My choice for the best graphics of any playable next-gen game

[Rubbernek]

There's too many "bullshot" screen and video comparisons floating around so I decided to do a little comparison with some of the PLAYABLE games that are considered to be the most graphically impressive.

The rules:

No PR screenshots or "bullshots", no using old videos, no using videos that are so dark that you can't see any details, must be GAMEPLAY.

Out of the playable games seen so far I think the most graphically impressive are Heavenly Sword, Gears of War and Mass Effect.

Below are three videos that are of comparable quality showcasing the LATEST builds of gameplay footage from each game.

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

Video 1: Heavenly Sword - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8468034644466530552&q=heavenly+sword
(Choose "Original Size" when viewing video so that it isn't pixelated)

Screencap from video: http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1812/hs3xm.jpg

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________

Video 2: Gears of War - http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=10554&type=mov&pl=game

Screencap from video: http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/4917/geow1wv.jpg

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________

Video 3: Mass Effect - http://www.masseffect.it/video/E32006_MassEffect_2.zip

For some reason "Print Screen" on Windows Media Player leaves a blank space where the video appears.
Anyway, this is the corresponding screenshot for this video from IGN: http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/708/708409/mass-effect-20060512020814732.jpg
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________



Judge for yourself but I think it's pretty clear that Heavenly Sword is definitely the best looking. The lighting, textures, physics (hair and flowing cloth), interactive environments and animation set it apart.

[Xerxes]

Heveanly sword is one of the games I am getting at launch.

[makeitlookreal]

First of all, you can't judge anything from those vids and screen shots. The only fair way to compare the games are to have at least 720P HD movies and screenshots of each one.

Secondly, MGS clearly has the best looking graphics. Period.

Heavenly Sword looks "prettier" because it is not a game based on modern warfare. It is brighter and sunnier. Also, it is not in the middle of desert. But there is actually less detail in HS than MGS or Gears Of War. Look at the best close up of her face. It does not compare to that of Solid Snake in MGS4! It is not even close! Look close at a HD image of her face. It is NOT very detailed. If you like unrealistic animated looking images yes, she is VERY very "pretty". The game has a nice and cheerful "feel" to it. But it is NOT realistic.

Third of all, Gears of War is looking less and less impressive to me. It seems even more dark and dank than MGS4. It has detail, but you can hardly EVER see it.

[Rubbernek]

First of all, you can't judge anything from those vids and screen shots. The only fair way to compare the games are to have at least 720P HD movies and screenshots of each one.

Secondly, MGS clearly has the best looking graphics. Period.

Heavenly Sword looks "prettier" because it is not a game based on modern warfare. It is brighter and sunnier. Also, it is not in the middle of desert. But there is actually less detail in HS than MGS or Gears Of War. Look at the best close up of her face. It does not compare to that of Solid Snake in MGS4! It is not even close! Look close at a HD image of her face. It is NOT very detailed. If you like unrealistic animated looking images yes, she is VERY very "pretty". The game has a nice and cheerful "feel" to it. But it is NOT realistic.

Third of all, Gears of War is looking less and less impressive to me. It seems even more dark and dank than MGS4. It has detail, but you can hardly EVER see it.


Those vids are sufficient and comparable in quality enough to see that Heavenly Sword looks the best.

Ofcourse you are right that ideally direct-feed high quality 720p videos are preferrable.

With regards to MGS4 I've not included it simply because we don't have gameplay yet.

If you want to include "realtime" footage then MGS4, FFXIII, Lair, Halo3, Ratchet&Clank and the Naughty Dog game (as well as others) would all be there.

But for the sake of this discussion I wanted to simply limit it to PLAYABLE with a controller games that we have seen so far.

[rpgamer_2k5]

RE: MILR's post.

Well said, MILR. MGS4 definitely takes the cake when it comes to graphics. Lets keep in mind that when measuring graphics, we're isolating the VISUALS which may include polygon count, textures, and other DETAIL. It doesn't include physics, sound or anything that falls under gameplay. It never has. Any if we look at a CG, it does not have any aspect of gameplay even though it is clearly superior in the visual arena.

Note: Physics, mechanics, etc are NOT graphics. The Wii may even better the PS3 in mechanics. And even gameplay, overall.

PS: This could be an interesting discussion. ;)

[rpgamer_2k5]

Rubbernek, keep in mind that seeing that Gears of Wars is playable, the chances of MGS4, FFXIII, etc being legit is quite high. In fact, the visuals should at least match Gears of Wars at worst.

[Rubbernek]

RE: MILR's post.

Well said, MILR. MGS4 definitely takes the cake when it comes to graphics. Lets keep in mind that when measuring graphics, we're isolating the VISUALS which may include polygon count, textures, and other DETAIL. It doesn't include physics, sound or anything that falls under gameplay. It never has. Any if we look at a CG, it does not have any aspect of gameplay even though it is clearly superior in the visual arena.

Note: Physics, mechanics, etc are NOT graphics. The Wii may even better the PS3 in mechanics. And even gameplay, overall.

PS: This could be an interesting discussion. ;)

I think your argument is flawed.
The physics of the the character's hair moving and the cloth moving absolutely adds to the graphical beauty of the game.

So do the physics of the destructible elements add to the graphical beauty of the game.

It's intrinsically linked to the look of the game (hence graphics) not just simply gameplay.

[masteratt]

I'll keep it simple:

Best= MGS4. (The bit [in the 15mins trailer] where people charge out the truck and get mowed down by a machine gun while trying to advance. i thought i was watching a war footage...that bit was unbeliabaly realistic. simply stunning.)

Worse= Gears Of War (I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate the plastic look especially accompanied by dark environments and at the moment many [all] GoW screens take place in a dark environment...feel free to prove me wrong. i admit i only saw early shots and never bothered looking into GoW unles it popped out at me)

[fknuckle]

I gotta agree,i thought hs in action had the best looking graphics(easily).mgs4 just doesnt stand out to me as much for some reason(looks good,but not as good).i wanna see it (mgs4) in actual gameplay action to get a better feel of the visuals.im sure if hs put most of its resources into a extreme close up of her face in a trailer,it would look insane. i still think snakes face looks like it was made up of 3 days old mash potatoes(IMO).Some of the other faces though,look excellent in the trailer close ups,but something bothers me about snakes face.

Again,if hs made a real-time trailer and focused alot of its resources on a extreme closeup of the face,im sure it would hold its own.graphics are more then just the face, you gotta look at everything in the entire scene in action. i still give the overall edge to hs.
i seen a few close ups(overall bodyS) of hs that looks like a photograph it looked so good.

gears of war looks very good,but when i see it in motion,the graphics seem to get a little bit watered down to me(just a bit). Animation plays a big part in how pretty a game looks imo.

