Whats after the Xbox 360?

[HBK619]

What were the cutbacks? Was the port announced half-way through the development cycle?

Was actually announced when the PS3's version was complete. There were missions cut off as well as graphical cut-backs made. The graphical cut-backs were shown in the comparison pics that Kerrby posted a while back (and you commented on).

Pre-rendered cutscenes have very little to do with a machines graphical capabilities, you understand this right?

Alan Wake is pretty unique graphically, with heavy use of alpha. Probably not the best example to use, was more talking about space.

Of course, but when they try to emulate the actual graphics of the game and turn out to be the worst part then something is going wrong, isn't it.

I never said anything about Uncharted's graphics, but it's only a 7 hour game. What do you mean nothing else to take up content? Did you not see there is 80 mins of video and support for 7 languages? If you're referring to a lack of multiplayer, you're off the mark again.

And the original Uncharted is still one of the best looking games going, took up around 25GB's of disc space IIRC and there was nary a thing but the original campaign and video of around an hour or so worth in that. As I said, DVD9 is holding back games in all facets, whether graphically or content wise.

I mean an extra 80 minutes of video really isn't much, depending on the quality it could be around 600MB worth.

A silly comment from a lazy programmer, repeated on 10 different websites. Big deal. I'd take Gabe Newell's opinion over Rick White's.

Hold on...what opinion? The opinion that the PS3 can offer more than the 360, as shown by Portal 2 being "the best version on ANY console" for the PS3? Not really sure where you're going here.

One of these guys said the 360 is all but maxed out, the other said that he wouldn't develop for the PS3 but now is.

Sony haven't opened up the PS3? When are they going to flick the switch? What are they waiting for?

Opening up in terms of development. This isn't any "cell powerz" rant. This is talking about Sony being more open in terms of how 3rd party developers are handled. Previously EA would really be the only one's Sony would give any benifits too because EA backed the PS3 this gen and Sony responded in kind. Sony realised though that it is going to take longer for developers to get around everything without help than it is with help. With help developers will learn the tech quicker and find shortcuts easier. That is why Ubisoft will be leading with the PS3 and why EA has with just about all their titles for a while now.

That is a comparison between the 360 and PC, and says the PS3 suffers frame rate issues

That is why I said better "looking", I did debate whether to leave that part out or not. But it shows the PS3 does most of those previous things you mentioned that multi-plat titles don't do for the PS3 and doing it better than the 360. You never mentioned framerate in your previous "real stuff".

Uncharted 2 was a 7 hour Tomb Raider clone, is it that hard to believe I didn't like it?

Firstly. It was around 10-12 hours. Secondly, why continue to tell us that you've played it? If you truly have, where is the proof of this? You constantly talk about bullshitting yet you can't admit to your own.

Who talks like this? You're a freak.

What exactly is wrong with the wording? You can look over your old posts and see that you had some very clear and precise reasons as to why the 360 was beating out the PS3 at that time. But now you have nothing to grasp onto, because the facts show the PS3 taking over the 360. That is why you have left this board, not because you're on the 360 more or some bullshit, that argument falls down right about the point that you hadn't even played Gears of War 2. Yet you've played Uncharted 2. OK...

How am I wrong? You mention a couple of titles which use or will use MLAA, which has nothing to do with space on a disk.

You're the one who's bringing out the comparisons and talking about what the PS3 can and cannot do. It's clear to anyone who actually works on consoles that games in all facets are being held back by DVD9. Even Biggy agreed with that ffs.

DVD9 is holding back games from being bigger and better and really allowing developers to not have to worry about any sort of realistic limit. The 360 has been said to be maxed out by developers. Bungie and EA amongst Red Faction's developers.

At the end of the day, whether by DVD9's limit (meaning content or graphical features are cut) or by the consoles CPU and GPU limit the 360 will simply not be able to push out a whole lot more graphically. "We are taking every advantage of everything on the CPU and GPU, and every bit of memory in order to produce the look of Reach beyond anything of Halo 3" That is a comment from the best dev on the 360 and they are maxing the console out with Reach, and looking at it Reach is just a standard looking title.

 

[HBK619]

Anyway back to the topic of next gen, how do the companies manage to release consoles around the same timeframe? I doubt Reggie called up Sony and Microsoft and was like "Hey we're planning on releasing a new console in 2006, hope you guys can make it."

Just seems a bit odd how they all coordinated their seventh generation consoles to be released around the same time.

It's just how it all comes together. Previous generations haven't seen fairly simultaneous release dates for consoles. Just so happens that everything finally comes together and they get it out at much the same time in the end.

Plus with rumblings and release dates of consoles the other companies would speed things up a bit to make sure they're not left in the lurch. You'll find the same thing will happen next gen, right now there's all sorts of next gen stuff happening behind the scenes finding out what is and will be the best tech and what not. But when the rumblings of one company getting ready to release theirs the others will step up their game and start to get ready to bring out their own as well.

 

[Noppo]

That is a comment from the best dev on the 360 and they are maxing the console out with Reach, and looking at it Reach is just a standard looking title.

I'd play it before I make a comment. Just saying. It's a bit unfair to make an assumption before the game is even released and you haven't had a go at it.

