Which game has best REAL graphics so far?

[casualkiss]

Out of all the next-gen games on any platform, which one do you think has the best REAL In-Game, In-Engine, actual gameplaying graphics and animation. (no cut-scene or dialogue stuff)

No speculation of future games, just stuff we can prove run NOW on actual hardware dev kits. (although lets be forgiving regarding frame-rates)

I know I know... there aren't too many PS3 games that have demonstrated real footage yet so it is unfair, but maybe the mods can sticky this thread!

Hate to say this, but I think GOW has an early lead as the only eligible material for PS3 that I know of is Warhawk.

Whats your current pick?

[rpgamer_2k5]

Killzone.
MGS4
GOW

BIA would probably be in too; once I see the visuals.

I could care less about graphics, but the so called pre-rendered runs have never been proven pre-rendered. You could throw in some experts, but hear-say never works anywhere; except for a grotto.

[TEEDA]

As i' ve seen i could tell ,mhmm real time huh ?

Heavenly sword , Warhawk and killing day .

Those are for the graphics i' ve seen .
GOW on x360 is damn beautiful yes but i' m sure Unreal tournament 2007 will be even better since it will be released after .
But i can't stick with GOW coz as i said before the graphic engine reminds me too much of those " doom III textures " .

[KiLLA2006]

quite imressed with MGS4, GoW (despite the toy figures), and warhawk...

cant wait to see project assassins, BIA, and Killzone (in game)...

[tazz3]

MGS 4
KILLZONE
DEVIL MAY CRY 4
I-8

[Hawk]

I have watched many hours Xbox360 in game videos and i must say that there is not a single game that admires me graphically. There must be some problems with hardware cause every game has serious problems with framerate. Most of them, they have only one month to make them scroll much better at least 30 fps. Also animation is quite horrible in many games.

So my choice is now:
MGS4
Warhawk

[Mathx]

*Insert random Racing Title here*


Basically any racing game on the next-gen systems will be top notch realistic graphics (no need for human models) the only thing that seems to change are minute details like dust or glare from the sun...

Racing games are proof that Graphics can take video games only so far...

[Red_Eyes]

The Gataway 3 (Real time, gameplay, sort of)
Unreal Tournament 200whatever (Real time, gameplay, sort of)
GT5 (Real time, gameplay would be exactly like it)
MGS4 (Real time, gameplay should look the same, but just doesn't have movie like camera angles)

[Danji]

Hawk, I very strongly agree with you about the 360. I don't see how people can look at those videos and tell me the PS3 and the 360 are about even in power.

Warhawk looks awesome..so does MGS 4 (very awesome with tongue rendering and what not)

[woundingchaney]

Well MS is showing us actual gameplay, no cutscene, cgi, real time engine etc

Sony is showing us real time "demos" cutscenes cgi etc. Until Sony produces some actual gameplay elements I still dont think its right to bash the 360 (how good do you think MGS4 would look if it wasnt a scripted cut scene, this is where you guys say "It would look the same") :spiny:


but so far Im impressed by

(not in specific order)
GoW
Kameo
MGS4
PGR3
Oblivion
Prey
GR3AW
the new PDO trailers (yeah they are poor quality)
DoA4
Dead Rising

actually Im impressed by a lot of titles coming


What Im questioning is how you guys can look at titles like Kameo, Oblivion, PG3,Dead Rising and not be impressed. Its easy to say that the 360 games arent looking impressive to what Sony has showed us but how can you compare in-game gameplay to a cut scene? (I suppose its a matter of opinion)

[Mitri]

i can't say that i have seen any real-time ps3 videos. i have watched the MGS4 video on g4tv but i don't know if it was real time because no one had said if it was or not. personally i don't believe that it is. at this early in development on a console not released with not even final hardware specs for a game to look that good is unrealistic in my opinion.

since i have seen real time xbox360 videos i believe that the best looking game is PGR3. but that is proably because its a racing game and its supposed to look good. and the pretty angles that you will never see in a real game. lol. but other than that another is GOW but that's about it.

until i see something from Lost Odysee or Blue Dragon i'm not really impressed by any graphics i have seen yet.

[Nerve-Damage]

http://www.jeux-france.com/Webmasters/Images/4editeurs20050926_174908_0_big.jpg

Halo 3!?! :lick:

The :ghey: -est cover ever!!

[Nerve-Damage]

i have watched the MGS4 video on g4tv but i don't know if it was real time because no one had said if it was or not. personally i don't believe that it is. at this early in development on a console not released with not even final hardware specs for a game to look that good is unrealistic in my opinion.


TGS 2005: Kojima shows real-time demo of MGS4 (http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/adventure/metalgearsolid4/news_6133820.html) :uhh:

To dispel any doubt, series director Hideo Kojima and artist Yoji Shinkawa held a stage event at Konami's TGS booth to prove that the visuals are indeed running in real time on the next-generation console. "This trailer isn't a CG or something that we've rendered on a high-spec PC," said Kojima "This is the real thing on a PlayStation 3 development kit."

[Viper]

"PS3 IS DEAD"

No wonder fanboyism is out of control. The media drives it like a hammer.


On topic: Fight Night 3 is my pick for the moment but I have yet to see all the clips from TGS.

[D3adcell]

Have any of you seen the cutscenes of Ninja Gaiden? To me it looks just as good as many of the games we have seen on both the xbox360 AND ps3. This next gen graphics aren't really going to play that big of a role (i dont think) they are going to be close to realistic no matter which system you choose. There are also going to be games that don't look as 'graphically impressive' as MGS4 simply becuase of the artstyle chosen to do the game. Cutscenes always look good (yes the MGS4 video was cutscene, although in real time, just as the MGS3 cutscenes were real time). Although you are never going to see those angles during actual gameplay (you may in some 3rd person games during certain times but probaly not often). Games are going to look good on all next gen systems, they are both more powerful then any pc you can buy right now. My biggest concern is gameplay. I outgrew graphics a long time ago.

[LiquidEagle]

MGS4 without a doubt, and if anything, it's going to look BETTER because Kojima said so. Kojima is straight-up about things like that and doesn't mislead in the least, and he wouldn't show MGS4 unless they could really hit it. There's no reason whatsoever to believe it won't look as good as it did in the REAL-TIME demonstration, so I don't see why people have to think it's some hypothetical target they're going for with the MGS4 trailer. It's gonna look like the trailer, only better, and is also going to look far more natural than a game like Gears of War for example.

I really can't think of other games, when I think about any other game it always has its shortcomings that put it about the same as some other game that has shortcomings... Warhawk definitely looks nice indoors, but the flying and outdoors part don't look as real. That could obviously be the style they're going for, I dunno.

Like Deadcell mentioned too, gameplay is a huge concern. Obviously nobody likes an ugly game, but in the end, I'd put my money on Insomniac's "I-8" over Gears of War any day of the week because Insomniac makes better playing games, and they still look fantastic, while Epic isn't renowned for nearly as much. Right now I-8 looks good for sure, but it's not quite a graphical powerhouse, though it very well could be, I'm guessing it's early in development since we haven't seen anything since.