[CrumCon]

Gears of wars.. in the entire game the character moves like robot. It doesnt mean PS3 games wont be like that.. but Heavenly sword, MGS4, Naughty dog game, 7 days, Assassin Creed all looks realistic.. in other words.. these game has very nice animation.

Gears of wars,.. YUK

[LiquidEagle]

I'll try to stay true to the spirit of the original post and reply with games we could play/see played...

Heavenly Sword, as you mentioned, is definitely one of them so I'll leave that one be.

Next, there's Lost Planet for X360. Easily my most anticipated 360 game and probably the best game I got to play at E3...

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/706/706419/lost-planet-20060509034515687.jpg

Sharp graphics combine with incredible animations, great style, and fantastic use of motion blur to make this game an absolute joy to look at. I'm sad more people don't appreciate this game's looks and gameplay.

...I'm having a hard time finding other ones without thinking of other games so I'll leave it at that :-p

I'm not saying there aren't great looking games, I'm saying there are too many

[JelleN]

I think Crysis is one of the best looking games! And that's because of the CryENGINE 2... It's only for PC though... yet! :hugegrin:

[Nameless]

Rubbernek, I would have to agree with your assessment of Heavenly Sword.
I stated in previous threads that Heavenly Sword was the most visually impressive console game in playable form at E3, period...

I think you guys are being a little too harsh on Gears of War, the game is impressive in my opinion. The overall dark vibe of the game is the artistic direction.

MGS4 is the benchmark for console visuals in my opinion, but the game is not in playable form. Also, I do have to admit the MGS4 footage did not have the same impact as the MGS2 footage around the PS2 launch time. MGS4 is the most impressive next-gen title, but it did not have the pick my jaw up off the floor effect that the MGS2 trailer had back in the day... Peace

PS: My comments regarding MGS4 has nothing to do with my anticipation of the game.
I'm strictly referring to visuals, I can't wait to get my hands on MGS4 goodness...

[Xerxes]

Heveanly Sword has the best graphics hands down for PS3, well at least for me.

MGS and other shooters look a little dull. I like MGS series and all, but come on!! A little vibrance please but, not too much to make it look like a Barney game. I know it is a war game and all but still too bland..

There are also too many First person shooter/simulators on the PS3 as it is. Please don't let Final Fantasy be the only RPG franchise on the system.

Crysis does not look THAT amazing. What makes the game amazing is one thing: the interacting environment.

[Coded-Dude]

MGS is NOT an FPS........but thanks for playing ;-]

[Xerxes]

War type games..

Lol, I meant shooters

[Coded-Dude]

i know, I was only poking fun......(refer to MGS4 TGS teaser intro)

[LiquidEagle]

We got all the vibrance we needed in MGS3! War has changed, and the world has changed. Stylistically I wouldn't have MGS4 any other way. I don't think it looks bland at all though -- look at Raiden's design! Look at the Gekkous! I don't think the world's seen a better design team than KojiPro.

I can't wait to see this game played!

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Shouldn't you all just be debating the playable games, since that's what the thread is about, in ? Yes MGS4 is the hawtness, but it's not topical to this thread, not fair to the other games, so yeah, Heavenly Sword for the win.

[Zer0-Sum]

Playable? Heavenly Sword hands down.

[gljvd]

Secondly, MGS clearly has the best looking graphics. Period.


Disagree. Mass effect is def up there. MGS looks great , however mass effect looks great and is on a large scale and is game play. I'm just not convinced those are anything but cut scenes even the battles .

Aside from that it seems like mass effect is a late 06 early 07 title , gears of war is october 2006 , HS is early 2007 and MGS is most likely late 2007 .

So its really not fair comparing these as MGS is going to be release last and thus has the longest development time

[Zer0-Sum]

MGS has always been one of the best, if not the best looking title on PS2(besides maybe FF). It will be the same for PS3. Kojima is a genius and now he has PS3 power to back him up. It will blow all those other games away when it is done. But it is not playable, so not relevent to this discussion.

[LiquidEagle]

not even worth discussing... *sigh*

[makeitlookreal]

Rubbernek,

Unless the developers of MGS4 are lying those clips are indeed real time. The only difference is the angles from which they were taken. You see, they were trying to present a story to us. The game will use the exact or better graphics, but the camera will just be more like in a game.

Also, her hair does look very nice. In an artistic way HS looks more "beautiful" than MGS4, but not more graphically realistic! MGS4 and HS are two different games. If you care about art instead of realism HS is the way to go. But personally, I want a game that is as detailed and realisitic as possible.

[Rubbernek]

Rubbernek,

Unless the developers of MGS4 are lying those clips are indeed real time. The only difference is the angles from which they were taken. You see, they were trying to present a story to us. The game will use the exact or better graphics, but the camera will just be more like in a game.


I agree with you 100% that MGS4 is realtime and that it will probably look just as good if not better than the trailer when completed.

It's not a dig against MGS4 - I'm just saying it's not playable yet.
This thread was about the best looking playable game that I've seen so far.

That is all. No conspiracy here.

PS. If I was comparing all realtime footage then I would put Lair, FFXIII, Naughty Dog, Ratchet&Clank AND MGS4 above Heavenly Sword. But I'm just talking about playable games that have been demonstrated.

[makeitlookreal]

Masterratt,

I agree 100%. Gears of War does have good graphics, but everything is far, far too dark. I want a game that will have sceens in full sunlight, in the dark, in a well-lit area, in a dreary area, etc. However, in GOW everything is totally dark. Personally, I think they are doing this to hide that their characters are not quite as graphically stunning as they could be. Also, their characters due look somewhat plastic. But I cannot tell if this is from the dark or if they are just low quality.

Additionally, I want to say I have noticed that 720P games look horrible at lower resolutions. In 720P MGS looks sharp, crisp, you can see details, and so fouth. But at lets say ordinary SD it looks horrible. Even Snake looks plastic at that low resolution.

[makeitlookreal]

This is just as good of a thread as any for me to ask this, so please try to give me an answer.

This question is something I have asked before, but for some reason either no one answered, or I did not see anyone respond. If they have before but I did not see it I SINCERELY apologize.

Here is my question,

Higher Resolution and Definitino games such as 720P or 1080P take up more of any console's processing power, memory, and resources. Currently, there are many games such as MGS4 that look GREAT at lets say 720P. But obviously to render it at such a high definition takes a LOT of power.

Now, why can't developers SAVE all of that power and make a SD game with even BETTER looking graphics.

You see, there are ordinary TV shows on SD TV that look better than MGS4 at 720P. For example, just an ordinary episode of Star Gate Atlatis or Star Trek the next generation looks more realistic to me.

Now, I am not going to go into the whole argument about how much I love graphics. What I am asking is why is it that modern developers are going to HIGHER resolutions and definitions to get graphics instead of using all that extra power at STANDARD DEFINITION!?