 

[Noppo]

It's just how it all comes together. Previous generations haven't seen fairly simultaneous release dates for consoles. Just so happens that everything finally comes together and they get it out at much the same time in the end.

Plus with rumblings and release dates of consoles the other companies would speed things up a bit to make sure they're not left in the lurch. You'll find the same thing will happen next gen, right now there's all sorts of next gen stuff happening behind the scenes finding out what is and will be the best tech and what not. But when the rumblings of one company getting ready to release theirs the others will step up their game and start to get ready to bring out their own as well.

Hehe yeah that's true. Don't think any of them would ramp up production on such a big project off a rumour though .

 

[HBK619]

I'd play it before I make a comment. Just saying. It's a bit unfair to make an assumption before the game is even released and you haven't had a go at it.

I'm sure the game is fine and everything (not what I'm having a go at). Just that it's not hard to tell how it looks from everything we've seen (and games rarely look better when you're playing it, at least you can get a VERY good idea from video's), it's not doing anything special in terms of graphical looks. Probably comparison wise I'd say (from what I've seen) it'd be comparable to BF:BC2, which wouldn't be the best looking multiplatform title out there.

Sure it's might be at pre-alpha stage currently, but so is Killzone 3 or even Rage which is 1 year off from releasing and that definitely out-does Reach for looks.

 

[Noppo]

I'm sure the game is fine and everything (not what I'm having a go at). Just that it's not hard to tell how it looks from everything we've seen (and games rarely look better when you're playing it, at least you can get a VERY good idea from video's), it's not doing anything special in terms of graphical looks. Probably comparison wise I'd say (from what I've seen) it'd be comparable to BF:BC2, which wouldn't be the best looking multiplatform title out there.

Sure it's might be at pre-alpha stage currently, but so is Killzone 3 or even Rage which is 1 year off from releasing and that definitely out-does Reach for looks.

I'm not saying Reach is the best looking game ever, because it isn't. Games like Gears of War, Last Guardian, Killzone and Rage all definitely look better at this stage. But you don't know anything for sure until it ships, so I wouldn't presume anything until you see it for yourself.

Personally however, I'm probably not the best person to partake in this discussion, because graphics aren't everything to me. I'd much prefer gameplay and story to a visually groundbreaking game, but that might just be me. Fable 2 for example wasn't anything pretty to look at, but I still loved it because of the story and the gameplay. Sure something pretty is nice, but in the end it's a bonus. If the game doesn't handle well then all the realism in the world isn't going to save it. For me, anyway.

 

[HBK619]

Hehe yeah that's true. Don't think any of them would ramp up production on such a big project off a rumour though .

You never know. I was more talking about when companies start the hype train on their consoles. You have to give a bit of room between the announcement of a console and it's release date. And in between that time the production can come a full 360 degree's from where it began.

I'm not saying Reach is the best looking game ever, because it isn't. Games like Gears of War, Last Guardian, Killzone and Rage all definitely look better at this stage. But you don't know anything for sure until it ships, so I wouldn't presume anything until you see it for yourself.

At the end of the day, it's a safe presumption. Because realistically there's not a whole lot more that can be done. Titles year over year can improve a lot (as I expect Rage to look simply amazing once it's released next year, should the development go that whole time and not stop short just waiting for the right release date). But in a few months there really isn't a ton that can be done because the majority of the groundwork is there. No doubt it will look better, but it still won't be much of a leap from the beta.

Personally however, I'm probably not the best person to partake in this discussion, because graphics aren't everything to me. I'd much prefer gameplay and story to a visually groundbreaking game, but that might just be me. Fable 2 for example wasn't anything pretty to look at, but I still loved it because of the story and the gameplay. Sure something pretty is nice, but in the end it's a bonus. If the game doesn't handle well then all the realism in the world isn't going to save it. For me, anyway.

I was never saying anything different and was just responding to the "how good will games look" line.

But at the end of the day graphics can play a surprisingly large part to gameplay that some often look past. First off there's immersion, if a world has all these little details and touches in their game then you can find yourself just feeling 'in' that world and it can ramp up everything else to amazing degrees. Atmosphere is another, while a game doesn't have to look great for a good atmosphere the way a game is styled and what other little graphical touches you put in can indeed add to that and in a creepy game you will find your pants full and brown if the atmosphere is done right. I mean, how well would RDR play if it looked like a wet fart? A lot of what makes RDR so enthralling is that it drags you right back to 1910 and you just feel 'in' that world and like you're a real cattle rustling, boot scooting son of a gun.

While graphically a game doesn't have to be a world beater to be great (and as I said, there will still be good games for the 360, just not great graphical leaps) graphics can play a big part in your enjoyment of a game.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Was actually announced when the PS3's version was complete. There were missions cut off as well as graphical cut-backs made. The graphical cut-backs were shown in the comparison pics that Kerrby posted a while back (and you commented on).

Of course it's going to be cut back, it was designed form the ground up for PS3. Stupid example to use.

Of course, but when they try to emulate the actual graphics of the game and turn out to be the worst part then something is going wrong, isn't it.

Err....what?

And the original Uncharted is still one of the best looking games going, took up around 25GB's of disc space IIRC and there was nary a thing but the original campaign and video of around an hour or so worth in that. As I said, DVD9 is holding back games in all facets, whether graphically or content wise.

