, none of the 3 want to loose THIS race, and they all know there is a lot of focus on "POWER" by consumers, so expect some pretty impressive technology to loose ourselves in, from all of them.
Joseph Wilson @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Is it true that Playstation 3 is using the power of Nvidia cards?
And that Xbox 2 is using the power of Ati video cards?
I think Microsoft is fucking retarded, because Nvidia graphics cards have always been better then ati on the computers. If you want to play games like Half-life 2 and Doom 3 on the computer, go for a nvidia card, because Nvidia seems to have better fps in games.
James eynon @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
i think that the PS3 is gr8 and cant wait for it to come out
James eynon @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
i think that the PS3 is gr8 and cant wait for it to come out
daffyd thomas ( the only gay in the village) @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
i think the PS3 i gr8 and it has the best designe ever
daffyd thomas ( the only gay in the village) @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
i think the PS3 i gr8 and it has the best designe ever
NetNerd @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Will Steele wrote:
"Look up the teaser for Dark Sector and tell me you're not impressed."
No, I'm not. It looks no different than "Splinter Cell", for the Xbox.
Will Steele also wrote:
"We are still one or two generations away from gaming that's indistinguishable from real life, but Xbox2 and PS3 will be damn close, i've seen it."
Do you know how many years that lie has been flying around? And besides, why not hold off on production of these 'SO CALLED' next gen systems until we've gotten to that point.....as I'm sure it would be a HELL of a lot better than a display of false images and info that would seek to give us the impression that we're ACTUALLY there now.
Are you a member of one of the "BIG 3s"......by any chance??.......
Niggers are gay @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Nigger lovers, u NIGGERS SUCK AT HALO AND SUCK A GTA. NIGGERS SUCK DICK, NIGGERS GOT TINY PENIS'S AND NIGGERS LIKE TO GET THERE ASS FUCKED HARD. NIGGERS R GAY.
another brother @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
I dont think so, my mates black and hes good as at Halo. I bet your just a little pussy sitting on your piece of shit computer cuz you got beat by a black guy, and now your throwing a hissy fit.
and shut your face small balls
DangerouslyCheesy @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
I am looking at the issue in question right at this moment and the graphics are impressive but not "that" impressive. The graphics remind me of the amazing "Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay" game for the Xbox just last year...
But then again, launch titles are never too spectacular/good looking so who knows what might be tweaked from now and the release...
E-Wiz @ Dec 18th 2005 8:46PM
Guys, if this game is next gen, then it's clearly not representative for either the xbox 2 or the ps3. Have none of you seen the Unreal 3 tech demos? We are talking allmost Shrek quality here. I agree that the screenshots on this page are weak, but after all it's just one game. None of us should worry, next gen will be great. peace