Seriously, what is the reason? Is there a limit where SD just is impossible to make look any better? If so, why do standard definition TV shows look so good? Why couldn't the PS3 make a SD game that matches at least what I see on my 10 year old SD TV with horrible color?

Or even if it does not MATCH it why can't they save ALL THE EXTRA POWER it takes to make a high definition game and use it to make an AWSOME standard definition game that looks like a TV show?

If MGS4 can look somewhat REAL LIFE at 720P why can't they save that power and make it look even MORE realistic at SD?

Or is it all one big scam? Do they want to just force everyone to buy high definition TVs?

Can anyone answer this question? I am not trying to be rude, but I just don't know where to ask it, and it has been eating and eating away at me.

[LiquidEagle]

Look at the Wii for a bit of an example of that. Wii won't be high-def so it's basically using all its graphical power to make them look real good at Standard def. It might be nice if games had the option to pretty things up when running at Standard def, but I also don't want consoles to become like PCs where we have to balance things out between performance and looks -- that's the developer's job!

Make sense though? Some games may show that, but I think the Wii will be the best place for that kinda stuff.

[makeitlookreal]

But the Wii is a piece of junk when it comes to hardware. Don't get me wrong, when it comes to LAST gen it is a VERY good system. But THIS gen the Wii is simply, NOTHING!

It is basically a glorified XBox1.

What I am asking is why a true NEXT GEN system cannot work on making a FANTASTIC looking standard definition game. If they can make HD games that look great it seems they should be able to make standard definition games look even BETTER!

It just seems to me that we are leaping to HD displays before these nextgen consoles even tried to make Standard Definition TVs have supurb looking games. What is the issue here?

[Effulgence]

I think its Heavenly Sword. The environments are pretty detailed and the playable videos just have so much going on with characters on screen. The animation is fluid and i think its really cool that you can see the emperor or ringleader whatever he is in the stands cheering with his crew.

Mass Effect doesnt look that good to me. Looks like any PC FPS but with less AA. Gears of War looks reaally good in some screenshots but most of the videos ive seen are too dark and most of the detail is in static objects.

[Nasadus]

I agree that the MGS4 trailer looked kind of bland and i personally thought that Snakes body looked better in the TGS trailer. Much more detail was visible there than in the E3 trailer. Also, look at LaLiLuLeLo's avatar. That's how the MGS4 trailer should have been. Right now it's too gray and lacks any colour. That may be the artistic style they are going for but i don't like it.

Back on topic, i would have to agree that Heavenly Sword looked the best. Combined with those awesome animations it was just superb to look at.

[Gaul]

I saw 2 videos on Heavenly sword. It wins in my book. I don't think we have ever seen a game that flows so perfectly in real-time. That could very well have been one of the Xbox or PS2's CG combat cutscenes. (It probably looks even better).

MGS4 is not bland... Just because it consists mostly of brown does not mean it can't be every bit as graphically enjoyable as heavenly sword. Besides, I'm sure it won't be taking place 100% inside of that specific desert city. Maybe alot of it, but we will probably be taken away from there for at least a little while during the game. Even if we don't though, they are still damn good graphics.

I didn't get to watch the videos on GoW yet. Stupid dial-up. I'll be watching them tonight when i can get back to dsl.

[Goki]

Someone answer makeitlookreal. I.ve always wonderd about that aswell.....

[satriales]

What I am asking is why a true NEXT GEN system cannot work on making a FANTASTIC looking standard definition game. If they can make HD games that look great it seems they should be able to make standard definition games look even BETTER!

It just seems to me that we are leaping to HD displays before these nextgen consoles even tried to make Standard Definition TVs have supurb looking games. What is the issue here?
I think that even if you increase the polygons and improve the textures the games aren't going to look that much better until you increase the resoloution. PS1 games had an even lower resoloution than PS2 games so it's not a sudden increase, it is something that has always happened and will probably continue to do so.

I think the increase in performance from staying at standard definition is not enough to justify the loss of detail you get from high-def.
I may be wrong though.

[makeitlookreal]

satrials,

The problem is look how good regular TV shows look. They have LOTS of detail! Why can't they use the power of the PS3 or 360 to make a fantastic looking SD game?

[shagawi]

I just noticed somthing after looking at those videos. The main character
in Gears of War is bald, so no polys for the hair.

MGS still looking better with 60,000 for Snake's hair and 3000 for his mustache.

[Viano]

This is just as good of a thread as any for me to ask this, so please try to give me an answer.

This question is something I have asked before, but for some reason either no one answered, or I did not see anyone respond. If they have before but I did not see it I SINCERELY apologize.

Here is my question,

Higher Resolution and Definitino games such as 720P or 1080P take up more of any console's processing power, memory, and resources. Currently, there are many games such as MGS4 that look GREAT at lets say 720P. But obviously to render it at such a high definition takes a LOT of power.

Now, why can't developers SAVE all of that power and make a SD game with even BETTER looking graphics.

You see, there are ordinary TV shows on SD TV that look better than MGS4 at 720P. For example, just an ordinary episode of Star Gate Atlatis or Star Trek the next generation looks more realistic to me.

Now, I am not going to go into the whole argument about how much I love graphics. What I am asking is why is it that modern developers are going to HIGHER resolutions and definitions to get graphics instead of using all that extra power at STANDARD DEFINITION!?

Seriously, what is the reason? Is there a limit where SD just is impossible to make look any better? If so, why do standard definition TV shows look so good? Why couldn't the PS3 make a SD game that matches at least what I see on my 10 year old SD TV with horrible color?

Or even if it does not MATCH it why can't they save ALL THE EXTRA POWER it takes to make a high definition game and use it to make an AWSOME standard definition game that looks like a TV show?

If MGS4 can look somewhat REAL LIFE at 720P why can't they save that power and make it look even MORE realistic at SD?

Or is it all one big scam? Do they want to just force everyone to buy high definition TVs?

Can anyone answer this question? I am not trying to be rude, but I just don't know where to ask it, and it has been eating and eating away at me.


try taking off your glasses, and now put it back on.

And of course, there's a balance.

♪

[bigwig]

hmmm on ps3, playable it was HS. I find artistically it definitely surpasses the other two games you listed.

Mass effect and GOW are very impressive though.

Most impressive ingame footage to me was ffxiii, supposedly there was a longer trailer but I cant find it...it has those hover cars in it etc

peace

[Nameless]

This is just as good of a thread as any for me to ask this, so please try to give me an answer.

This question is something I have asked before, but for some reason either no one answered, or I did not see anyone respond. If they have before but I did not see it I SINCERELY apologize.

Here is my question,

Higher Resolution and Definitino games such as 720P or 1080P take up more of any console's processing power, memory, and resources. Currently, there are many games such as MGS4 that look GREAT at lets say 720P. But obviously to render it at such a high definition takes a LOT of power.