I mean an extra 80 minutes of video really isn't much, depending on the quality it could be around 600MB worth.

What is it holding back? Because PS3 uses redundancy and a developer has space to burn, a PS3 game takes up 25GB therefore all games must need 25GB? You idiot.

Hold on...what opinion? The opinion that the PS3 can offer more than the 360, as shown by Portal 2 being "the best version on ANY console" for the PS3? Not really sure where you're going here.

The opinion expressed before he had a falling out with Microsoft and decided to annaounce a title on PS3 with Steam Cloud. That is why it is 'the b3st version everrrrr'.

"The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels, I think It’s really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted," Newell told Game Informer magazine. "I’d say, even at this late date, they should just cancel it and do a ‘do over’. Just say, ‘This was a horrible disaster and we’re sorry and we’re going to stop selling this and stop trying to convince people to develop for it.’"

Opening up in terms of development. This isn't any "cell powerz" rant. This is talking about Sony being more open in terms of how 3rd party developers are handled. Previously EA would really be the only one's Sony would give any benifits too because EA backed the PS3 this gen and Sony responded in kind. Sony realised though that it is going to take longer for developers to get around everything without help than it is with help. With help developers will learn the tech quicker and find shortcuts easier. That is why Ubisoft will be leading with the PS3 and why EA has with just about all their titles for a while now.

Absolutely crazy business strategy by Sony for 3 years then. Don't help any developers make games for your machine. Oh, the untapped potential!

That is why I said better "looking", I did debate whether to leave that part out or not. But it shows the PS3 does most of those previous things you mentioned that multi-plat titles don't do for the PS3 and doing it better than the 360. You never mentioned framerate in your previous "real stuff".

Yeah, framerate's not important

Firstly. It was around 10-12 hours. Secondly, why continue to tell us that you've played it? If you truly have, where is the proof of this? You constantly talk about bullshitting yet you can't admit to your own.

Where is there going to be proof? Why would I need to prove it?

What exactly is wrong with the wording? You can look over your old posts and see that you had some very clear and precise reasons as to why the 360 was beating out the PS3 at that time. But now you have nothing to grasp onto, because the facts show the PS3 taking over the 360.

What facts? Taking over how?The botrtom line is, AS IF I would stop posting on a video games board because I thought two consoles were reaching parity. AS IF. You're a freak for thinking this. I couldn't care less if every xbox on the planet simultaneously exploded, it would not affect my posting here.

That is why you have left this board, not because you're on the 360 more or some bullshit, that argument falls down right about the point that you hadn't even played Gears of War 2. Yet you've played Uncharted 2. OK...

So unbelievable. Would it shock your socks off if I told ou I still hadn't finished the first Gears of War? Why would I not play the so-called GOTY Uncharted 2 at least a little bit?

You're the one who's bringing out the comparisons and talking about what the PS3 can and cannot do. It's clear to anyone who actually works on consoles that games in all facets are being held back by DVD9. Even Biggy agreed with that ffs.

You actually work on consoles? That is the funniest shit you've ever come out with. You have yet to demonstrate anything.

DVD9 is holding back games from being bigger and better and really allowing developers to not have to worry about any sort of realistic limit. The 360 has been said to be maxed out by developers. Bungie and EA amongst Red Faction's developers.

Oh, those poor developers, having to worry. Where are these bigger and better games that are taking advantage of all this bluray space? A 7 hour Tomb Raider clone? Really? A yawnfest fan service MGS4 that is basically a shitty movie?

At the end of the day, whether by DVD9's limit (meaning content or graphical features are cut) or by the consoles CPU and GPU limit the 360 will simply not be able to push out a whole lot more graphically. "We are taking every advantage of everything on the CPU and GPU, and every bit of memory in order to produce the look of Reach beyond anything of Halo 3" That is a comment from the best dev on the 360 and they are maxing the console out with Reach, and looking at it Reach is just a standard looking title.

This is the important bit:

'With every iteration we understand what more we can exploit with the hardware.'

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I'm sure the game is fine and everything (not what I'm having a go at). Just that it's not hard to tell how it looks from everything we've seen (and games rarely look better when you're playing it, at least you can get a VERY good idea from video's), it's not doing anything special in terms of graphical looks. Probably comparison wise I'd say (from what I've seen) it'd be comparable to BF:BC2, which wouldn't be the best looking multiplatform title out there.

Sure it's might be at pre-alpha stage currently, but so is Killzone 3 or even Rage which is 1 year off from releasing and that definitely out-does Reach for looks.

Explain to me how Killzone 3 looks better than Gears of War 3 H, I look forward to your insight.

 

[HBK619]

Of course it's going to be cut back, it was designed form the ground up for PS3. Stupid example to use.

It's not a stupid example because it shows how a game can benefit from the bigger disc space that was being used. It looked better, had more content, etc. This is all benefit's of not using DVD9. Where are you not getting this?

What is it holding back? Because PS3 uses redundancy and a developer has space to burn, a PS3 game takes up 25GB therefore all games must need 25GB? You idiot.

The fact is, if there's more space to use then developers don't have to cut back on anything in order to push their games graphically. Higher res textures can be used, bigger environments can be created, etc. etc. etc.