[kaphwan]

Originally posted by Mitri
at this early in development on a console not released with not even final hardware specs for a game to look that good is unrealistic in my opinion.


It isn't unrealistic, that's why we're getting a ps3 and they're getting an xbox1.5

I'm thinking DMC. It looked like the best "real" graphics, but I preferred the older anime-influenced Dante. Oh well.

[Hawk]

Few notes for some threads:
- There is no in-game videos of PGR3.
- MGS4 was made with early dev kit, not a close to final specs and it's already looks much more impressive than any high-end PC games.
- All in-game videos RR6, NFS, Test-drive has serious frame-rate problems in backgrounds.
- My mid-range PC has better looking games with better framerate and higher reolution than any xbox360 games so far seen. Where are these MS claims HD-era, true next gen, best looking games etc; I'm still waiting.

Now someone might say that I'm some console fanboy. No, I'm a fanboy of good looking games, good AI, good physics, good storyline etc.

[Voidler]

Well graphics have alot more than detail to them, and whilst Gears of War is nice detail-wise, the animation is so god awful I can't see myself putting it in the top 5 by any measure. That said, MGS4 is easily the best looking. The detail isn't the best I've ever seen, but the animation just puts it over the top. I hope for more detail in the end though - Kojima did say the visuals were dumbed down so it could run smoothly. There were some awful textures, that look like they could've been done on the PS2 in that video. But as for the matter of real, the animation that made it all so good was all of a cutscene.

I think Heavenly Sword, Lair, Kameo and the Gundam demo are all right up there with MGS4 aswell.

[Voidler]

http://www.jeux-france.com/Webmasters/Images/4editeurs20050926_174908_0_big.jpg

Halo 3!?! :lick:

The :ghey: -est cover ever!!

"UNBIASED" and "PS3 IS DEAD Welcome to the real next gen" on the same page :laugh:

[NanoNils]

"PS3 IS DEAD"

No wonder fanboyism is out of control. The media drives it like a hammer.



What's even funnier/sadder, you pick, is how the sport a massive "UNBIASED"
tag.

edit: Nyesh, Voidler pointed it out first...

[LiquidEagle]

Those are the same things PSM has/had on top of their magazine -- Unbiased, Unofficial, Unrivaled. Hehe. Is this real or is this a mock-up though? They have Halo 2 art on the cover as if either a kid made this up using Halo 2 artwork, or the article doesn't have any real Halo 3 coverage so they just put Halo 2's MC on the cover for probably the billionth time. That said, it takes a lot more than a Halo to usher in a new gen. The most I'm hoping for Halo 3 is that they actually finish the game! (those who've played through it don't have to think hard to know what I'm talking about... :laugh:)

[Voidler]

PSM is actually Unbiased though, that's why I love em :)

[Hawk]

Well graphics have alot more than detail to them, and whilst Gears of War is nice detail-wise, the animation is so god awful I can't see myself putting it in the top 5 by any measure. That said, MGS4 is easily the best looking. The detail isn't the best I've ever seen, but the animation just puts it over the top. I hope for more detail in the end though - Kojima did say the visuals were dumbed down so it could run smoothly. There were some awful textures, that look like they could've been done on the PS2 in that video. But as for the matter of real, the animation that made it all so good was all of a cutscene.

I think Heavenly Sword, Lair, Kameo and the Gundam demo are all right up there with MGS4 aswell.
Kojima didn't mention anything about dumping down visuals to get better framerate. He said:
Interestingly, Kojima said he doesn't want to give MGS4 a totally realistic look. "With the shift to high definition [resolution], we can give a very realistic look to the game, like an actual movie," he said. "But we purposely added filtering to give it the look that makes it Metal Gear Solid." He then showed how he can change the color balance, glare, and add other effects in real-time through the PS3 dev kit debug menu.

You can read the hole story from here:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/09/18/news_6133820.html?tag=lastword_ps3_headline

[Voidler]

Kojima didn't mention anything about dumping down visuals to get better framerate. He said:
Interestingly, Kojima said he doesn't want to give MGS4 a totally realistic look. "With the shift to high definition [resolution], we can give a very realistic look to the game, like an actual movie," he said. "But we purposely added filtering to give it the look that makes it Metal Gear Solid." He then showed how he can change the color balance, glare, and add other effects in real-time through the PS3 dev kit debug menu.

You can read the hole story from here:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/09/18/news_6133820.html?tag=lastword_ps3_headlineNot sure where I read it, but I'm confident I read that the visuals were dumbed down for the early dev kits it's running on, and being an early engine to boot so they could have it playing in real time at TGS.

Sorry I don't have a link

[trakais]

no what is said is that they do not want MGS to look like a movie, or like real life. they want it to have that MGS'ish look, it is sill a game, not real life. that is what he meant.

(btw "I don't believe in God, but if I did, he would be a black left-handed guitarist." - Dreamers)

[Voidler]

I'm not talking about that.

[Domination]

Well MS is showing us actual gameplay, no cutscene, cgi, real time engine etc

Sony is showing us real time "demos" cutscenes cgi etc. Until Sony produces some actual gameplay elements I still dont think its right to bash the 360 (how good do you think MGS4 would look if it wasnt a scripted cut scene, this is where you guys say "It would look the same") :spiny:


but so far Im impressed by

(not in specific order)
GoW
Kameo
MGS4
PGR3
Oblivion
Prey
GR3AW
the new PDO trailers (yeah they are poor quality)
DoA4
Dead Rising

actually Im impressed by a lot of titles coming


What Im questioning is how you guys can look at titles like Kameo, Oblivion, PG3,Dead Rising and not be impressed. Its easy to say that the 360 games arent looking impressive to what Sony has showed us but how can you compare in-game gameplay to a cut scene? (I suppose its a matter of opinion)

What's bolded has little to do with not being impressed. One can look a Game Boy title and be impressed so long as they know it's pushing the system. The titles I see for the 360 looks great, no doubt, but it doesn't look like a true next-gen leap. It looks more like a high-end PC. You might not want to believe that, but it's true. Unless I see something different later on, I have to stand by what I believe. It's kinda like you wanting to see gameplay for a lot of the demos you saw of the PS3 titles, leaving you compelled and unwilling to change your mind no matter the circumstances. It is what drives you to believe, deep within, that you will see something completely different once this happens. So you see, it is not only some of us that stand by what we beleive to be the obvious - no matter how silly you may think it is, it is yourself included, and to tell you the truth, I don't think anything will ever persuade you or I differently if we don't see that one piece of proof that tells us otherwise. ;-]


But like I said many times before, it should never come down to how powerful a console is but what value it holds. In my case, it is always content and control. Everything else is usually icing.

[Mitri]

thanks Nerve-Damage for the link.. i really had no idea about any of that stuff. lol.

i have a question. if this is real time that means that the computer that is running it must be as powerful as the ps3 or more powerful because it is running off of a kit. right? but if the hardware specs aren't finished, the RSX isn't finished(at least not to my knowledge. any light would be appreciated if i'm wrong), and current PC's can't hold a candle to the ps3 graphically, then how is it real time? and if it was then why wasn't anything playable at TGS?

i mean the 360 was running off of kits at e3 and it didn't look any better than current gen but it was still playable. and at TGS. but it was still playable.