Now, why can't developers SAVE all of that power and make a SD game with even BETTER looking graphics.

You see, there are ordinary TV shows on SD TV that look better than MGS4 at 720P. For example, just an ordinary episode of Star Gate Atlatis or Star Trek the next generation looks more realistic to me.

Now, I am not going to go into the whole argument about how much I love graphics. What I am asking is why is it that modern developers are going to HIGHER resolutions and definitions to get graphics instead of using all that extra power at STANDARD DEFINITION!?

Seriously, what is the reason? Is there a limit where SD just is impossible to make look any better? If so, why do standard definition TV shows look so good? Why couldn't the PS3 make a SD game that matches at least what I see on my 10 year old SD TV with horrible color?

Or even if it does not MATCH it why can't they save ALL THE EXTRA POWER it takes to make a high definition game and use it to make an AWSOME standard definition game that looks like a TV show?

If MGS4 can look somewhat REAL LIFE at 720P why can't they save that power and make it look even MORE realistic at SD?

Or is it all one big scam? Do they want to just force everyone to buy high definition TVs?

Can anyone answer this question? I am not trying to be rude, but I just don't know where to ask it, and it has been eating and eating away at me.
MILR,
I posted this previously in another thread, but perhaps it can help with your question...

The reason that FMVs (full motion videos) can be so detailed, with better audio and special effects, is because they aren't actually being rendered. Rendering is only necessary for interactive parts of games. FMV can take advantage of numerous effects (MOTION BLUR) and do not have to be built for 3D rendering so the clarity and fluidity of motion is superior to rendered interactive assets. A game engine has a rendering engine that is constantly creating visual output on a frame-by-frame basis to create the illusion of motion and an expansive, continuous world map.

Motion blur again is a very important part to making videos look seamless. With motion blur, the refresh rate per frame gives the impression of two frames to our eyes. This makes a really well encoded DVD look absolutely incredible. Another factor to consider is that neither movies or videos dip in frame rate when it comes to complex scenes. With no frame rate drops, the action is again seamless.

In a nutshell the way images are displayed for FMV and game engines are completely different. As a result HD is needed to truely appreciate the high level of texture detail and screen clarity rendered by gaming engines.

I hope this makes sense... If not, I will try to clarify with a more detailed post...

Perhaps CPI would like to add his thoughts regarding your question.

[tien69]

The MGS4 is still as detailed as last year's demonstration. But when you have to play in a Subsistence viewpoint, that detail wont show as much is all. It is the same engine, but Kojima of course as you all know, had it scripted. I was watching last year's demonstration, that was translated, by the guys over at Beyond3D. Came across it, had it on my PC for awhile. But I agree with that guy, MGS2, WOW, it was the game, that was like my measuring stick. For all the lazy ass developers who was saying, " PS2 is too hard to program for". SO, I bought much less games than I woudl have bought, had the X-box not come out.

[Gaul]

But when you have to play in a Subsistence viewpoint, that detail wont show as much is all

Well games never look as good when your playing them as they do in the trailers. I don't mean graphically, its just that obviously your character ends up moving not as realistically, and you control the camera, so its not as fluid as when you are playing.

That is part of the reason i liked heavenly sword. It really looks like your playing a cutscene. The combat doesnt look repetative, and in a 5 minute trailer i am willing to bet i didn't see the same combat move more than twice. Thats saying alot.

[Homeru]

My choice for best graphics would be Heavenly Sword. I like the part where she kicks the enemy to the sky and she looks back at the camera, and the frame rate stays smooth.

[satriales]

satriales,

The problem is look how good regular TV shows look. They have LOTS of detail! Why can't they use the power of the PS3 or 360 to make a fantastic looking SD game?
I know what you mean, but I'm sure there must be technical reasons why no-one has made a photorealistic Standard definition game. I guess that a higher resoloution makes the best increase in graphics for the least performance hit. By that I mean next-gen games still increase polygons and add shader effects etc but they also increase the reosloution. If a game didn't increase the resoloution would the processing power saved be enough to make a big difference?

Another possibility is that the polygons/textures etc are at there ideal limit already, so increasing them wouldn't make any difference eg. If you have an object made of 50,000 polygons is increasing it to 100,000 polygons going to make it look much better. Obviously I'm no expert so it's not all about polygons and textures but I think the principle is the same.

Another thing to consider is frame rate. If a HD game was running at 30FPS then it is close to the equivalent of the same game running in standard def at 60FPS. I just don't think the increase in resolution is such a big hit on performance, but it does make a big difference to the graphics and is probably the best way to make a game look better.

[digital neXus]

Wait for two more years for developers to utilize the full power of those two systems then talk. :))

[venomv]

2 more year to realize full potential? Not a prayer, look at what they have only resently managed to do with the PS2.

[digital neXus]

No, PS3 is creating in its own world some magnificent textures, polygons etc...
But the output relay is capable of decreasing from HiRes to a 320x240 for ordinary TV. That's why HighRes images/animations/realtime look not quite sharp on ordinary TV. For example PS2's God of War. I have an sync on green monitor and it looks superb than on TV, without progressive scan mode whithin game. But with PScan......well that's another story.

For utilisation, I was primerly talking about PS3. It's hard to programme it. Buhuhuhu. lazy developers.

[nemesis121]

My choice would go to I-8 just saw a Hi-Def version of it, omg this game looks close to KZ2 trailer that was shown at E3 2005

Quicktime vid
http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?type=mov&id=11193

[makeitlookreal]

satrailes,

If pixel count is not the issue then what is the problem with making photorealistic SD games?

Is there some hurdle that needs to be overcome?

I just don't understand the need to switch over to HD games when we have not even really pushed STANDARD definition yet!

I mean, imagine Resident Evil Four if it had been made with all the power of the PS3 for STANDARD definition? I think it could be AWSOME! However, is there some reason that not matter if you have a thousand cray super computers that you can't make SD games look any better?

Or is it one big conspiracy to force us all to buy HD TVS?

I think they could make SD Games look photorealistic, but there is somekind of conspiracy. Anyone care to answer my question?

[makeitlookreal]

Digital Nexus,

You see, this is my issue. Ordinary SD TV looks VERY sharp. Just look at how realistic any TV show looks! I mean, even Emiril Live on the Food Network channel looks realistic.

Why can't developers make SD games to look as realistic as a TV show? Now, I know that is a big goal. But it seems to me they have not even tried?

[makeitlookreal]

Resistance Fall of Man does not look as good as MGS4, and I believe MGS4 looks better than Killzone.

My main problem with Killzone is that all the characters look like they have diseases. If you see their faces it looks like they are very dirty. Metal Gear Solid 4 showed clear details of Snakes face. In Killzone you don't really see any detail. Yes there is a lot going on, but it is not as impressive graphically as MGS4.