Not saying all games need to be more than 10GB and in many cases they just won't naturally. But not having the restrictions applied certainly allows for more to be gotten out and put into each game.

The opinion expressed before he had a falling out with Microsoft and decided to annaounce a title on PS3 with Steam Cloud. That is why it is 'the b3st version everrrrr'.

"The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels, I think It’s really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted," Newell told Game Informer magazine. "I’d say, even at this late date, they should just cancel it and do a ‘do over’. Just say, ‘This was a horrible disaster and we’re sorry and we’re going to stop selling this and stop trying to convince people to develop for it.’"

The statement doesn't hold much now that he's developing on this "disaster" of a console though, does it? Just because Valve had slight a falling out with MS due to not wanting Steam on their system doesn't mean that Gabe would change his entire mind and think the PS3 is suddenly great now. He was obviously over zealous in making his comments and has been proven wrong time and time again, he's now gone back on those statements and admitted that it's a more open system (willing to allow Steam and not exploit the customers for all the money they will give) and not THAT incredibly difficult to develop for.

Absolutely crazy business strategy by Sony for 3 years then. Don't help any developers make games for your machine. Oh, the untapped potential!

Basically. The 1st party studios got all the perks and most else didn't.

It was the arrogance of Sony that hurt them. They basically thought that because they won out last time it was going to be a no brainer to win out again. They didn't play it smart, but in the last year they have certainly realised that to get more you have to give more, which they are doing and in turn developers will reward them for it with better multiplatform titles.

Yeah, framerate's not important

Again, never said it wasn't. But you keep changing up what the hell is meant to be important it's hard to keep track.

Where is there going to be proof? Why would I need to prove it?

Because the bullshit is written everywhere in your postings. A 7 hour Tomb Raider clone? First off, the game is near impossible to beat in 7 hours unless you play it on easy and rush through it. Then of course nearly every game is going to be dull. Proof isn't actually hard to get, if you played it on 'your PS3' there will be trophy information.

What facts? Taking over how?The botrtom line is, AS IF I would stop posting on a video games board because I thought two consoles were reaching parity. AS IF. You're a freak for thinking this. I couldn't care less if every xbox on the planet simultaneously exploded, it would not affect my posting here.

Well obviously taking over in terms of sales. PS3 is now leader in sales in 2 of the 3 big regions and has reeled back a lead of 8 million from the 360 to 5 million. Something that for a while now you said would never be gained. At this rate, by 2012 the PS3 will be well in front.

And more obviously (yet still ignored by yourself) taking over in terms of game quality. Now I'm not going to put together a list as I'm sure you know exactly the landscape. But from in 2008 the PS3 had 2 GOTY winning titles compared to the 360's 1 and further more in 2009 the PS3 had the majority winning GOTY title in Uncharted 2 while the 360 didn't have 1 title win a GOTY award. 2010 at the moment see's 5 PS3 (exclusive) titles above 80 on Metacritic with 2 90+'s compared to 4 360 titles above 80, 1 90+.

Sales, game quality whatever you want to use. All of this was at least somewhat weighted to at least serve as somewhat of an argument over a year ago, since then and since you've left this board on a more permanent basis these have wained and there's just not much of an argument left.

Honestly I'd believe you saying that there's no reason that you left and it just happened to turn out that way if you could ever admit to there being a good game on the PS3, but that coupled with the 2 previous examples is the most logical reasoning.

So unbelievable. Would it shock your socks off if I told ou I still hadn't finished the first Gears of War? Why would I not play the so-called GOTY Uncharted 2 at least a little bit?

Because you gush so much about the XBOX 360's supposed superb list of games. If you haven't finished any of one of the bigger and really only franchise titles on the system, then how come you continue to act as if there's nothing on the PS3? And when someone says that they've been kept away from posting due to playing the 360 it would actually shock me to hear they've been playing the system with such shit games according to yourself anyway.

You actually work on consoles? That is the funniest shit you've ever come out with. You have yet to demonstrate anything.

Again, never said that. Was obviously using the examples of id Software and Square Enix who said that the disc size would relate to content being cut.

Oh, those poor developers, having to worry. Where are these bigger and better games that are taking advantage of all this bluray space? A 7 hour Tomb Raider clone? Really? A yawnfest fan service MGS4 that is basically a shitty movie?

God of War 3? Killzone 2? Heavy Rain?

I know, I know. "GoW3 is just a genre that went out years ago", "Killzone 2 isn't better than Halo" and "Heavy Rain is a movie", BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. But for people who do enjoy gaming these games were actually good and for at least 2 of them there was a fair amount of shit going on graphically. All 3 used more than 10GB's of disc space.

I don't get how you can think that DVD9 is better than the space afforded to a Blu-Ray disc.

This is the important bit:

'With every iteration we understand what more we can exploit with the hardware.'

Which is something I have not disputed. The difference is that there is not going to be an exponential leap, simply because it's not allowed. With what Bungie are currently achieving from their self proclaimed "maxing out" is nothing but standard fair graphics that certainly don't push any other titles in terms of visual quality. What is taking less on the PS3 is already proving to be doing more visually.

Explain to me how Killzone 3 looks better than Gears of War 3 H, I look forward to your insight.

