Xbox vs. Xbox 360 -- Kong vs. Kong
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Dec 1st 2005 at 4:00PM }
GamesFirst has posted a side-by-side analysis of the Xbox and Xbox 360 versions of King Kong. As noted, the
images used in this comparison are all plucked from a standard definition TV, which obviously neglects the true power
of the Xbox 360, but in turn, reflects the position of a significant percentage of current and potential Xbox 360
owners. There is most certainly a noticeable difference between the two, at least in looks. But with the Xbox hitting
its final stride and the Xbox 360 just taking its first steps, those of us that weren't lucky enough to score a
next-gen unit at launch or are simply content to wait, might have done well to save our money, for now.
[via Evil Avatar]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
CorrectingTheStupid @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
This is much more impressive than any fanboy or hater will ever admit to. But the rest of us are grown up enough not to call X360 Xbox1.5. Whats next, PS2.5 and RevoCube?
JW @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
Holy crap King Kong 360 looks good...
Heretic @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
this cant be used to tell shit. multi console games are always held back and everyone knows it.
Samuel Febres @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
I'll say the 360 looks quite impressive. I don't know what the writer is talking about. And it's a multi console game?
Clint @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
They both look like crap to me. I guess I'll wait for the PS3 to arrive!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
I'm really not that impressed. It certainly isnt NEAR as big a jump in graphical prowess as any of the other generation changes were. I'm just not impressed. ooooh the ground is shiny and kong looks a bit better.
Alex K. @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
xbox 360 certainly has better textures/lighting/water effects, but there isn't one single polygon more in the 360 version.
you can't look at multiplatform games as an example, either.
resident evil 4 looks better than both versions
watership @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
Why bother comparing them both on a standard def TV?
Ryan @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
I would have to see the movement in the water for myself. It sounds pretty nifty. Still, this doesn't seem to me like a huge jump from generation to generation. I still harken back to the SNES days when you could easily tell the difference between an NES game and a SNES game, even in the first round of games (in fact, some of the best games for that system were available around launch).
In fairness, the character models on the 360 version are rehashed from the XBox version, giving the illusion of staggered graphical advancement. Give it a year, then we'll see.
Barring graphics, not much has changed about gaming from the XBox to the 360. The same mechanics are employed. No improvement has been made to (pardon the pun) revolutionize gameplay. Same disc space. Same controller. I'm just wondering if M$ shouldn't have called it XBox 1.5.
Look, I love the XBox and am willing to give the 360 a try, I'm just not willing to plop down 400 bones to get marginal graphical improvements when I can play more innovative games on a DS.
John @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
"They both look like crap to me. I guess I'll wait for the PS3 to arrive!"
Good luck on that one. You're not going to see much difference.
Bloo @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
LOL. Not impressed? How could you be? Shrunken down screen captures that are both from a 480i source - that's how. Why don't you post your opinion AFTER you actually PLAYED a 360 on a 40+" HDTV. If you're still not impressed, nothing is coming that WILL impress you.
Bloo @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
"M$ shouldn't have called it XBox 1.5"
That hasn't been said before.
"I'm just not willing to plop down 400 bones"
Or $800?
Dave @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
This reaffirms my decision to wait for an HDTV. Also, on top of capturing at a lower resolution, the 360 shots look significantly darker--they should have upped the brightness. Still, it is apparent that the LOD isn't significantly higher at lower resolutions.
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
Bloo...you are a BIASED idiot. The AVERAGE person doesn't have the money to blow on $1500+ on a TV or to justify spending well over $400 on a GAME console.
TK00 @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
"However, it's important to remember that what we're comparing is a late generation Xbox title with a first generation Xbox 360 title. Keep in mind that visual quality ALWAYS gets better as developers learn to design for a specific system from the ground up. "
All the more reason to WAIT! Wait until all the consoles are out; there'll be better games, the 360 will probably cost around $200, and you can pick up Kong $10 in the bargain bin.
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
It's a game based on a movie so it'll be in the bargain bin relatively soon.
BoB @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
This is stupid, whos going to buy a 360 for King Kong? A game that is basicly a port with some extra graphical touches, while they do look good this isn't on anyones list of 360 games to buy this Christmas.
Bloo @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
"Bloo...you are a BIASED idiot. The AVERAGE person doesn't have the money to blow on $1500+ on a TV or to justify spending well over $400 on a GAME console."