And once again, why can't they work to make a super realistic game for standard Definition TVs?

[digital neXus]

Not everyone owns superb TV's.

[makeitlookreal]

I am talking about Standard Definition TVs. Why have game developers basically given up on making great looking SD games?

The more I ask and the less responses I get the more I feel there is a big conspiracy involved to force people to purchase HD TVs.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Resistance Fall of Man does not look as good as MGS4, and I believe MGS4 looks better than Killzone.

My main problem with Killzone is that all the characters look like they have diseases. If you see their faces it looks like they are very dirty. Metal Gear Solid 4 showed clear details of Snakes face. In Killzone you don't really see any detail. Yes there is a lot going on, but it is not as impressive graphically as MGS4.

And once again, why can't they work to make a super realistic game for standard Definition TVs?

Dirty? Uh, it's a warzone.
The faces are probably in the top 3 things people have the hardest time believing. After seeing mgs4 though I have no doubts though....well the explosion effects are still, "can they do that?" the modeling and animation, the lighting passes me as doable.

[Smokey]

and these games will still look great on a SD tv MILR :)

[ddaryl]

All I can say is that 1st gen PS3 games are on par with 2nd and 3rd gen Xbox 360 games in the graphics department.

Heavenly Sword looks awesome, but I would compare heavenly sword to games in the same genre if we are trying to compare.

The same goes for lost planet and MGS4 etc... Matching genres is the best comparison IMO.

[Gaul]

This is true. We don't have many games to work with though so bare with us

[Grandia]

All I can say is that 1st gen PS3 games are on par with 2nd and 3rd gen Xbox 360 games in the graphics department.

Heavenly Sword looks awesome, but I would compare heavenly sword to games in the same genre if we are trying to compare.

The same goes for lost planet and MGS4 etc... Matching genres is the best comparison IMO.
no they arent. resistance is no where on par with gears. or lost planet. or mass effect. the only real good looking ps3 games is heavenly sword and mgs4. but even those arent on par with the x2's best.

[venomv]

MGS4 is above anything shown for the 360 so far, so is Assassin's Creed even though I'm not sure if that is real-time (and could go to 360). And you must have missed FFXIII, too.

[makeitlookreal]

I am looking forward to seeing what Fight Night Round 3 looks like for the PS3!

[Grandia]

MGS4 is above anything shown for the 360 so far, so is Assassin's Creed even though I'm not sure if that is real-time (and could go to 360). And you must have missed FFXIII, too.
no it isnt. it also could be done on the 360 like kojima said. gears of war is an actual game not a movie. it looks much better than mgs4.

[woundingchaney]

Visually speaking GOW was the best game (as represented by its numerous awards). Its completely unfair to compare gameplay to video (in any state), and FF13 will not be shown with ingame footage until next E3 (as statements made in an interview, I believed they only used "some" ingame assets).


IMO

[Infernal]

Guys just agree to disagree. Clearly you both have different graphical preferences, its a matter of opinion.

[woundingchaney]

Guys just agree to disagree. Clearly you both have different graphical preferences, its a matter of opinion.
Infernal FTW

[Infernal]

Infernal FTW
lol wounding. Well me and you have argued graphics many times, so we know all too well its purely opinion.

[venomv]

no it isnt. it also could be done on the 360 like kojima said. gears of war is an actual game not a movie. it looks much better than mgs4.

Gears of War looks like crap to me, not that it has bad graphics I just hate the art. And just because it can be done on the 360 doesn't mean anything, any of the early PS3 can be done on the 360 and vice versa. The "it's a movie" excuse is really bad, it makes it look better, but it doesn't change the graphics any.

Wounding, part of the FFXIII trailer was realtime, part wasn't, and to me it looks tons better then Gears of War, but that is, like I said earlier, cause I hate the art style.

[yoshaw]

Visually speaking GOW was the best game (as represented by its numerous awards). Its completely unfair to compare gameplay to video (in any state), and FF13 will not be shown with ingame footage until next E3 (as statements made in an interview, I believed they only used "some" ingame assets).


IMO

See the highlighted part is where our disagreement is in full effect ;).

Here's an interesting portion from an FFXIII interview. I believe it would shed some light on the state of graphics in realtime gameplay sequences for FFXIII. Plus you should read the whole thing. Link is at the bottom :)

- While the graphics are definitely superb, isn't there concern about the player controlled gameplay segments?

Toriyama: That will be saved for next year's E3. What you have seen in the video this time is a true representation of what to expect from the gameplay segments as well.

- In the video, only when the command menu first appeared did we realize it was part of the actual gameplay.

Toriyama: It will be playable in that state. It'll be nice if we could show it earlier but... (laughs)

Hashimoto: The scene where the heroine is walking through the forest is really great.

Toriyama: In that scene, because the camera work is rather fast some might not have noticed but you can see insects flying and the leaves swaying as well. That scene is actually a playable part of the game and players will be able to freely stop and appreciate the fine details then.

Hashimoto: I guess when the command menu pops up everyone will realize that. (laughs)

http://forums.e-mpire.com/showpost.php?p=1115821&postcount=277

[woundingchaney]

Here's an interesting portion from an FFXIII interview. I believe you should read the whole thing. Link is at the bottom :)



http://forums.e-mpire.com/showpost.php?p=1115821&postcount=277
I have read it at another site yoshaw. :spiny:

Although I still point to difference in gameplay and intended gameplay. Im not saying the game isnt visually superb but it is still not showing gameplay until next year, and from history what has been stated as true representation often comes up lacking. PR is always on a best case scenario. I dont see the difference in my take on his statements???? Some ingame assets were used.

[woundingchaney]

The "it's a movie" excuse is really bad, it makes it look better, but it doesn't change the graphics any.

.
Many things change from moving from a gameplay standpoint to a predetermined - pre-rendered/cutscene/representative/real time scenario, this is something I personally believe to be true (although many dont align with my thoughts). But when I post on the issue it will always come into play.

But anyways if you dont like Gears of War thats fine.:thumbl:

Sorry I thought you were speaking to me (LOL).

[venomv]

About the only thing I think really helps in a movie is fluidity of the animations (another think I think they need to get on in Gears of War). Gears of War is yet to be released so the animations may look better, though.

[Domination]

My choice for the best graphics of any playable next-gen game

If I were to pick at this very moment, it would be Assassin Creed. Now, if i guess to guess based on what i saw at E3, it would be Lair. :devious: It so reminds me of Dragon Heart.

[Gaul]

I know we've broached the subject before, but my socks are itching to be rocked when they reveal more on Killzone. I have a quick question about that. I've seen people say it is Killzone 2 and I've seen people say 3? Which is it? I own killzone 1, and I can't say I've seen anything released that could be considered Killzone 2, so where are people getting the 3 from?