Wait...what? I have to explain how a game using a 4+ year old engine that is looking more and more past gen with every game isn't as good as Killzone 3? Are you being serious? This is your most ridiculous statement yet. Instead of explaining I'll show you right now, just for fun here's Halo Reach as well. Are you honestly trying to tell me that these games beat Killzone 3 in terms of graphics? (Which is CLEARLY to anyone watching Killzone 3 is better looking than Gears 3 and Halo Reach, despite being in pre-alpha status). I'm done if you can't see why Killzone 3 is the leader there and TBH everyone else is seeing your stupidity if you can't as well.
[youtube]1sF5K7nnWIU[/youtube]
[youtube]k86rf5osUWY[/youtube]
[youtube]76CdAphlyUg[/youtube]

 

[Mancey]

Pretty wanky thread, however this

"We are taking every advantage of everything on the CPU and GPU, and every bit of memory in order to produce the look of Reach beyond anything of Halo 3" That is a comment from the best dev on the 360 and they are maxing the console out with Reach, and looking at it Reach is just a standard looking title.

is laughable. It's a standard line you hear trotted out over and over again, and tbh its 99% because it simply takes a different art direction from every other FPS like Call of Duty or Battlefield.

In many ways, (transparencies required for plasma weapons, covenant vehicle vapour trails etc) Halo blows me away graphically more so than those aforementioned titles ever have. Wish there were more games that went down the same path tbh

The makers of Killzone needs to work on it's gameplay above anything to do with graphics. Pointless having a nice looking game if its crap to play. How many people play killzone 2 any more due to its sluggish controls that make you feel like you're controlling a barge.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

It's not a stupid example because it shows how a game can benefit from the bigger disc space that was being used. It looked better, had more content, etc. This is all benefit's of not using DVD9. Where are you not getting this?

It's not benefits of not using DVD9 at all, it's the benefits of being built from the ground up to use a platform's specific hardware. OF course you're going to have to neuter the game to do a quick port to another machine, much like Half0-Life 2 on PS3 sucked balls. Where was all the extra 'graphics' on that one?

The fact is, if there's more space to use then developers don't have to cut back on anything in order to push their games graphically. Higher res textures can be used, bigger environments can be created, etc. etc. etc.

Higher res textures I will give you, very good H. Environments, no.

The statement doesn't hold much now that he's developing on this "disaster" of a console though, does it? Just because Valve had slight a falling out with MS due to not wanting Steam on their system doesn't mean that Gabe would change his entire mind and think the PS3 is suddenly great now. He was obviously over zealous in making his comments and has been proven wrong time and time again, he's now gone back on those statements and admitted that it's a more open system (willing to allow Steam and not exploit the customers for all the money they will give) and not THAT incredibly difficult to develop for.

I don't think he thinks it's suddenly great at all.

Well obviously taking over in terms of sales. PS3 is now leader in sales in 2 of the 3 big regions and has reeled back a lead of 8 million from the 360 to 5 million. Something that for a while now you said would never be gained. At this rate, by 2012 the PS3 will be well in front.

We'll see. How many of those were given away with Sony TVs and are bluray players only? Game sales last time I checked are still heavily in favour of the 360.

And more obviously (yet still ignored by yourself) taking over in terms of game quality. Now I'm not going to put together a list as I'm sure you know exactly the landscape. But from in 2008 the PS3 had 2 GOTY winning titles compared to the 360's 1 and further more in 2009 the PS3 had the majority winning GOTY title in Uncharted 2 while the 360 didn't have 1 title win a GOTY award. 2010 at the moment see's 5 PS3 (exclusive) titles above 80 on Metacritic with 2 90+'s compared to 4 360 titles above 80, 1 90+.

Blown away. What a lead, PS3 wins again, etc.

Sales, game quality whatever you want to use. All of this was at least somewhat weighted to at least serve as somewhat of an argument over a year ago, since then and since you've left this board on a more permanent basis these have wained and there's just not much of an argument left.

Spare me the amateur psych.

Because you gush so much about the XBOX 360's supposed superb list of games. If you haven't finished any of one of the bigger and really only franchise titles on the system

Only franchises on the system?

then how come you continue to act as if there's nothing on the PS3? And when someone says that they've been kept away from posting due to playing the 360 it would actually shock me to hear they've been playing the system with such shit games according to yourself anyway.

I've been playing RDR, Splinter Cell, and a stack of XBLA titles, if that's OK with you. I try and complete games, and get achievements, so I don't spread my limited time too thinly is all.

I don't get how you can think that DVD9 is better than the space afforded to a Blu-Ray disc.

I never said it was better, just that it's not a huge factor in the 360 'peaking'.

Which is something I have not disputed. The difference is that there is not going to be an exponential leap, simply because it's not allowed. With what Bungie are currently achieving from their self proclaimed "maxing out" is nothing but standard fair graphics that certainly don't push any other titles in terms of visual quality. What is taking less on the PS3 is already proving to be doing more visually.

Bungie prefer smooth framerate over fancy tech, and I support them in that. Playability is always more important. Killzone 3 is using 100% of PS3 power apparently, so I wouldn't be counting on too many exponential leaps from it's software either.