[woundingchaney]

What's bolded has little to do with not being impressed. One can look a Game Boy title and be impressed so long as they know it's pushing the system. The titles I see for the 360 looks great, no doubt, but it doesn't look like a true next-gen leap. It looks more like a high-end PC. You might not want to believe that, but it's true. Unless I see something different later on, I have to stand by what I believe. It's kinda like you wanting to see gameplay for a lot of the demos you saw of the PS3 titles, leaving you compelled and unwilling to change your mind no matter the circumstances. It is what drives you to believe, deep within, that you will see something completely different once this happens. So you see, it is not only some of us that stand by what we beleive to be the obvious - no matter how silly you may think it is, it is yourself included, and to tell you the truth, I don't think anything will ever persuade you or I differently if we don't see that one piece of proof that tells us otherwise. ;-]


But like I said many times before, it should never come down to how powerful a console is but what value it holds. In my case, it is always content and control. Everything else is usually icing.


We have a tendency to dance round and round do we not Dom. :spiny:

I have yet to see any PS3 titles that look above and beyond what a high end PC will push. Many of them are impressive but not to the point where I believe they are leagues ahead of other titles out there (not counting titles that have only shown cgi or the like). Personally so far Im impressed by MGS4, but at the same time does it really strike you as being superior to anything else on the market (Im sure to some it does, not saying that it doesn't)?

Really with everything changing for the devs, what do you expect. Unified shader architecture, multi-core/multi-threaded processing the list could go on and on. I think its going to be well into the second generation or the beginning of the third generation before we really see either machine start to fly.


As far as games on the 360 being equivalent to a high end pc, well Im not sure that is a fact as you like to put it. I believe its more of an opinion. But if you look at the early dev kits (what most of these games spent the majority of their development time on) then they really were just high end pc builds. Although, if you look at the leaps and bounds many games have gone through in the last month or so there has been an amazing amount of improvement. I think that if any of us are expecting dramatic leaps above pc games then we are going to be somewhat unfulfilled until later in the console/consoles lifespan. :3eye:

[GTShotoKen]

I'm a hardcore PC gamer (especially when it comes to shooters) and I haven't played a game yet that matches the visual quality of MGS4.

Even Battlefield 2 is stunted by MGS4 visually, and Battlefield 2 looks beautiful with the settings cranked to max.

I need to see how the Half-life 2 expansion "Lost Coast" will turn out since it's using HDR lighting, but for now; PC has some catching up to do.

[woundingchaney]

I'm a hardcore PC gamer (especially when it comes to shooters) and I haven't played a game yet that matches the visual quality of MGS4.

Even Battlefield 2 is stunted by MGS4 visually, and Battlefield 2 looks beautiful with the settings cranked to max.

I need to see how the Half-life 2 expansion "Lost Coast" will turn out since it's using HDR lighting, but for now; PC has some catching up to do.


I as well am a pc gamer. But I dont agree, the trailer for MGS4 was a cutscene (pre scripted) and in no way represents actual gameplay (other than the use of the game engine). I do not expect the characters to move, the camera angles, interactions, etc to represent the playable part of the game. I do expect the game to roughly look as MGS4 does but not with the fluidity the trailer represents. Outside of the character models MGS4 wasnt really outstanding (do love those character models though).

[Z]

currect me if i am wrong; psm says 'unbased' and not 'unbiased'.
also, it is mentioned every now and then that they like box and are playing with it.

[Nerve-Damage]

thanks Nerve-Damage for the link.. i really had no idea about any of that stuff. lol.

i have a question. if this is real time that means that the computer that is running it must be as powerful as the ps3 or more powerful because it is running off of a kit. right? but if the hardware specs aren't finished, the RSX isn't finished(at least not to my knowledge. any light would be appreciated if i'm wrong), and current PC's can't hold a candle to the ps3 graphically, then how is it real time? and if it was then why wasn't anything playable at TGS?

i mean the 360 was running off of kits at e3 and it didn't look any better than current gen but it was still playable. and at TGS. but it was still playable.

I think MGS:4 is currently running on "The PS3 Evaluation System" (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/635/635630p1.html)

PS3 Evaluation Specs:
*CPU: Cell 2.4GHz
*Ram: 512MB XDR
*GPU: 7800 GTX
*Bandwidth Configuration: 16x PCI-EX

So the final PS3 & PS3 Development-Kit are still quite more powerful than "The PS3 Evaluation System"

[rpgamer_2k5]

But I dont agree, the trailer for MGS4 was a cutscene (pre scripted) and in no way represents actual gameplay (other than the use of the game engine).
[...]
Sony is showing us real time "demos" cutscenes cgi etc. Until Sony produces some actual gameplay elements I still dont think its right to bash the 360 (how good do you think MGS4 would look if it wasnt a scripted cut scene, this is where you guys say "It would look the same")

Well, the objects within the 'cutscene' will be used in the actual game. It is realtime, you're thinking of the 'multi-engines' (Battle, Quest, Overworld) found in RPGs. The cutscene demonstrates the visuals found in the actual gameplay, infact the visuals of MGS4 will eventually look better 'in-game' (who the hell is adding these freaking terms?...it's starting to feels like a political science in tech :S).

The reason why we're not seeing 'in-game' is because many of the games are in a very early stage of development. Furthermore, are you even sure if any of the Xbox 360 videos are being controlled by a human player? If not, those movies are indeed scripted, not 'in-game'. It is just like replaying a scene in a racer, the cameras can be moved around, etc, etc. The same can be done when running a scripted scene which uses 'in-game' objects. It really does not matter in the end, the same objects and environment is going to be used, so it would play out the same. The animations will definitely match; MGS3 animations when scripted in comparison to a human controlling the character is quite similar, if not the same. Sure, the jumping animation and the Hollywood-like stunts are not going to be in-game animations, but who knows, maybe it would...seeing it is a next-gen game.

i have a question. if this is real time that means that the computer that is running it must be as powerful as the ps3 or more powerful because it is running off of a kit. right? but if the hardware specs aren't finished, the RSX isn't finished(at least not to my knowledge. any light would be appreciated if i'm wrong), and current PC's can't hold a candle to the ps3 graphically, then how is it real time? and if it was then why wasn't anything playable at TGS?
Yes, the computers used to render the cutscene is equal to the PS3 in performance, hence 'designed in spec'. Various users from other forums have been coming up with ideas that Killzone, etc are pre-rendered, because of some 'insider' information. Oh please, it's all BS. Even if Killzone is pre-rendered, it just means it is designed in spec. Gorgeous CGs are not going to cut it for FPS, that can work for RPGs but not FPS. If Killzone when released does not meet the visuals of the trailer shown at E3, then expect no one to purchase it. GG or Sony cannot force the consumers to purchase Killzone as many asinine individuals believe. Graphics is very large in the FPS, fighting, racing, etc games; people usually don't take less, unless it is a 2D-fighter. :) Besides, no one has proven that it is a CG, observations don't work in this case, because we are talking about pretty much unknown technology; the only guys that know whether Killzone is fake or not is GG.