[Infernal]

Actually Rioter I have no clue, thats why I just call it Killzone or Killzone PS3. :doh:

[Gaul]

Maybe we should just start slapping down a random number. Who here has heard of Killzone1337???

[Grandia]

Gears of War looks like crap to me, not that it has bad graphics I just hate the art. And just because it can be done on the 360 doesn't mean anything, any of the early PS3 can be done on the 360 and vice versa. The "it's a movie" excuse is really bad, it makes it look better, but it doesn't change the graphics any.

Wounding, part of the FFXIII trailer was realtime, part wasn't, and to me it looks tons better then Gears of War, but that is, like I said earlier, cause I hate the art style.
vice versa? im gonna need proof on that. when i see a ps3 game as polished and beautiful as gears then ill believe it. every ps3 game that is on the x2 looks better on the x2. madden and sonic.

[woundingchaney]

vice versa? im gonna need proof on that. when i see a ps3 game as polished and beautiful as gears then ill believe it.
Ease up man, your coming off rather hostile.

I think Gears is a beautiful game as well and consider it to be the best showing from E3, but that is just an opinion. When we see gameplay from many of the PS3 E3 trailer they probably will look better than Gears.

[venomv]

vice versa? im gonna need proof on that. when i see a ps3 game as polished and beautiful as gears then ill believe it. every ps3 game that is on the x2 looks better on the x2. madden and sonic.

Oh come on, these are early games if you think they are stressing the hardware at all you are fooling yourself, not to mention it is widly accepted that the PS3 is more powerful (its simply by how much that is really in dispute), but even if it has not it is obvious that both system are at the very least about equally capable and no one is doing anything right now that they couldn't do on the other system.

There is nothing beautiful about Gaers in my opinion, that is all that is, period. Opinion, if you wanna have guys that look like they are made of plastic, fine, but I would rather them look more like people, at least in that kinda game.

[Applefiend]

Well depends how you define beauty. Beauty to me is buckets of blood flying at the screen, dead bodies hanging off chains "Nice", guns that make cool reloading sounds and chainsaw moments. Help is being sought.

Gears is great, Lost Planet is great, Mass Effect is awesome, Too Human sucks and Oblivion is over rated. :) I can prove all this using a sliderule. :)

I don't think it hurts PS3 to admit other consoles have great games. I think doing the whole "Every other console teh suck" thing just makes people sound extreme and convinces no one.

[wildcardd]

Well depends how you define beauty. Beauty to me is buckets of blood flying at the screen, dead bodies hanging off chains "Nice", guns that make cool reloading sounds and chainsaw moments. Help is being sought.

Gears is great, Lost Planet is great, Mass Effect is awesome, Too Human sucks and Oblivion is over rated. :) I can prove all this using a sliderule. :)

I don't think it hurts PS3 to admit other consoles have great games. I think doing the whole "Every other console teh suck" thing just makes people sound extreme and convinces no one.

Have you played Oblivion Applefiend? While I have a mere 20 something hrs in the game, have you seen an Oblivion Gate? Seen a sunset over the Gold Coast? Looked onto the imperial city from a variety of angles? Seen from a distance and walked through the forest of Aspen trees towards the Blade fortress? Breathtaking. Not to mention all you can do in the game.

[GTShotoKen]

Well depends how you define beauty. Beauty to me is buckets of blood flying at the screen, dead bodies hanging off chains "Nice", guns that make cool reloading sounds and chainsaw moments. Help is being sought.

Gears is great, Lost Planet is great, Mass Effect is awesome, Too Human sucks and Oblivion is over rated. :) I can prove all this using a sliderule. :)

I don't think it hurts PS3 to admit other consoles have great games. I think doing the whole "Every other console teh suck" thing just makes people sound extreme and convinces no one.

You forgot huge explosions and insane destruction, but I forgive you.

Other than that...what you say is so true.

What surprises me about Gears of War though is the shear variety in environments and its insane attention to detail. I would be surprised if epic didn't render the freakin molecules that make up the game's objects and environments.


Besides the beefy character models, the suspense filled atmosphere and incredibly gritty and intense action more than make up for it...and kicks ass to boot.

I wonder if Heavenly Sword will 1up GoW in the ass kicking department upon release (guns aside)? I definitely hope so.

[Applefiend]

I won't go into that again but I have a long list of complaints with Oblivion.

http://live.xbox.com/en-US/profile/profile.aspx?pp=0&GamerTag=BahnNZ << GamerCard

Back onto games I have no complaints with like Graw and Gears of Wars. :)

Yeah I've been noticing stuff in the demo, if there's parallel cover you seem to be able to quickly hop from one cover to the next in one smooth move. It really is like playing frogger with loaded weapons.

They got the music sorted in Gears, and that's the most important thing in a game.

Graphics wise Unreal Tournament 2007 should be the equal of Gears on PS3, but you know, it's just another UT.

What people said is there's 3 Killzones in development. Killzone for PSP, which we've seen, and yeh, is was good. Killzone 2 for PS2, can't say I'm writhing on the floor with delight at the thought of that, and Killzone 3 for PS3. I've no idea if Killzone 2 for PS2 really exists anymore. To be honest I hope it's cancelled/never existed. Everyone going balls out working on KZ PS3.

[woundingchaney]

I won't go into that again but I have a long list of complaints with Oblivion.

http://live.xbox.com/en-US/profile/profile.aspx?pp=0&GamerTag=BahnNZ << GamerCard

Back onto games I have no complaints with like Graw and Gears of Wars. :)

Yeah I've been noticing stuff in the demo, if there's parallel cover you seem to be able to quickly hop from one cover to the next in one smooth move. It really is like playing frogger with loaded weapons.

They got the music sorted in Gears, and that's the most important thing in a game.

Graphics wise Unreal Tournament 2007 should be the equal of Gears on PS3, but you know, it's just another UT.

What people said is there's 3 Killzones in development. Killzone for PSP, which we've seen, and yeh, is was good. Killzone 2 for PS2, can't say I'm writhing on the floor with delight at the thought of that, and Killzone 3 for PS3. I've no idea if Killzone 2 for PS2 really exists anymore. To be honest I hope it's cancelled/never existed. Everyone going balls out working on KZ PS3.


UT 2007 doesnt look as good as Gears. They are 2 completely different games with differenct interfaces and gaming designs. Simply because they use the same engine doesnt mean that they are visually comparable.

[Rubbernek]

Heavenly Sword has better graphics than Gears of War.

Gears of War content may be more impressive to some - who isn't impressed by big men with big guns making big explosions but graphically it's not up to HS level (especially when it comes to lighting) and it's pretty easy to see from looking at the videos side by side.

However, people have different opinions and that's fine. It's all subjective.