Wait...what? I have to explain how a game using a 4+ year old engine that is looking more and more past gen with every game isn't as good as Killzone 3? Are you being serious? This is your most ridiculous statement yet. Instead of explaining I'll show you right now, just for fun here's Halo Reach as well. Are you honestly trying to tell me that these games beat Killzone 3 in terms of graphics? (Which is CLEARLY to anyone watching Killzone 3 is better looking than Gears 3 and Halo Reach, despite being in pre-alpha status). I'm done if you can't see why Killzone 3 is the leader there and TBH everyone else is seeing your stupidity if you can't as well.

I want you to expalin it to me H, I can't see too many differences, what's in there that's making KZ3 so great. For a brand spanking new engine that is apprently using 100% of the PS3's power (that must be troubling for you), compared to a 4 year old engine, I'd expect some fancy stuff going on. What is it?

All looks fairly similar to me, except that Killzone's vid is a trailer, while Gears is a basic vid of a minor game mode. Got a proper comparison video?

Let's wait and see what Crytek's 360 exclusive looks like. Strange that they, known for their graphical prowess, would make an exclusive on a system that is so tapped out.

 

[Ant_]

The makers of Killzone needs to work on it's gameplay above anything to do with graphics. Pointless having a nice looking game if its crap to play. How many people play killzone 2 any more due to its sluggish controls that make you feel like you're controlling a barge.

Yep MLG didn't choose Halo for their competitions for no reason.

 

[HBK619]

The makers of Killzone needs to work on it's gameplay above anything to do with graphics. Pointless having a nice looking game if its crap to play. How many people play killzone 2 any more due to its sluggish controls that make you feel like you're controlling a barge.

You are just going on the opinion of a lot on here though in saying that, no? FWIW there's quite a number who stayed on KZ2 for a fair while racking up a number of days worth of play.

Sure there was a bit of a dead zone issue with Killzone 2, but GG have said that is well and truly fixed now.

Let's not forget the game got a 91 from metacritic, had to come from somewhere, hardly "crap to play".

Higher res textures I will give you, very good H. Environments, no.

Of course bigger environments come into it - if they are wanted by the dev - it all adds up.

I don't think he thinks it's suddenly great at all.

Certainly doesn't look like he thinks it's particularly shit either. Stalemate?

We'll see. How many of those were given away with Sony TVs and are bluray players only? Game sales last time I checked are still heavily in favour of the 360.

Really? Week over week and month over month the PS3 is constantly beating out the 360 worldwide. And you act as if 360's aren't given away in any deals. There's numerous deals where 360's are given away (Harvey Norman for example giving away 360's with Laptops over $900 sold) how many of those contribute to these figures? About the same as the PS3's.

Only franchises on the system?

Exclusively, pretty much yes. Forza, Gears, and Fable will be pretty much the last franchises left once Reach is out. And once Gears is out that will pretty much end that title's run at least being exclusive. Since Epic are almost certainly going to move back to multiplatform developing.

Bungie prefer smooth framerate over fancy tech, and I support them in that. Playability is always more important. Killzone 3 is using 100% of PS3 power apparently, so I wouldn't be counting on too many exponential leaps from it's software either.

The difference being that Killzone 3 as I've said already beats out the competition by a fair way already. As does Uncharted 2. When you're already at the top echelon using that 100% then squeezing out more doesn't require that much more of a leap. For what Reach is providing at 100% isn't close to Killzone 3, which isn't the best looking title on the PS3.

Killzone 2 had a solid as a rock framerate too BTW.

I want you to explain it to me H, I can't see too many differences, what's in there that's making KZ3 so great. For a brand spanking new engine that is apprently using 100% of the PS3's power (that must be troubling for you), compared to a 4 year old engine, I'd expect some fancy stuff going on. What is it?

All looks fairly similar to me, except that Killzone's vid is a trailer, while Gears is a basic vid of a minor game mode. Got a proper comparison video?

Killzone's video is a trailer of all in-game stuff. Using all in-game elements. Are you saying that because Gears 3 vid was a different mode the graphics would be different?

From what I can pick out though. Lighting, particle effects, semi-destructable environments, character models, animations, textures and overall visual fidelity is just far better (there's a real lack of draw distance in Gears 3 that turns everything to grey mush from a distance). Environments look bigger too. (Is the exploding enemies thing new as well? That sort of thing is always a short-cut devs like to take, just make them explode or dissolve so you don't have bodies stacking up throughout the environment).

Unreal 3 uses a lot of the same stuff that it did 4 years ago. For one the character models always have this waxy clay look to them (not to mention things in the environment from a distance get the same look to them). The textures always have a slow load/stream to them so you're often left looking at the underlying textures before it's loaded in, then it pops in and you'll see what it was meant to be. Unreal 3 is a reliable engine and that's why it's the most used amongst developers and Epic are definitely (and obviously) the best devs to utilise it, but it's far from the best engine out there looks wise.

I'll link you to the E3 conference showings of each game for a better comparison if you like: KILLZONE 3 & GEARS 3.

Might have to wait a little longer until we see Killzone 3's jungle environments to get a proper comparison with similar areas. But it's really not hard to see where one title excels over the other.

Let's wait and see what Crytek's 360 exclusive looks like. Strange that they, known for their graphical prowess, would make an exclusive on a system that is so tapped out.