This post isn't directed at you; it is reply to all the posts made by previous users regarding to that issue.

[Z]

thanks rpgamer for typing what i wanted to say.

i am currently e-challenged.
stupid GPRS!

[woundingchaney]

Well, the objects within the 'cutscene' will be used in the actual game. It is realtime, you're thinking of the 'multi-engines' (Battle, Quest, Overworld) found in RPGs. The cutscene demonstrates the visuals found in the actual gameplay, infact the visuals of MGS4 will eventually look better 'in-game' (who the hell is adding these freaking terms?...it's starting to feels like a political science in tech :S).

The reason why we're not seeing 'in-game' is because many of the games are in a very early stage of development. Furthermore, are you even sure if any of the Xbox 360 videos are being controlled by a human player? If not, those movies are indeed scripted, not 'in-game'. It is just like replaying a scene in a racer, the cameras can be moved around, etc, etc. The same can be done when running a scripted scene which uses 'in-game' objects. It really does not matter in the end, the same objects and environment is going to be used, so it would play out the same. The animations will definitely match; MGS3 animations when scripted in comparison to a human controlling the character is quite similar, if not the same. Sure, the jumping animation and the Hollywood-like stunts are not going to be in-game animations, but who knows, maybe it would...seeing it is a next-gen game.


Yes, the computers used to render the cutscene is equal to the PS3 in performance, hence 'designed in spec'. Various users from other forums have been coming up with ideas that Killzone, etc are pre-rendered, because of some 'insider' information. Oh please, it's all BS. Even if Killzone is pre-rendered, it just means it is designed in spec. Gorgeous CGs are not going to cut it for FPS, that can work for RPGs but not FPS. If Killzone when released does not meet the visuals of the trailer shown at E3, then expect no one to purchase it. GG or Sony cannot force the consumers to purchase Killzone as many asinine individuals believe. Graphics is very large in the FPS, fighting, racing, etc games; people usually don't take less, unless it is a 2D-fighter. :) Besides, no one has proven that it is a CG, observations don't work in this case, because we are talking about pretty much unknown technology; the only guys that know whether Killzone is fake or not is GG.

This post isn't directed at you; it is reply to all the posts made by previous users regarding to that issue.


Other than the videos or people actually playing a 360 game, I have no proof that human has controlled the game. :twitch:


As far as MGS4, a cut scene has the tendency to look better than actual in game gameplay (at least from my experiences), I understand your point of multi engines but that is not what I was refering to. I realize that character models and objects are literally those found in the game.


I simply do not agree with KillZone or the insider information you were referring to. The trailer has been under way too much scrutiny since E3 for Sony or whom ever to prove that it actually wasnt cgi (all we have had are mixed replys from those questioned).



;-]

[Theo]

@ woundingchaney:

What gameplay has to do with the garphix shown in MGS4 demo, if the actual game is going to look the same (probably better, but we'll see..) in terms of graphix? It obviously is graphically superior to present high end pc games, in my opinion and we are talking about graphics here, not gameplay. Are we not?

[rpgamer_2k5]

Other than the videos or people actually playing a 360 game, I have no proof that human has controlled the game.
Exactly, so those Xbox 360 games are just scripted too; the presentations in Gotham City racer does not appear so 'realtime', especially when I usually don't use such fancy views when playing a racer. Right now we're actually seeing a distance between the PS3 and Xbox 360 in the visual compartment, if the former is easier to program and MS had distributed the SDKs much earlier then this shouldn't be a problem. Think of it this way, the visuals of MGS4 are being significantly held back. The early SDKs are not even close to the current SDKs (latter uses 6800-SLI vs 7800GTX), the performance is still not anywhere close to the final kit/PS3;..in other words, we're not seeing the real deal, things will only look better.

As far as MGS4, a cut scene has the tendency to look better than actual in game gameplay (at least from my experiences), I understand your point of multi engines but that is not what I was refering to. I realize that character models and objects are literally those found in the game.
You're thinking too much about RPGs, the cutscenes tend to look better in RPGs because the 'worlds' are very large. The battle engine is usually very processor heavy with the multiple characters, commands, etc. MGS1/2/3 all looked identical to the cutscene; I have never heard anyone claim otherwise. The objects and environment will be the same when playing it; let me state this again: It will probably look better since MGS4 was developed on an early SDK.

Animations is a different story; it is NOT graphics. Who knows, the animations will possibly remain the same.

RE: Killzone
Those mixed reactions pertaining to Killzone is clearly because of the pressure of certain groups. At first, most were just planning to wait it out and see if GG can prove that Killzone is in realtime. The ones that doubted Killzone were usually guys on the forums, maybe a few were qualified, in general, most were not (it seems like many were sad kids who just put their life on a console o_O). All I saw from that day was those that were neutral, jump onto the 'Killzone is CG' bulls**t. Unless they played with the SDKs or are in GG then only would they know. A few claimed to have insider connections with GG, but I have yet to see validity in those claims. *cough* BS *cough*

Just take a look at the situation now. Doesn't it seem like they are running a marketing stunt; just look at the remarks the developers made (Stated like: "It should be like that", "final version will look identical", "designed in spec", etc), the absence of Killzone at TGS (not even statements). It seems even more likely that Killzone will indeed look identical to the 'CG' vs. E3. Why the heck would they present a CG as realtime? And if they did, they would have announced it.

Besides, the fact is, they cannot force consumers to purchase their games; sure people can pirate the games...but they aren't going to earn profit there. I doubt I'll purchase Killzone, but I'm quite sure no one else will look at it if is just junk in the end. When Killzone is released (in 2006/2007), many pretty FPS will be available, matching GoW is going to result in no demand (except for piracy).

Unless I see someone with evidence of someone within GG that state:
1. Trailer is a CG.
2. Final game will not look remotely similar to the CG.

*Answers required must have evidence, no hearsay (I doubt most here or elsewhere have contacts in game developer houses, or access to closed sources) or observations. The latter is not a valid answer; allow me to state this again, most don't know the capabilities of the PS3, nor have connections with GG. If arguments actually proven those two points, while meeting the requirements then this issue would have been long dead.

Reliable evidence has always been a must, regardless of whether one is a optimist, pessimist, or fanboy (Who gave many of the fanboys a right to be morons?).

[Black Dragon37]

http://www.jeux-france.com/Webmasters/Images/4editeurs20050926_174908_0_big.jpg

Halo 3!?! :lick:

The :ghey: -est cover ever!!Funny how at the top it says "unbiased", then right below that to the right you see "PS3 IS DEAD". :laugh:

[D3adcell]

RPG Gamer, the game is not going to look as good as it does in the cutscenes. Have you ever played Metal Gear Solid 3? Its cutscenes are done in realtime aswell but it looks better then when your actually playing. The reason is that when your actually playing the character movements and animations are not as fluent. Also you never see those camera angles. Although you are saying that PGR3 wont look that good becuase you will never be playing with that camera angle, well the same goes for many of the ps3 videos shown.