As far as E3 awards etc:



Next-Gen's Top 20 Playable Games of E3 - Number 1!!!
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?op...1&limitstart=1

GamePro's Top 20 games - Number 1!!!
http://www.gamepro.com/gamepro/domes...es/55528.shtml

Gamespot's People's Choice Awards
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6149....html?q=awards

IGN E3 Award for Technological Excellence - Winner
http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/709/709245p5.html

IGN E3 Best Artistic Design - Winner
http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/709/709245p3.html

IGN E3 Best Action Game - Runner up
http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/709/709245p1.html

IGN E3 Best Graphics - Runner up
http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/709/709245p4.html

IGN E3 Game of the Show - Runner up
http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/709/709245p6.html

Meristation E3 Best PS3 Game - Winner
http://www.meristation.com/v3/des_articulo.php?pic=PS3&id=cw44662fae04751&idj=&idp=&tipo=art&c=1&pos=1

GameDaily E3 Nod Award
http://www.gamedaily.com/Specials/GameDaily-Nod/?page=5

GameZone - BEST OF SHOW (Overall)
http://www.gamezone.com/e3bestof.php...age=bestofshow

Game Critics Awards - Best Fighting Game Nomination
http://www.gamecriticsawards.com/nom.html

GameSpy Best of E3 2006 - Top 10 Console Game
http://uk.gamespy.com/articles/709/709100p8.html


*The list is not fully up-to-date. I think the nomination for best fighting game is now a "win"...

[Grandia]

Oh come on, these are early games if you think they are stressing the hardware at all you are fooling yourself, not to mention it is widly accepted that the PS3 is more powerful (its simply by how much that is really in dispute), but even if it has not it is obvious that both system are at the very least about equally capable and no one is doing anything right now that they couldn't do on the other system.

There is nothing beautiful about Gaers in my opinion, that is all that is, period. Opinion, if you wanna have guys that look like they are made of plastic, fine, but I would rather them look more like people, at least in that kinda game.
and gears isn't? we've seen it looking almost as great as it is now when it was running on x2 dev kits that werent as powerful as the final system.
its not wildly accepted its cpu is more powerful but its gpu is weaker than the x2s. a developer said so himself. so even if the cpu is more powerful its harder to use and not by much, so really it doesnt matter and comes down to the gpu.

Ease up man, your coming off rather hostile.

I think Gears is a beautiful game as well and consider it to be the best showing from E3, but that is just an opinion. When we see gameplay from many of the PS3 E3 trailer they probably will look better than Gears.
i'm not hostile but ppl are bashing gears when it is easily one of the best if not the best looking console game around. im not alone in that thought either many sites said so.

[Gaul]

Gears looks great graphically, i think its just that because its so dirty and dark (which is how its supposed to be, i know), some people just get the impression that its not that graphically intense. Especially when people can compare it to MGS4 and heavenly sword.

What people said is there's 3 Killzones in development. Killzone for PSP, which we've seen, and yeh, is was good. Killzone 2 for PS2, can't say I'm writhing on the floor with delight at the thought of that, and Killzone 3 for PS3. I've no idea if Killzone 2 for PS2 really exists anymore. To be honest I hope it's cancelled/never existed. Everyone going balls out working on KZ PS3.

I asked about this in a thread earlier.... There is no killzone 2. Nothing is out right now that can be considered killzone2, unless you mean the psp game and i don't think that qualifies. So where are they getting their numbers from?

[venomv]

and gears isn't? we've seen it looking almost as great as it is now when it was running on x2 dev kits that werent as powerful as the final system.
its not wildly accepted its cpu is more powerful but its gpu is weaker than the x2s. a developer said so himself. so even if the cpu is more powerful its harder to use and not by much, so really it doesnt matter and comes down to the gpu.


i'm not hostile but ppl are bashing gears when it is easily one of the best if not the best looking console game around. im not alone in that thought either many sites said so.

No, I was included Gears being an early game, it is, and devolopers have said the RSX is more powerful then the Xenos, also. So do I get to cluelessly say he's right and you're wrong now? And the CELL will be able to help graphics a lot more then the 360's CPU and does physics tons better. It is widely excepted that the PS3 is the most powerful, that doesn't make it right as it hasn't been released yet.

And I'm not bashing it, I just think it's ugly as sin, and there are people that will agree with me, but it is simply opinion.

[makeitlookreal]

Gears of War would look so much better if every now and then we would see a bright, sunny, and more "cheerful" scene or level. I know the game is supposed to be dark and gloomy, but you need a break every now and then. Personally, I think they are using the dark to help hide the fact their characters don't look quite as good as they would like for us to think. It looks very good, but not great.

I have seen a few shots that make the characters look plastic and others that look better. I just hope that they are able to give the graphics another boost.

Perhaps in a few years we will have a PS3 version.

[Nameless]

Gears Of War is one of the most visually impressive consoles games regardless of platform (visuals are very subjective!)... The dark theme is the art direction of the game and has nothing to do with the game engine or 360 and to say otherwise is ridiculous. I think it's somewhat unfair to compare Gears to Heavenly Sword because the games are completely different (hack & slash adventure VS 3rd person shooter) and have distinct art directions.

I would agree Heavenly Sword has more fluid animation and vivid visuals, but both games close the gap with ingame visuals looking closer to CG footage.
I will own both titles and enjoy them both, but a direct comparison seems inappropriate. I would say a comparison between Resistance and Gears would be more in line, because both are war shooters and have gritty visuals... Peace

[Applefiend]

No cheeriness is allowed... This is war....

<*Downloads GOW trailer on his new 360 dashboard*>

Ohhh you beatiful dirty bitch.

I wouldn't compare Resistance and Gears at all, Resistance would come off really badly. Resistance is pretty basic at the moment. A lot of polys, a lot of smoke, a lot of high res, but not much use of shaders of clever lighting or shadows, but it still looks good to me, just not... Gears good. If we're talking smoke the Halo 3 trailer looks better to me. They've really gone smoke crazy in the new Halo I think.

To me Assasin's Creed,FF13 and Heavenly Sword are in the same league as Gears.

I'd hate to pick a winner. Heavenly Sword looks great, escepially once you see the new environments. but....

I'd say best looking next gen game is Assasin's Creed, and by a long way. We need to see so much more of this though. They also have the original gameplay to back it up.

[venomv]

I agree nameless, they obviosly spent so time on Gears of War, and it takes some power to create, I just don't like how it looks. But to say that it can't be done on the PS3 is just ludicris........

@Applefiend Is Assassin's Creed real-time? I have never heard them say anything one way of the other. If it is it blows away everything else in my book.

[Applefiend]

Yup, we need to see more of Assasin's Creed. That video you can download is supposed to be very indicative of the demo that was shown behind closed doors of the game. The actual game was early as hell and glitchy so it wasn't good for the show floor, but just floored people.

And confused them too, as it was supposidly played on a 360 pad...! 360 wired pads are just USB so you can plug them into PS3 dev kits but you know... Odd.

