Lara on the 360 -- a gleam of hope

You can see my review of "Legend" just a few posts back, so I'll confine this post to how the 360 version fares in comparison.

After my last few posts reading the riot act to Microsoft for the pitiful debut of the 360, I'm very happy to say that it gains some ground in my estimation with "Tomb Raider: Legend". Where "Project Gotham" is almost completely devoid of any noticeable graphical improvements, it's very easy to see the TRL takes advantage of the increased power for the most part. Oddly, only Lara herself (and any other human) lacks the same leap forward in appearance to her last-gen counterparts and the PC.

Yes, Lara isn't much better looking on the 360 than on the original Xbox, at least from a texture, and animation standpoint, though that does make up the bulk of the visual effect. The one thing that helps boost her appearance noticeably, and this only now and then, is the improved lighting effects we see on the 360, like when it's reflecting off a pool of water or a dark, slimy, interior ruin wall. When she's out and about in fairly normal lighting, she doesn't really look all that different from the other versions.

What's really odd, though, is that her "normal" appearance, without the extra environmental help, is actually even a bit worse, particularly in the face and "wet skin" departments. Her face seems just a little screwy on the 360 for some reason. Her face is positively gorgeous from any angle in the other versions, but you wont be too keen on holding a close-up on the 360, particularly when she has wet skin.

When she gets out of the water or out from under a waterfall, the water on her skin, while convincing on the other versions, looks just plain streaky on the 360 -- sort of like a subtle version of someone's mascara running, only here, the effect is on every bit of bare skin, and decidedly unattractive.

So, Lara on the old consoles has a bit of an edge in appearance, but where the 360 really shines on this game is the environments. Stone walls, boulders, grass, cliffs, ruins, any inanimate object gets a very respectable boost in realism in both textures and lighting. Vines, ropes, limbs -- there's no head-scratching here, as with "Project Gotham" -- the improvement is clear and undeniable. Water, whether still, running, or falling, looks fantastic -- perhaps not quite as real in some effects (like the secondary ripples when Lara is treading water) as one might expect, but overall, quite satisfying.

The last really irritating thing I'll mention is that I found it practically impossible to keep the game from being too shiny and washed out no matter how I tweaked either the 360's or my TV's settings. It's most certainly the fault of the game, because I've never had anything close to this kind of problem on any game of any of my consoles including the 360. Also, there are some glitchy sort of "shimmering" artifacts that are particularly noticeable if you swing the camera around to a closeup of Lara that you wont see in the other console versions.

Despite these flaws, for anyone wondering about a great first game for their 360, my best recommendation would be "Tomb Raider: Legend". It's a nice, even if yet modest graphical intro to the 360 that separates itself nicely, even if only selectively, from the last-gens. The environments can't be beat, but if you want a lot of close-ups of Lara, to see her face at her best, get any of the other versions.

If you're an RPG fan, you shouldn't really be without "Elder Scrolls IV" either, but as crazy as this may sound to those who've played ES4, I actually got a bit more enjoyment from the graphic achievements in TRL. ES4 is no slouch graphically, despite the very freaky look of almost any human in the game, and if you're mourning the all too poignant brevity of TRL, then ES4 should chew up quite a good chunk of your leftover time.

Grand Theft Auto jumping ship

Chalk one up for Microsoft. This is the kind of thing the Redwood braniacs need to do and what may keep me from selling my 360.

Memo to Microsoft

Like I said in the post before, you'll hear the stuff I said there from almost no one else. Here's a great article that echoes my reservations about and disappointments with not only the 360 but Microsoft.

Also, here's one of the more reasonable reviews you'll read on the grossly misrepresented Xbox messiah, "Halo".

Xbox 360: should you wait for the PS3?

Without question, the PS2 was the clear winner of the last console wars with nearly three quarters of the console market share, and Microsoft and Nintendo combined with not even half that. But in many gamers' minds, both casual and professional, the Xbox was the king, with a spec sheet that put both Sony and Nintendo to shame, and beating both to the HDTV technology punch.