I don't think people are going to be caring much about Killzones looks if the game sucks. Remember how Killzone 1 was supposed to be the halo killer for the ps2. I didn't think it was very good, I still think Red Faction is the best ps2 FPS. Now what sony needs to do is get a Red Faction 3 in the works with voiliton and have them tweak their geo mod engine for the ps3. It would be beautiful.

I just don't really see the graphically prowess between ps3 and xbox360 being that different. If you check out the ps2 and xbox now, although the xbox came out later there are still some ps2 games with graphics equivelant to many xbox games if not better (rumble roses). I guess it all depends on the developers and how good they want the graphics to be, but don't expect it to be used on all the games, only the big budget teams are going to be able to produce that kinda software. It may be easier with the xbox360 for those teams becuase of the development tools they have for the xbox and the fact they have people creating new things for them all the time so they do not have to spend all of their time doing those certain deeds.

Also Iwata from nintendo even said that if your going to compare specs, although the ps3 and xbox360 may have more, you will not be able to tell much of a difference between the games visually. I am not going to call the guy a liar becuae so far nintendo has delivered on just about everything they say. Yet Sony and Microsoft both like to talk a big game and then they dont deliver. I will be buying all 3 next gen consoles though just to experience the exclusives each will offer.

[O.D.S]

Besides the obvious games everyone has already stated, i also like the action sequences of Armoured Core 4. It does look mighty good (even though it may not actually be that good grapically) im hoping for that sort of gameply. That goes with Killzone aswell.

and since Kojima is working on MGS4 im not worried one bit. The graphics will great, the gameplay even better and most likely the story is going to pwn.

[jako]

For me the next-gen game that impresses me the more is "Wardevil"

just watch the movie section at http://www.wardevil.com

[Domination]

thanks Nerve-Damage for the link.. i really had no idea about any of that stuff. lol.

i have a question. if this is real time that means that the computer that is running it must be as powerful as the ps3 or more powerful because it is running off of a kit. right? but if the hardware specs aren't finished, the RSX isn't finished(at least not to my knowledge. any light would be appreciated if i'm wrong), and current PC's can't hold a candle to the ps3 graphically, then how is it real time? and if it was then why wasn't anything playable at TGS?

i mean the 360 was running off of kits at e3 and it didn't look any better than current gen but it was still playable. and at TGS. but it was still playable.

From what's been said, many were running on early dev kits or ran to specifications. If there is a lot of work to be done, sometimes a playable demo isn't possible at the time. Like I said before, Heavenly Sword was said to be mostly all in-game by a certain developer. Yet you see even it didn't make it to TGS. Does that mean it was something else because of that? You tell me.

[woundingchaney]

@ woundingchaney:

What gameplay has to do with the garphix shown in MGS4 demo, if the actual game is going to look the same (probably better, but we'll see..) in terms of graphix? It obviously is graphically superior to present high end pc games, in my opinion and we are talking about graphics here, not gameplay. Are we not?


Graphics that are represented through gameplay not cutscenes, is the debate i was intending. Perhaps I was somewhat vague. But I think it is fair to say that gameplay and cutscenes are not completely comparable.

And personally I dont know if I agree that MGS4 is graphically superior to current high end pc titles (would have to do more comparisons).

[Domination]

We have a tendency to dance round and round do we not Dom. :spiny:

I have yet to see any PS3 titles that look above and beyond what a high end PC will push. Many of them are impressive but not to the point where I believe they are leagues ahead of other titles out there (not counting titles that have only shown cgi or the like). Personally so far Im impressed by MGS4, but at the same time does it really strike you as being superior to anything else on the market (Im sure to some it does, not saying that it doesn't)?

Really with everything changing for the devs, what do you expect. Unified shader architecture, multi-core/multi-threaded processing the list could go on and on. I think its going to be well into the second generation or the beginning of the third generation before we really see either machine start to fly.


As far as games on the 360 being equivalent to a high end pc, well Im not sure that is a fact as you like to put it. I believe its more of an opinion. But if you look at the early dev kits (what most of these games spent the majority of their development time on) then they really were just high end pc builds. Although, if you look at the leaps and bounds many games have gone through in the last month or so there has been an amazing amount of improvement. I think that if any of us are expecting dramatic leaps above pc games then we are going to be somewhat unfulfilled until later in the console/consoles lifespan. :3eye:

I have to disagree. That may have something to do with a specific number of demos being targetted with others pushed completely aside as to even being conceived as even a possible exsistance. Are they leaps and bounds beyond a high-end PC? I never said that. But how difficult would it be to tell the difference between the two if they were to be compared side by side? I mean, let's be honest. You're telling me what we've just seen in real-time of certain demos running on early PS3 kits are more related to a high-end PC but a game like Kameo and others aren't? :wtf: Sorry, but you lost me on that one.

Moreover, I never said these were launch titles. Maybe you assumed that to be the case from my previous responce. I am simply explaining to you that what we've seen of some of the demos on the PS3 are more of a next-gen leap than others from the opposite platform.;-]

For your last comment, I can only tell you what I am currenty seeing based on the performance so far, and IMO, it doesn't take much to see the similiarities. If you can't see this now, then it questions me as to how you were able to see this in a game like MG4 without noticing such tangible flaws else where. For me to deny some of the things I am seeing is like tell me there is no difference between the PS2 and the Xbox.

Also, are you implying that the PS3 had final hardware at the time and the 360 didn't? :eek2: That's kinda what it sounds like, anyway.

[GTShotoKen]

Besides the obvious games everyone has already stated, i also like the action sequences of Armoured Core 4. It does look mighty good (even though it may not actually be that good grapically) im hoping for that sort of gameply.

Armored core 4 seems to have renewed a small interest in the series for me again. If the gameplay will be as intense as what was shown in the trailer then sign me up.

It is still hard though to even look at an Armored Core game since the only good one for the longest time was Armored Core 2 for the PSX. Every other game in the series has been rehash, after rehash, after rehash. There is another Armored Core game coming out for the PS2 (Isn't it like the tenth one?) and it is an even crappier biproduct of the endless cycle of sequels and expansions.

The scores are getting lower and lower for the armored core series, and the mech franchise is fadding into obscurity.

Armored Core 4 needs to break the mold or things will look bleak for the genre (Gundum isn't going to help any either if it is going to be like its previous incarnations).

[Coded-Dude]

don't forget about Endless Saga....this is realtime screenshot
http://www.endlesssaga.com/screenshot_1024.jpg

[D3adcell]

I like that picture there Dude. This is the first I have heard of this game. The art style looks real and at the same time like a painting. I like it.

[woundingchaney]

I have to disagree. That may have something to do with a specific number of demos being targetted with others pushed completely aside as to even being conceived as even a possible exsistance. Are they leaps and bounds beyond a high-end PC? I never said that. But how difficult would it be to tell the difference between the two if they were to be compared side by side? I mean, let's be honest. You're telling me what we've just seen in real-time of certain demos running on early PS3 kits are more related to a high-end PC but a game like Kameo and others aren't? :wtf: Sorry, but you lost me on that one.