So the AVERAGE person should just say it sucks because they can't afford it? And you say I'M the idiot? LOL. My 3 HDTVs add up to $11,000 so of course I wouldn't consider that what the average person would have. But that is not the argument here. You don't judge a Lamborghini on how well it does driving in the school zone at 25 MPH do you? So why would you jusge the 360 on how well it looks on a 17" analog TV?
_Psycho @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
if you want a good advice, get the xbox360 of king kong and not the PS2/xbox ones (of course if you have a xbox360, the developpers fixed 3 weeks of bugs after the xbox/ps2 version was released for the xbox360. I heard its a tons less buggy. (My friend was developping on KK, I have good source ;)
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
B/c the AVERAGE person has a NON-HDTV. If your (so-called) 3 HDTVs are not apart of the argument then why even bother to mention them and sound like an ARROGANT ass in the first place? They have nothing to so with this story.
Bloo @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
"B/c the AVERAGE person has a NON-HDTV. If your (so-called) 3 HDTVs are not apart of the argument then why even bother to mention them and sound like an ARROGANT ass in the first place? They have nothing to so with this story."
So you're not saying the 360 sucks, you're saying the 360 sucks if you're an average joe. That's something you should really have clarified earlier on.
Clint @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
I think what Jago said was it's stupid to have to buy a $2,000 tv just to play a video game that looks better on your new $400 console. Xbox 1.5 is the most expensive console ever if you need a new tv just to improve over your old Xbox.
Chris McDowell @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
I have no hdtv but agree with bloo. That is like saying my toyota camry is just about as good as your ferrari if you take out the engine. The ps3 is not going to look too much better running on standard def either they both need hi def tv's to show their top performance. I guess you would say that a $300 emachne is just as good as that custom built $3000 alienware because you have some shitty old green screen monitor and cant tell the difference anyways. Should the xbox 360 be said it is not better than the standard xbox just because you cant afford the hardware to make it work correctly...Jago there is no reason to insult someone online because you think differently than they do.
Clint @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
Keep in mind....Most people don't own those huge hdtv sets. So more than likely Xbox 360 isn't going to be that impressive to most people. I know you like to think otherwise, but the fact is most of the games for Xbox 360 aren't that impressive.
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
I was referring to a post Bloo made in another news story b/c he made it seem like the average person has a couple of grand to blow on a TV, sound system and game console.
Plus...even by playing the games on a new HDTV it doesn't make the games any different. The games still play the same except that they look prettier.
I know how good the 360 games look on a HDTV b/c we have a 52" Toshiba HDTV in the employee lounge where I work. We were having a little PGR3 tourney the week before the system launched and while the graphics were pretty, I wasn't blown away enough to want to buy it.
Jau_Peacecraft @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
The 360 is not going to increase in graphic power/display if you get an HDTV, i find that extrmley hard to beilieve to be applied to every single game possible that may or may not come out for the 360, especially for Perfect Dark Zero, whose developers thoughts, hey, putting as many shiny spots in the game makes it look cool and next gen [sure, if your a retard].
On a side note, the character designs for the 360 version of King Kong look like utter shit, go see for yourself at wired.com. The ps2 characters in King Kong look almost exactly like their real life counterparts (particluary jack black), where as in the 360 version, he looks almost Asian, and while there are finer details in the face, it dosen't look like him. Just saying, just because its the 360 dosen't everything is better. This reminds me of the trivial quabbling over system's appropiate graphics preformances during the 90's console wars, where every single little marginal difference was looked at, and in the end it barley mattered because SNES had good fucking games and kicked ass until it was replaced by what became an equal in terms of a game libarary and a superior in graphics, Playstation. Microsoft will enjoy whatever gullible soccer mom and wal martian and retarded 10 year olds who buy 3 or 4 of their core systems for now, but come on, there's two fucking new systems coming out within the next year and a half, chill out and jack off.
Jau_Peacecraft @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
The 360 is not going to increase in graphic power/display if you get an HDTV, i find that extrmley hard to beilieve to be applied to every single game possible that may or may not come out for the 360, especially for Perfect Dark Zero, whose developers thoughts, hey, putting as many shiny spots in the game makes it look cool and next gen [sure, if your a retard].
On a side note, the character designs for the 360 version of King Kong look like utter shit, go see for yourself at wired.com. The ps2 characters in King Kong look almost exactly like their real life counterparts (particluary jack black), where as in the 360 version, he looks almost Asian, and while there are finer details in the face, it dosen't look like him. Just saying, just because its the 360 dosen't everything is better. This reminds me of the trivial quabbling over system's appropiate graphics preformances during the 90's console wars, where every single little marginal difference was looked at, and in the end it barley mattered because SNES had good fucking games and kicked ass until it was replaced by what became an equal in terms of a game libarary and a superior in graphics, Playstation. Microsoft will enjoy whatever gullible soccer mom and wal martian and retarded 10 year olds who buy 3 or 4 of their core systems for now, but come on, there's two fucking new systems coming out within the next year and a half, chill out and jack off.