You really think Crytek 'chose' to make the exclusive for MS? You don't think there was any...money involved? From what I've seen of Crysis 2 too, I've not been blown away by the graphical capabilities. Good, not great (Rage is better at this stage).

 

[Viney]

I see the fortnightly stroke fest has recommenced

 

[Noppo]

I was never saying anything different and was just responding to the "how good will games look" line.

But at the end of the day graphics can play a surprisingly large part to gameplay that some often look past. First off there's immersion, if a world has all these little details and touches in their game then you can find yourself just feeling 'in' that world and it can ramp up everything else to amazing degrees. Atmosphere is another, while a game doesn't have to look great for a good atmosphere the way a game is styled and what other little graphical touches you put in can indeed add to that and in a creepy game you will find your pants full and brown if the atmosphere is done right. I mean, how well would RDR play if it looked like a wet fart? A lot of what makes RDR so enthralling is that it drags you right back to 1910 and you just feel 'in' that world and like you're a real cattle rustling, boot scooting son of a gun.

While graphically a game doesn't have to be a world beater to be great (and as I said, there will still be good games for the 360, just not great graphical leaps) graphics can play a big part in your enjoyment of a game.

Obviously I wouldn't want to play something that looks like an Atari 2600 game, but they don't have to be fully rendered CGI graphics to get me interested either. The art style also plays a big role, as Mancey said, so it doesn't necessarily have to be as realistic as possible to look great.

I think what's so great about the gaming industry is that it all comes down to opinion and personal choice. You play a certain game because you choose to, not because you have to. And you like it because thats how you feel, not because of the means by which you play it. Your graphical 10 could be another guy's 8 and your greatest game of all time could be someone elses worst.

At the end of the day none of this matters. If you're playing a game and you're enjoying it, it doesn't matter what the max capabilities are, what the buffer rate is, because you're having a great time. I think Kevin Butler said this really well.

 

[Mancey]

You are just going on the opinion of a lot on here though in saying that, no?

No is correct, you would be wrong on that assumption. Mate i am not one to make a call on something like gameplay without actually playing a game, people who do that just end up looking ridiculous.

Considering the first was also pretty average on ps2, I must say any argument that tries to get me excited for KZ3 will fall flat. It's a very average franchise with devs that seem to care more about looks than gameplay

Have also played both uncharted games however and the praise for them is indeed worthy.

These stupid discussions never get resolved, I think the people on both sides need to recognise the obvious flaws in each others arguments and conceed that both consoles have benefits and shortcomings when stacked up against their competition.

 

[B-Rock]

Wow.

Guys you do realise that you could actually used all this time and effort on something constructive?

I can see LLD enjoys winding HBK up and gets some sort of perverse kick out of it.

But HBK.. I don't really get your agenda here? Are you employed by Sony or something?

You defend a console like it is a family member.

You do realise that regardless of anything you say.. LLD's not going to change his opinion?

You can be as convincing as you like, but he is just trying to piss you off.. and it seems that he succeeds every single time.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Wow.

Guys you do realise that you could actually used all this time and effort on something constructive?

And H wonders why I don't post here as often

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

The difference being that Killzone 3 as I've said already beats out the competition by a fair way already. As does Uncharted 2. When you're already at the top echelon using that 100% then squeezing out more doesn't require that much more of a leap. For what Reach is providing at 100% isn't close to Killzone 3, which isn't the best looking title on the PS3.

What is the best looking title on the PS3, according to you?

Killzone's video is a trailer of all in-game stuff. Using all in-game elements. Are you saying that because Gears 3 vid was a different mode the graphics would be different?

I'm saying it's probably not the best representation of GoW3s graphic capabilities. At least I hope they're working on better animation cycles.

You really think Crytek 'chose' to make the exclusive for MS? You don't think there was any...money involved? From what I've seen of Crysis 2 too, I've not been blown away by the graphical capabilities. Good, not great (Rage is better at this stage).

From the Crysis 2 footage I've seen, it's just as impressive as any Killzone 3 vids. And they chose to show it at E3 on 360, in 3D too.

Looks pretty special to me.

 

[HBK619]

Wow.

Guys you do realise that you could actually used all this time and effort on something constructive?

I can see LLD enjoys winding HBK up and gets some sort of perverse kick out of it.

But HBK.. I don't really get your agenda here? Are you employed by Sony or something?

You defend a console like it is a family member.

You do realise that regardless of anything you say.. LLD's not going to change his opinion?

You can be as convincing as you like, but he is just trying to piss you off.. and it seems that he succeeds every single time.

I'm not getting riled up TBH regardless of what you may think, otherwise I'd be the one having a go at him instead of the other way around. I've always enjoyed a good argument and LLD seems to be one who's willing to keep on going with it.

It's not a matter of defending this or defending that either. It's a matter of trying to understand where the hell someone is coming from when they say "this game is shit" or whatever. Most of what I am putting up is backed up with links and facts, I try to eliminate personal opinion as much as possible (apart from the obvious opinions of graphical quality).

What is the best looking title on the PS3, according to you?

Uncharted 2 followed by God of War 3.