Mass Effect is the same way too, absolutely stunning but mere mortals weren't allowed near it. Damn them, damn them to hell! :)

[Domination]

I know we've broached the subject before, but my socks are itching to be rocked when they reveal more on Killzone. I have a quick question about that. I've seen people say it is Killzone 2 and I've seen people say 3? Which is it? I own killzone 1, and I can't say I've seen anything released that could be considered Killzone 2, so where are people getting the 3 from?

The PS2 had Killzone 1; the PSP has Killzone 2, which is a thrid person version, and the PS3 has Killzone 3. ;)


Oh come on, these are early games if you think they are stressing the hardware at all you are fooling yourself, not to mention it is widly accepted that the PS3 is more powerful (its simply by how much that is really in dispute), but even if it has not it is obvious that both system are at the very least about equally capable and no one is doing anything right now that they couldn't do on the other system.and gears isn't? we've seen it looking almost as great as it is now when it was running on x2 dev kits that werent as powerful as the final system.
its not wildly accepted its cpu is more powerful but its gpu is weaker than the x2s. a developer said so himself. so even if the cpu is more powerful its harder to use and not by much, so really it doesnt matter and comes down to the gpu.


i'm not hostile but ppl are bashing gears when it is easily one of the best if not the best looking console game around. im not alone in that thought either many sites said so.

I have brought this up over a dozen times already.

You are comparing a game using the Unreal Engine technology to games that aren't. Even in early stages can a game like Gear of War be ran on the console since the tools not only allow faster development time, but also allows you to get more out of the hardware without pushing it as hard. For example, if developers were to only use 40% of the console's actual hardware, by using Unreal Engine 3.0, the results may turn up more like 70 or 80%. So what you have are impressive titles long before the hardware is ever maxed out. The biggest problem, though, is if you have another console more powerful and also compatible with the technology, the results can become even greater. In the case of the PS3, it as well is compatible with the technology. But until we see a title using the technology running on the console, a comprison like this is completely useless. Therefore, we can only rely on titles running without the technology.

Just to give my own honest opinion on the game, the results are disappointing to be running on such a console. There is still more to be announced, but if I were to pick any 360 game using the EU3.0, I'd pick Too Human since the results on that seem to be of a greater eye opener for me.

Furthermore, there are impressive titles running on the PS3 right now as well as impressive titles in the making (of course that is my opinion as far as quality :)) IF both sides are seen fairly. What I mean by that is, if we were to run across a still or small video of such and such on a preferred platform, and it looked impressive, people will accept it as actual in-game footage regardless of whether it displays a vitality or power up bar. But on a platform not of preference, it is automatically seen and assumed as touched-up, CGI, or nonrelated to in-game footage, no matter what the circumstances are, until a person is seen holding a controller or maybe even the platform launching on shelves. http://tpl4life.com/images/smilies/peoples.gif

http://tpl4life.com/images/smilies/laugh4vq.gifhttp://tpl4life.com/images/smilies/laugh4vq.gifhttp://tpl4life.com/images/smilies/laugh4vq.gif

Having said that much, I guess it's safe to move on. There was a short demo shown at E3'05 that was said to be an unannounced game in the making where a gas station in the desert was being blow up in realtime. Much late after that, a press meeting was held about a month before E3'06 with a number of titles and demos being shown to developers. One of them happened to be a car in a desert being shot up and sustaining damage in realtime. At E3'06, Sony announced a large number of games in early development - one of them in which we hadn't heard of was Eight Days (http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=10428&type=mov&pl=game), which takes place in a desert. *hint hint* From what I can tell, it's actual game footage since the depletion of ammo can be spotted at the lower right of the screen. For a title to be in its early stages not relying on any third party assistance, it is very impressive and by far some of the best work seen, which makes me really wonder about the others, including those like Lair and not including those that were already confirmed as realtime. But hey, I'm just giving my observation, feel free to disagree. :)

[Sephiroth_VII]

Okay, I personally think that GoW is looking way too plasticy. That actually seems to be the case for most fo the games running on UE3. However, when you look at HS there's nothing plasticy about it. The lightening looks fantastic, textures are amazing and the physics are unbelieveable.

This is my personal preference, and no matter what you say, I'm not gonna change my mind. I think it's the same for the guys who thinks that GoW looks better than HS. Some people might like that dreadfull plastic look, I don't. But that's their opinion, and they're allowed to have it.

Opinions are just opinions, not facts. You can't debate which visual style looks better, same as you can't debate wether red is a pretty colour. It depends on the individual.

[Smokey]

i agree domination eight days is a very impressive looking game :)

[yoshaw]

Games that impressed me a lot graphically(post E3) were the usual suspects.

FFXIII
MGS4
Heavenly Sword
Assassins Creed
Mass Effect
BioShock
Dead Rising
Lost Planet
Gears of War

Buying a 360 at Gears' launch(granted I get a $400 360 and not $800 bloated one down here). That game looks good!

[Gaul]

Bioshock did look pretty cool. It doesn't look like a game id be too excited to play, but graphically....wow

[woundingchaney]

Im really looking forward to

Spore and Crysis for PC

GOW and Mass Effect for 360

HS and Ass. Cr. for PS3

In my opinion in one of those games could of walked away with best of show.

Saddly Im somewhat at a fulcrom with the Wii.


:clown:

[venomv]

Man, Spore looks extremely fun, I think I will be picking that one up, as it doesn't look like it would stress my computers much.

[Gaul]

I still cant find anything on the Spore multiplayer. I mean, ive found info, but no specifics... From what it looks like, you cant actually PLAY with other people... just visit their worlds, made by some other annonymous player... I know technically thats mutliplayer, but if you cant talk to other people, or actually play with them, it begins to seem like singleplayer.

[venomv]

That is all I have heard to, hopefully there will be more.

[Applefiend]

I think since I found out I can use my Wavebird on Wii I'm much happier about it. Nice smooth transision to a machine that's in every way superior to Gamecube, and I'm legally required to buy all Warioware games. Lose absolutely nothing replacing your GC with a Wii, gain everything. Anyway, back on topic.

I'll put in a word for the following games

Wardevil RTE 1080 Engine - About as good as it gets really. Download the 720p movie if you haven't already.

Bioshock - Yum...

[Freeman_JI]

GOW for me, but i've always been a fan of epic

I esp like the DOF in the game so far.

http://xbwproxy.ncode.nl/images/content/40316.jpg

[Gaul]

Ahhh plastic people!

[masteratt]

*gets pissed off at GoW graphics style*

I can't help it :shrug:

[Nameless]

I personally like GOW visuals...
I plan to buy it the day it's released... Peace

[woundingchaney]

I personally like GOW visuals...
I plan to buy it the day it's released... Peace
Me as well.

After all it didnt recieve numerous awards at E3 06 for nothing. (LOL)