Jau_Peacecraft @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
**corrections: HDTV won't increase it MUCH; it may increase a little, but probably not like by an insane amount.
my last post probably came off as anti xbox, and admitedly sort of am, but I'm am fairly excited for DOA 4 and the possibility of Halo 3 for the 360. Sadly, DOA 4 might be delayed, and in such hapenning, 360's launch becomes signifigantly weaker.
joe blow @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
hey i dont have a 360 yet but im just wondering if it worth a new hdtv for a 360?
will it change the graphics all that much?
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
Nope...and I've played a 360 on a HDTV.
bd (formerly b) @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
It's funny that 360 fanboys have to rationalize on the "1.5" argument. You know, that says a lot. Also, the fact that the 360 has "way better" graphics doesn't mean it is a huge leap compared to Xbox 1, let alone comparing the leap from any system to its predecessor. It is called 1.5 for something: The leap isn't that big compared to the leap from PS1 to PS2, and from PS2 to PS3, and from Sega Genesis to Saturn, and from Saturn to Dreamcast, and from SNES to N64. Hell, only the revolution might compare on such a small leap, but until we see screen shots, we can't know (hell, if it compares to 360, it's enough to make the Xbox to 360 jump smaller than the cube to Revolution jump), and even so, at least they are not selling graphics as opposed to the 360.
Sure, the 360 has nice graphics, so? It's still a small leap. But maybe the disc space... Oh wait. Maybe the broadband support... Oh wait. Or the LIVE service is free... Oh wait.
I still think that this equation is true, regardless of how many great games will come out or the experience you might get out of it:
Xbox360 - Xbox = 0.5
And just to put it in perspective:
PS3 - PS2 = 1.2
Revolution - Gamecube = 1.6 (Overall innovation)
Guy @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
K, seriously... for the sake of argument on the whole "HDTV" thing, look at it this way: what does High Def do for you? Improves the resolution, right?
Have you ever played Diablo II without the LOD expansion? You had crap resolution. Throw in the expansion, and suddenly you're playing at 800 x 600 res. It makes a notible difference. Everything "shrinks" and becomes more compact... so the graphics look far cleaner and sharper. Image quality. That's what gets better... not the graphics themselves.
So yeah, playing Halo 2 on standard definition vs high definition is going to make a fairly noticible difference. Is it worth dropping $400 for it? F-ck no. But it's not all about the resolution.
As for the whole "the graphics suck..." crap... it's first generation games! These developers have probably only had the full kits for like 3 months... what do you expect?
Really, what do you think the difference in coding is between a single-core, single-threaded 733Mhz console, and a triple-core, six-threaded trio 3.2Ghz console is? Nevermind all of the different technical aspects of the GPU... and then there's the whole "Unified memory/shader architecture" crap... how much do you think these people can advance the stuff, given the amount of time they've had with the final hardware?
Be realistic. Give it another year. Then come back and judge the console... until then, you probably won't have an accurate idea of what you're really buying.
That's just my opinion, anyways... peace.
Kevin @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
I disagree with this dope. I bought a HDTV because I knew I was getting a 360, and of course the football season. Most people will either have a HDTV or plan on getting one. Otherwise I don't care if you have a PS6 or XBOX 720 you won't be impressed. I have a Sony 50 inch A10....the 360 is awesome on it. The good news is the games are only going to get better and better.....and soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go get a 360 and a big HDTV. You won't regret it!!!!
Tomahawk @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
@ Clint
Clint get a life this aint no 360 bashing forum get on IGN you troll!!
joel @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
I just wanted to mention a few points. First, The people who are saying that there is not much of a generation jump are right, look at the quality difference from:
pong -
Atari -
NES -
SNES -
PS -
PS2 -
The xbox - 360 just is not that great.
Second, this will be the last generation if the only thing that matters is resoloution. I put this to you.... A live action movie you watch on your telivision has a lot lower resoloution than anything you play on the computer today. But, it looks real... really real. In order for video games to get much better, there has to be a fundimental understanding of what makes things look real that we don't have today. When that day comes (and it will be in 1-2 next generations from now) it will be pretty strange because then we can no longer talk about how the graphics are getting better all the time. This has been THE video game topic since I first got pong as a little boy.