Moreover, I never said these were launch titles. Maybe you assumed that to be the case from my previous responce. I am simply explaining to you that what we've seen of some of the demos on the PS3 are more of a next-gen leap than others from the opposite platform.;-]

For your last comment, I can only tell you what I am currenty seeing based on the performance so far, and IMO, it doesn't take much to see the similiarities. If you can't see this now, then it questions me as to how you were able to see this in a game like MG4 without noticing such tangible flaws else where. For me to deny some of the things I am seeing is like tell me there is no difference between the PS2 and the Xbox.

Also, are you implying that the PS3 had final hardware at the time and the 360 didn't? :eek2: That's kinda what it sounds like, anyway.


Perhaps you misunderstood me or I was simply misleading.

Honestly I dont share your view of PS3 trailers compared to MS trailers (nothing more nothing less).

I was giving (attempting anyways) the impression that the games we are seeing right now really are being developed on high end pc builds (not that MS games arent or that PS3 games arent). So this may be the reasons why these games (for the most part) resemble high caliber pc games. It seems many here believe that the PS3 trailers are leagues beyond the 360 trailers, I do not agree and attempt to point out my reasons why I believe this. This is a PS3 forum so I spend quite a bit of time defending (for lack of a better word) 360 games, the best way to do this is by comparison or pointing out various flaws with these trailers many are marveled by, I am not one to say that 360 trailers are completely awe inspiring and are leagues ahead of PS3 trailers (I simply believe that from what we have seen titles for both consoles look very similar, in the overall aspect). Much of what I have to say is opinion (infact nearly everything) but much of what everyone has to say is opinion as well. I can see as to how you or others would take my statements as being blind fanboyism, I do not consider myself this, but I will say that right now I prefer MS over Sony (but I have been gaming for about 20 years now and it used to be NIN over Sega, Sony over NIN, Ati over Nvidia, Dreamcast over PS2, Nvidia over Ati etc)

As far as the PS2 and Xbox statement. Once again I do not agree with you. Really for me the PS3 has yet to show me anything that looks better than what the xbox is offering (I think it is all very comparable). Outside of all the propaganda (on both sides) I think we are looking at very comparable consoles here. Now of course this could change as the gen develops, that is just my opinion right here and now.




;-]

[Junox50]

Perhaps you misunderstood me or I was simply misleading.

Honestly I dont share your view of PS3 trailers compared to MS trailers (nothing more nothing less).

I was giving (attempting anyways) the impression that the games we are seeing right now really are being developed on high end pc builds (not that MS games arent or that PS3 games arent). So this may be the reasons why these games (for the most part) resemble high caliber pc games. It seems many here believe that the PS3 trailers are leagues beyond the 360 trailers, I do not agree and attempt to point out my reasons why I believe this. This is a PS3 forum so I spend quite a bit of time defending (for lack of a better word) 360 games, the best way to do this is by comparison or pointing out various flaws with these trailers many are marveled by, I am not one to say that 360 trailers are completely awe inspiring and are leagues ahead of PS3 trailers (I simply believe that from what we have seen titles for both consoles look very similar, in the overall aspect). Much of what I have to say is opinion (infact nearly everything) but much of what everyone has to say is opinion as well. I can see as to how you or others would take my statements as being blind fanboyism, I do not consider myself this, but I will say that right now I prefer MS over Sony (but I have been gaming for about 20 years now and it used to be NIN over Sega, Sony over NIN, Ati over Nvidia, Dreamcast over PS2, Nvidia over Ati etc)

As far as the PS2 and Xbox statement. Once again I do not agree with you. Really for me the PS3 has yet to show me anything that looks better than what the xbox is offering (I think it is all very comparable). Outside of all the propaganda (on both sides) I think we are looking at very comparable consoles here. Now of course this could change as the gen develops, that is just my opinion right here and now.




;-]


Well, at least your honest. I, myself, and I believe many others don't see you as a fanboy here. Your comments and opinions are understandable and make plenty of sense for the most part. Your not among the handful of people I've seen roaming around this forum with no purpose at all but to just say something fanboyish and downplay the competition thats competiting against their favorite company.

I know I wasent apart of your discussion with Domination, but I just wanted to get that out.

On topic

Anyway, I see MGS4 and next gen Killzone being the only games with the best graphics I've seen so far, imo. Hope Namco reveals next gen Tekken soon. I'm getting irritable over here!

[Red_Eyes]

From what's been said, many were running on early dev kits or ran to specifications. If there is a lot of work to be done, sometimes a playable demo isn't possible at the time. Like I said before, Heavenly Sword was said to be mostly all in-game by a certain developer. Yet you see even it didn't make it to TGS. Does that mean it was something else because of that? You tell me.

In this case, real time means real time on a PS3 dev kit, which is less powerful than a final PS3 dev kit. So that means, even on a less powerful PS3 dev kit, it's still running in real time, thus, on a real PS3 dev kit, it'll be able to run in real time plus better graphics.

[Theo]

Graphics that are represented through gameplay not cutscenes, is the debate i was intending. Perhaps I was somewhat vague. But I think it is fair to say that gameplay and cutscenes are not completely comparable.

And personally I dont know if I agree that MGS4 is graphically superior to current high end pc titles (would have to do more comparisons).


I see your point, but I don't understand what's the problem, if the in-game graphics are going to look the seme as in the trailer (if not better). I agree with you though, that in some games the real-time cutscenes tend to look better, but that's not the case here since the demo is supposed to immitate the in-game graphics as Mr. Kojima him self has confirmed. But what's more important here is that he has also said that it is going to improve from that, wich is natural, because it was made with early dev kits and in lack of time. Believe me the game will look graphically the at least same as the demo... Now I think its fair to say, that the graphics from cutscenes and gameplay are comparable.


As for Xbox 360 and ps3, I think the ps3 has the advantage in graphics so far, but I agree that the gap is not big, if not small in some cases. I also believe that it is still a bit early to seriously compare the graphical performance of each console...Of coure we'll have to compare what we have got so far, but to tell the real differences we will have to wait.


BTW: If you find a current pc game that has better or equal grapics to MGS4, please let me know.

[woundingchaney]

I see your point, but I don't understand what's the problem, if the in-game graphics are going to look the seme as in the trailer (if not better). I agree with you though, that in some games the real-time cutscenes tend to look better, but that's not the case here since the demo is supposed to immitate the in-game graphics as Mr. Kojima him self has confirmed. But what's more important here is that he has also said that it is going to improve from that, wich is natural, because it was made with early dev kits and in lack of time. Believe me the game will look graphically the at least same as the demo... Now I think its fair to say, that the graphics from cutscenes and gameplay are comparable.


As for Xbox 360 and ps3, I think the ps3 has the advantage in graphics so far, but I agree that the gap is not big, if not small in some cases. I also believe that it is still a bit early to seriously compare the graphical performance of each console...Of coure we'll have to compare what we have got so far, but to tell the real differences we will have to wait.