From the Crysis 2 footage I've seen, it's just as impressive as any Killzone 3 vids. And they chose to show it at E3 on 360, in 3D too.

Looks pretty special to me.

Sure it looks good, but I don't see the comparison to Killzone 3 in there (which is still doing a lot more better in things like animations, character models, also seems to be a bit more colourful overall). There's still plenty that's off about it. I think once we see the scale of New York though my opinion will change on it, at the moment it's just a bit bleh. Also there's a few issues I have with explosions, the framerate is absolutely terrible and there's a lot of bland stuff around the place.

I have no reason to have a go at Crysis 2 and have not changed my opinion on it since seeing it (I've not just expressed my views on BigFooty either). The gameplay footage is shocking at the moment (AI is beyond bad and the gunplay looks very average), the graphics are good but not the best. As I said Rage IMO is better still.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Uncharted 2 followed by God of War 3.

Fair enough, both very good looking. There's subpixel issues that annoy me about MLAA in God of War 3, in that it seems to struggle with highlights, looks like there's blown pixels everywhere, just completely white pixels.

Same thing is happening with KZ3, here:

Around all the edges of the jetpack controls in his left hand, not so much on his right. The railings, and edges around the box shape thing at the bottom of the screen. I know it's alpha or whatever, but these came though to the finished GoW, and I don't think they can do anythign about it. Not sure if MLAA is the right tech for this game.

Uncharted 2 is a little bit jaggy, only 2xAA, but it's colour and contrast don't help with that. Gives the game a better look though than a drab, blurry typical PS3 game.

Sure it looks good, but I don't see the comparison to Killzone 3 in there (which is still doing a lot more better in things like animations, character models, also seems to be a bit more colourful overall). There's still plenty that's off about it. I think once we see the scale of New York though my opinion will change on it, at the moment it's just a bit bleh. Also there's a few issues I have with explosions, the framerate is absolutely terrible and there's a lot of bland stuff around the place.

I honestly don't see what is so mindblowing about the KZ3 vid? The blood splatter is very well done, but in general the weapon effects, and the exhaust from the jetpack are flat. The flight paths of the enemy jetpacks look hilarious (only shown for a second, probably a reason for that), the scripted melee kill animations are nice, but not hard to do. AI is non-existant.

I have no reason to have a go at Crysis 2 and have not changed my opinion on it since seeing it (I've not just expressed my views on BigFooty either). The gameplay footage is shocking at the moment (AI is beyond bad and the gunplay looks very average), the graphics are good but not the best. As I said Rage IMO is better still.[/quote]

What can you tell about the KZ3 AI from it's vid? They just stand there. The 'gunplay' is rubbish. For a heavily edited and constructed video, it's terrible.

 

[HBK619]

Fair enough, both very good looking. There's subpixel issues that annoy me about MLAA in God of War 3, in that it seems to struggle with highlights, looks like there's blown pixels everywhere, just completely white pixels.

God of War 3 was hardly perfect and I've stated this before (after I had finished the game I think?). But for what it does, it puts itself as my 2nd best looking title. The scale mixed with overall graphical quality just lifts it far above others. Not to mention Kratos is easily the best made character of all time, a nearly flawless character render. If you can pick a better made character then I'll be surprised. At least on console anyway (I don't even think Crysis on PC beats Kratos out).

Uncharted 2 is a little bit jaggy, only 2xAA, but it's colour and contrast don't help with that. Gives the game a better look though than a drab, blurry typical PS3 game.

It's still by far the most acomplished looking title going around on any console. Snow effects (unparalleled), water effects, particles, beautifully rendered character models and the best animations going around to add to insane attention to detail. It's all there that most other games just don't have.

A few jaggies hardly bring it down. All games do have graphical flaws in some way or another, by picking these out on those titles are you suggesting that other games (more specifically 360 games) don't???

I honestly don't see what is so mindblowing about the KZ3 vid? The blood splatter is very well done, but in general the weapon effects, and the exhaust from the jetpack are flat. The flight paths of the enemy jetpacks look hilarious (only shown for a second, probably a reason for that), the scripted melee kill animations are nice, but not hard to do. AI is non-existant.

In terms of animations I wasn't talking solely brutal melee animations. The animations overall throughout Killzone 2 which will transfer through to 3 and were shown in the trailers so far are miles better than that of Crysis 2's which seems to be using very generic movements (probably doesn't help when the enemies aren't humans so will have the more a-typical alien stuff going on).

Are you talking the flight paths of the jetpacks in that they don't fly a lot? And it's very up, then straight down? Because that's how it's meant to be, the jetpacks aren't meant to be used to go everywhere it's a boost sort of thing (which I would assume is a balancing issue as everyone just flying around in MP would be chaotic and bring more issues than it would if it's a constant flight type of thing).

What can you tell about the KZ3 AI from it's vid? They just stand there. The 'gunplay' is rubbish. For a heavily edited and constructed video, it's terrible.

Killzone 2's AI was very good. Probably the best thing about the game, everyone knows that and KZ3 won't be going backwards in AI. Crysis 2's AI (as said by those who've played it as well) is terrible and has some really bad issues (enemies literally RIGHT behind you aren't inflicting any damage to the player). They claim it's so advanced, but where is it?

The gunplay is certainly better than that of Crysis 2's.