What these Xbox fans seem to want to ignore is the inherent weakness in being the strongest kid in the classroom when the contest has to be tweaked to allow all the kids to play. The only time the Xbox's specs ever really mattered were in its own games, and even then it wasn't that much better a result than how dedicated and brilliant designers were able to "trick" the PS2 into performing.

People all over the industry were noticing the water effect Snowblind was able to give us in "Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance", and there was little debate that Polyphony Digital had our number with it's amazing cars and courses in its "Gran Turismo" series from the impressive "A-spec" debut to the GT4 letting us tool around the beautiful Nurburgring.

For so many reasons, despite much weaker hardware, Sony had not only better playing games, but often better looking games. Unfortunately, they had to live in the Xbox's overblown shadow ever since Microsoft released it.

But all of that is behind us. When the new consoles were announced, I was more than willing to let Microsoft take the crown, but they had to earn it. Well, the war has hardly just begun yet, let alone been decided, but after having my own 360 for the last couple of weeks or so, my expectations are getting clearer.

You'll Only Hear It Here
Just like almost no one had either the guts or the perception to put Xbox in its place, almost no one is sounding the alarm on the 360. I'd seen quite a bit of game footage on the 360 that kept me wondering if I really wanted to spend the money on it or wait for Sony. Nothing I saw was at all convincing.

You'll read a lot about how fantastic the graphics are on games like "Project Gotham Racing 3" and
"Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" among others. In almost every case, it's as bloated as just about every word ever written about the original Xbox.

So why do I own a 360? Eventually, I did run into a game that resoundingly convinced me to spend the cash, and it's a game I'll never play: "Fight Night Round 3". I've never played a boxing game, and I doubt I ever will. It just doesn't interest me. But one evening I stopped by my local Fry's electronics store. Of course, I ended up walking by the video games section and passed by the 23" Samsung LCD they had hooked up to their 360.

I'd seen a number of games on that monitor before, but as I walked by this time, they seemed to be playing some boxing video. Then, I noticed a kid in front of the screen whaling away on a controller, and then I realized -- it was a game. I'd never really been stunned by graphics like I was that evening. If the 360 could capture that in every game, it would easily be worthy of the "next-gen" label.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Elder Scrolls looks great. In many ways, it is next-gen, in others, certainly not (what kind of jump animation is that??). Gamespot.com has a comparison test between the PC version and the 360. Does anyone remember all the talk about how the consoles will be even more powerful than the strongest desktop PC? Remember all that rubbish when you read that comparison. There should be no comparison. That face-off itself is a failure for Microsoft. Asinine.

Project Gotham -- you really, really, honestly have got to be kidding me. Do yourself a favor: of you don't have a PS2, forget the 360 and grab one of those and GT4. Nurburgring looks better, the cars look and move better -- it's just a better game all around. What in the name of holiness is the design expertise that crafted those hideous N64 sparks when the car scrapes the road?? Don't speak! Don't speak! Go to your room!! Those were ridiculous to see in the non-PS2 versions of Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2. This is deplorable here. The cars and scenery look flat and lifeless. The original PGR games are better.

Kameo? Yeah, the graphics can modestly claim next-gen status, but after a while, you might just as well save the cash and stick with one of the current consoles. And it's very creative game design, but ultimately not that engaging.

As I said, the war has hardly begun, and I'm more than willing to praise Gates and crew if they can step up and show us what the 360 has promised, but at this point, not only have I not seen it, but most of what I've seen fails to earn the "next-gen" label.

I remember the reason I had to get a PS2. I'd played Gauntlet: Dark Legacy and was sold. Unfortunately, I didn't have that luxury with the 360. I had to buy on faith. The faith that, essentially, if the box can do that for Fight Night this early in the launch, then it should be able to do it all the time.

Lesson learned: unless you see a game (ideally, play one) that captures your imagination, then it's worth the money -- otherwise, no matter how promising it is, if you can get the games on other platforms (Elder Scrolls and Tomb Raider fans, you own a PC, right?) it wont be worth your time.

All of this makes me all the more eager to see the PS3. Based on Sony's creative success with an underpowered platform, I get almost giddy thinking about what they can do with what may be the most powerful console on the market in November.