BTW: If you find a current pc game that has better or equal grapics to MGS4, please let me know.


A current pc game that has better or equal graphics to MGS4, I think the MGS4 trailer excelled in many areas but was bland in others. Really I think the character models are the best I have seen in a game to date (although GoW is extremely close). Now as far as background layout and detail, I thought MGS4 was very bland (opinion) if your looking for a current pc game that is better than MGS4 in every way then I cannot provide one. (those are just a couple of points and I realize that the game is in a very early build).

As far as Kojima confirming the look of the game. I do not doubt the game will look like the trailer, but I doubt it will move, be viewed, play, like the trailer (does that make sense). Really all these things have a large basis on what the game "looks" like. :trismile:

[Theo]

A current pc game that has better or equal graphics to MGS4, I think the MGS4 trailer excelled in many areas but was bland in others. Really I think the character models are the best I have seen in a game to date (although GoW is extremely close). Now as far as background layout and detail, I thought MGS4 was very bland (opinion) if your looking for a current pc game that is better than MGS4 in every way then I cannot provide one. (those are just a couple of points and I realize that the game is in a very early build).

As far as Kojima confirming the look of the game. I do not doubt the game will look like the trailer, but I doubt it will move, be viewed, play, like the trailer (does that make sense). Really all these things have a large basis on what the game "looks" like. :trismile:


I pretty munch agree with all you said now. I also see the difference in the detallions between the caracter models and the environment, but I don't find it bland though ;).

Yeah, the game will obviously not be moved/viewed in the same way the trailer is, during gameplay. But that is a different issue, that does not include the graphics.

[Coded-Dude]

I like that picture there Dude. This is the first I have heard of this game. The art style looks real and at the same time like a painting. I like it.
Go to IGN or some other game site and watch the trailer, its running realtime on the unreal engine.....very impressive!

[Domination]

RPG Gamer, the game is not going to look as good as it does in the cutscenes. Have you ever played Metal Gear Solid 3? Its cutscenes are done in realtime aswell but it looks better then when your actually playing. The reason is that when your actually playing the character movements and animations are not as fluent. Also you never see those camera angles. Although you are saying that PGR3 wont look that good becuase you will never be playing with that camera angle, well the same goes for many of the ps3 videos shown.

I don't think people are going to be caring much about Killzones looks if the game sucks. Remember how Killzone 1 was supposed to be the halo killer for the ps2. I didn't think it was very good, I still think Red Faction is the best ps2 FPS. Now what sony needs to do is get a Red Faction 3 in the works with voiliton and have them tweak their geo mod engine for the ps3. It would be beautiful.

I just don't really see the graphically prowess between ps3 and xbox360 being that different. If you check out the ps2 and xbox now, although the xbox came out later there are still some ps2 games with graphics equivelant to many xbox games if not better (rumble roses). I guess it all depends on the developers and how good they want the graphics to be, but don't expect it to be used on all the games, only the big budget teams are going to be able to produce that kinda software. It may be easier with the xbox360 for those teams becuase of the development tools they have for the xbox and the fact they have people creating new things for them all the time so they do not have to spend all of their time doing those certain deeds.

Also Iwata from nintendo even said that if your going to compare specs, although the ps3 and xbox360 may have more, you will not be able to tell much of a difference between the games visually. I am not going to call the guy a liar becuae so far nintendo has delivered on just about everything they say. Yet Sony and Microsoft both like to talk a big game and then they dont deliver. I will be buying all 3 next gen consoles though just to experience the exclusives each will offer.

First of all, that was the PS2. What makes you think the PS3 will perform the same way?

Secondly, don't you think that has [little] to do with the game looking the same in the end?:)

[Domination]

Perhaps you misunderstood me or I was simply misleading.

Honestly I dont share your view of PS3 trailers compared to MS trailers (nothing more nothing less).

I was giving (attempting anyways) the impression that the games we are seeing right now really are being developed on high end pc builds (not that MS games arent or that PS3 games arent). So this may be the reasons why these games (for the most part) resemble high caliber pc games. It seems many here believe that the PS3 trailers are leagues beyond the 360 trailers, I do not agree and attempt to point out my reasons why I believe this. This is a PS3 forum so I spend quite a bit of time defending (for lack of a better word) 360 games, the best way to do this is by comparison or pointing out various flaws with these trailers many are marveled by, I am not one to say that 360 trailers are completely awe inspiring and are leagues ahead of PS3 trailers (I simply believe that from what we have seen titles for both consoles look very similar, in the overall aspect). Much of what I have to say is opinion (infact nearly everything) but much of what everyone has to say is opinion as well. I can see as to how you or others would take my statements as being blind fanboyism, I do not consider myself this, but I will say that right now I prefer MS over Sony (but I have been gaming for about 20 years now and it used to be NIN over Sega, Sony over NIN, Ati over Nvidia, Dreamcast over PS2, Nvidia over Ati etc)

As far as the PS2 and Xbox statement. Once again I do not agree with you. Really for me the PS3 has yet to show me anything that looks better than what the xbox is offering (I think it is all very comparable). Outside of all the propaganda (on both sides) I think we are looking at very comparable consoles here. Now of course this could change as the gen develops, that is just my opinion right here and now.




;-]

That I can respect. :cheers:

[Domination]

In this case, real time means real time on a PS3 dev kit, which is less powerful than a final PS3 dev kit. So that means, even on a less powerful PS3 dev kit, it's still running in real time, thus, on a real PS3 dev kit, it'll be able to run in real time plus better graphics.

Nine times out of ten, I would say that that is the most probable case. ;-]

[woundingchaney]

First of all, that was the PS2. What makes you think the PS3 will perform the same way?

Secondly, don't you think that has [little] to do with the game looking the same in the end?:)


I dont necessarily think that the PS3 will be limited in the same ways as the PS2 (as far as cut scenes compared to gameplay), however, I do think that the devs could be limited in harnessing the power to do such (does that make sense). Honestly I feel that cutscenes will always be superior (in presentation and graphics) to gameplay. However as the gen progresses I do expect those lines to become blurred.
Honorable mention: the MGS series has always been one of the primer series in delivering "near" cutscene quality gameplay, as if this is the case for the next installment I do not know.

In all honesty (I cant speak for DeadCell), but I do feel that yes the things mentioned do have a large part of the "look" of the game, of course there can be arguements as to what look could mean for me it is really the overall visual presentation of the game (gameplay, ai, physics, movement fluidity, camera angles, character interaction background/npcs, etc). :-)

[masonite]

I dont necessarily think that the PS3 will be limited in the same ways as the PS2 (as far as cut scenes compared to gameplay), however, I do think that the devs could be limited in harnessing the power to do such (does that make sense). Honestly I feel that cutscenes will always be superior (in presentation and graphics) to gameplay. However as the gen progresses I do expect those lines to become blurred.
Honorable mention: the MGS series has always been one of the primer series in delivering "near" cutscene quality gameplay, as if this is the case for the next installment I do not know.

In all honesty (I cant speak for DeadCell), but I do feel that yes the things mentioned do have a large part of the "look" of the game, of course there can be arguements as to what look could mean for me it is really the overall visual presentation of the game (gameplay, ai, physics, movement fluidity, camera angles, character interaction background/npcs, etc). :-)


a scripted cutscene will always "feel" suprerior to gameplay, as the events are not controlled by a human - you have no say in what happens next, and as such the game creates the element of suspense. in terms of graphics, i think you are partly right - there are always small details that have appeared in cutscenes (esp. MGS) where the graphics look enhanced - be it blurring, or the appearance of damage on an object after being hit (eg. snake in MGS3 after he got beat up) which can only be done in scripted cutscenes. but these are small details - the overall look is very similar.

in my opinion, if cutscenes don't "feel" better than the gameplay, or add anything, they shouldn't been there.

[D3adcell]

First of all, that was the PS2. What makes you think the PS3 will perform the same way?

Secondly, don't you think that has [little] to do with the game looking the same in the end?:)

You can have the best graphics in the world, but that alone is not going to make a game look or feel 'real'. Lets face it during actual gameplay you can not do whatever you choose. The current controllers systems have are very limited only allowing so many things to be done with the buttons. So a scripted cutscene is going to look far more impressive, to me atleast, then actual gameplay. Interaction with objects, and the movements.

Although as far as the game looking as real as it can during gameplay, ie you being able to react with environments and move how you want to move (shenmue 2 is probably the closest to this so far as environment interaction and it was the most expensive game ever made) it will be a few years until the controllers change, the revolution is the start of it. But you have seen movies were people put on some headgear or something and its as if they were in the game world as if it were reality. Thats the only time you're really going to have to worry about graphics being the best (becuase you would sort of create the gameplay yourself). Right now people should be less worried about graphics and more about gameplay, ai, physics, all those other things. Graphics should be one of the last things a developer worries about, but the mainstream and everyone loves the flashy pretty games regardless of gameplay (look at halo 2 poor gameplay but good graphics). I just finished playing metal gear solid 1 on the original playstation. I find it far supperior to many of the current gen games and that game was released in 1998. Then graphics couldn't be all that pretty, they were going to be blocky no matter how hard they tried. So the gameplay had to be good or nobody was going to buy it. That is how games should be.

[rpgamer_2k5]

D3adcell: The physics prowess of the PS3 is what sets a huge a distinguish between the PS2 and PS3. The reason why PS2 cutscenes had superior animations was because various of the cutscenes used 'physics animations'. The PS2 couldn't emulate such animations since it uses a very limited 'physics engine'. The PS3 will probably be a different story; animations will look significantly much more fluid. It is very possible that the cutscene counterpart would not surpass the in-game animations. There are no tools available to provide better physics than the realtime counterpart, ever since games like Half-Life 2 became available. With the Cell, the PS3 will generate much more complex physics than the games of the past.

BTW, did I post a previous reply to D3adcell?

As I said earlier, D3adcell, I am not talking about animations, I was specifically speaking about graphics. If we're going to isolate one and then bring up another out of nowhere, the discussion won't be going anywhere. ;)

My initial claim: MGS4's graphics will equal, if not surpass (with the FlexIO, 3.2Ghz Cell and RSX included, that would be the case) the cutscene counterpart. I have not seen any reply pertaining to this and therefore, I shall drop it, and go on to animations. :)

[Domination]

You can have the best graphics in the world, but that alone is not going to make a game look or feel 'real'. Lets face it during actual gameplay you can not do whatever you choose. The current controllers systems have are very limited only allowing so many things to be done with the buttons. So a scripted cutscene is going to look far more impressive, to me atleast, then actual gameplay. Interaction with objects, and the movements.

Although as far as the game looking as real as it can during gameplay, ie you being able to react with environments and move how you want to move (shenmue 2 is probably the closest to this so far as environment interaction and it was the most expensive game ever made) it will be a few years until the controllers change, the revolution is the start of it. But you have seen movies were people put on some headgear or something and its as if they were in the game world as if it were reality. Thats the only time you're really going to have to worry about graphics being the best (becuase you would sort of create the gameplay yourself). Right now people should be less worried about graphics and more about gameplay, ai, physics, all those other things. Graphics should be one of the last things a developer worries about, but the mainstream and everyone loves the flashy pretty games regardless of gameplay (look at halo 2 poor gameplay but good graphics). I just finished playing metal gear solid 1 on the original playstation. I find it far supperior to many of the current gen games and that game was released in 1998. Then graphics couldn't be all that pretty, they were going to be blocky no matter how hard they tried. So the gameplay had to be good or nobody was going to buy it. That is how games should be.

You seem to have missed my entire point. Earlier, it was stated that MG3's cut scenes did not match the gameplay. The reason behind it? One was more fluid than the other. Therefore, the PS3 could follow the same suit as far as the MG4 trailer is concerned; meaning, it being inferior visually.

What I'm saying is fluidity has little to do with an ingame build looking the same as a cut scene visually. It's a poor comparison to use to differ the two. My point was, when the AI takes over, nothing changes the way the game looks. Animation is something else entirely different, which makes it moot in this case, especially since that was the PS2 and not the PS3.

[venomv]

You can have the best graphics in the world, but that alone is not going to make a game look or feel 'real'. Lets face it during actual gameplay you can not do whatever you choose. The current controllers systems have are very limited only allowing so many things to be done with the buttons. So a scripted cutscene is going to look far more impressive, to me atleast, then actual gameplay. Interaction with objects, and the movements.

Although as far as the game looking as real as it can during gameplay, ie you being able to react with environments and move how you want to move (shenmue 2 is probably the closest to this so far as environment interaction and it was the most expensive game ever made) it will be a few years until the controllers change, the revolution is the start of it. But you have seen movies were people put on some headgear or something and its as if they were in the game world as if it were reality. Thats the only time you're really going to have to worry about graphics being the best (becuase you would sort of create the gameplay yourself). Right now people should be less worried about graphics and more about gameplay, ai, physics, all those other things. Graphics should be one of the last things a developer worries about, but the mainstream and everyone loves the flashy pretty games regardless of gameplay (look at halo 2 poor gameplay but good graphics). I just finished playing metal gear solid 1 on the original playstation. I find it far supperior to many of the current gen games and that game was released in 1998. Then graphics couldn't be all that pretty, they were going to be blocky no matter how hard they tried. So the gameplay had to be good or nobody was going to buy it. That is how games should be.

Except that this is next gen games so flashy graphics are what most people want to see, even though I agree totally that graphics shouldn't be first on peoples list. Also a lot of the companies have little more then a cutscene to show anyway, at least for PS3, the rest is still probably pretty crappy cause they are still working on the programming. But it reminds me of a saying of mine. Graphics can make a good game better, but they can't make a bad game good.

[woundingchaney]

I would like to state that I no longer have any idea what anyone is talking about in this topic (somehow I got hopelessly lost in the last page or so).


In Appreciation,

WoundingChaney :-p