Yoboman said:Just imagine what's going to happen with Killzone. Any discrepancy's and suddenly this game looks "mediocer"? Killzone is going to get panned no matter how good it looks
I really agree with you, the difference between those two screens is huge.Maxwell House said:
I must live on a different planet from many people in this thread. These new screenshots look pretty awful compared to what was shown at E3. I can't even fathom why some people are going gaga over these shots.
Look at the difference in his face, the vegetation, the lighting, the shadows, etc. It is like night and day.
Mojovonio said:this may have been answered already, but is there any idication of how this game will play?
TTP said:You have to move the right stick in order to rotate the camera around the main character. Left stick zooms in and out. X to take a picture. O to post in on GAF. Square to make a stupid post about it.
OMG! Real life has been downgraded. The lighting isn't as real as it was before, and why does his skin look so plasticky? :yawnBad_Boy said:uhh.... muzzleflash?
:lol :lol
Mojovonio said:almost funny.
what I meant is that will it be more of an action-oriented game or more of a platformer.
Thanks for posting this, you cleared a lot of things up and made some good pointsPimpwerx said:OMG! Real life has been downgraded. The lighting isn't as real as it was before, and why does his skin look so plasticky? :yawn
Nice attempt at logic, Bad_Boy, but we'll have none of that in this thread.
I posted the same basic thing on B3D. Not a pic, but it's clear that the lighting is different because of the proximity and intensity of the muzzle flash. Like this pic, there is no flash suppressor on the gun, so anything within a few feet is now washed in gold, casting hard shadows that are overpowering those cast by the ambient lighting. There is no repeat of this situation in the trailer. All the lighting in the trailer was ambient, no real point sources (not sure how it was indoors however) that drown out the ambient like that.
The same for the ground. The angle of the camera to the ground determines the clarity of the textures. As you rotate the camera around, you see there are many sharp textures of the quality seen in the trailer. They are, unsuprisingly, facing the camera pretty squarely. The ones at an extreme angle are looking blurrier due to texture filtering. You'd need like 16x AF to resolve some of those properly, but what do I know? They've clearly downgraded...amirite?
The most retarded part of this thread is not the know-nothings that are dropping the signal-to-noise ratio with their ignorant prattle, but the fact that they are doing all of this based on one single frame of animation. You may produce 10-100 individual screens from it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still just one single frame of animation. The lighting, environment, etc... none of that will change in the pics b/c it's just 1/30th or 1/60th of a second from what could be minutes or hours of footage. Yet this one frame in this one location at this one camera level (the camera rotates around just one axis) is enough to deduce that not only have the textures been downgraded (something refutable once you actually rotate the image), but the environments and lighting as well. Might as well conclude that the animation has also been downgraded, there's just no logic in this thread. My last post in it. PEACE.
Chris_C said:This is ridiculous, it's ONE BAD SCREENSHOT. Let's see more before we condemn the game.
It gets boring already. Stop telling (and I mean general audience, not just you) people to not judge the graphics. That's why the screenshots were released, for us to see them and judge whether we like what we se or not, then we go to forum like this one, to voice our opinion.rager said:Why don't you guys wait until the final game is made before you judge?
Geez, the trolling in here is incredible. and no bans. I got banned for "supposedly" posting 2 threads. This is crazy.
AAK said:Seriously. Check out these pictures of Jak 3 Sony released way back:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/919901_20041108_screen010.jpg[/IMG]
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/919901_20041108_screen011.jpg[/IMG]
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/919901_20041108_screen022.jpg[/IMG]
They look like crap here, but in motion Jak 3 put 90% of stuff on Xbox and Gamecube to shame.
Doom_Bringer said:The lead programmer who was responsible for that engine left Naughty Dog long time ago.
Maxwell House said:
I must live on a different planet from many people in this thread. These new screenshots look pretty awful compared to what was shown at E3. I can't even fathom why some people are going gaga over these shots.
Look at the difference in his face, the vegetation, the lighting, the shadows, etc. It is like night and day.
Doom_Bringer said:The lead programmer who was responsible for that engine left Naughty Dog long time ago.
Doom_Bringer said:The lead programmer who was responsible for that engine left Naughty Dog long time ago.
Doom_Bringer said:The lead programmer who was responsible for that engine left Naughty Dog long time ago.
Not really. Maybe I played only the best games on Xbox, but most of them looked better than Jak 3.AAK said:They look like crap here, but in motion Jak 3 put 90% of stuff on Xbox and Gamecube to shame.
szaromir said:Not really. Maybe I played only the best games on Xbox, but most of them looked better than Jak 3.
szaromir said:Not really. Maybe I played only the best games on Xbox, but most of them looked better than Jak 3.
Don't forget about horrible textures and image quality, which basically broke Jak 3's appeal to me. Plus I don't get all this stuff about crummy framerates on Xbox - sure, there were games like Half-Life 2 with horrible framerate, but for example Jak 2 wasn't any better (Jak 3 fortunately was).Doom_Bringer said:Lol
Most xbox games run at a crummy frame rate... Jak 3 - cloth dynamics, the best traffic density in any last gen game, runs at a solid frame rate, has no loading, has excellent particle effects....
Please tell me about a Xbox game that does all that
szaromir said:Don't forget about horrible textures and image quality, which basically broke Jak 3's appeal to me. Plus I don't get all this stuff about crummy framerates on Xbox - sure, there were games like Half-Life 2 with horrible framerate, but for example Jak 2 wasn't any better (Jak 3 fortunately was).
Chrono said:holy ****, would you knock that off this LOL TROLLS DON'T AGREE WITH ME BAN PLZ LOL BS already? some people don't agree with you that this games looks that awesome - shut the **** up and accept it. yeah you wanted a circle jerk to make yourself feel better but it didn't happen, ok? it's a VIDEOGAME. god dammit.
I finished Jak 1&2 and played a couple of hours the third one... They definitely weren't giving Xbox games* run for their money. Which is understable considering difference of console's capabilities.I don't think you know what you are talking about...
szaromir said:Jak 2 had some slow down plus it had horrible screan-tearing. Image quality definitely wasn't good either (and it's the reason why I generally didn't play much on my PS2 - almost all games had very bad IQ) and so weren't textures.
I finished Jak 1&2 and played a couple of hours the third one... They definitely weren't giving Xbox games* run for their money. Which is understable considering difference of console's capabilities.
*at least the ones I played
xaosslug said:if only it was like THAT. :lol Look, in pretty much every next-gen game thread, since the stellar ownage of MotorStorm, many (mods included) have stated next-gen cannot be judged by screenshots... why do you think mods are letting peeps run amok stupid in this thread? The ban-hammer's gonna fall, it's just a matter of when and how many will be taken with it.
szaromir said:Jak 2 had some slow down plus it had horrible screan-tearing. Image quality definitely wasn't good either (and it's the reason why I generally didn't play much on my PS2 - almost all games had very bad IQ) and so weren't textures.
I finished Jak 1&2 and played a couple of hours the third one... They definitely weren't giving Xbox games* run for their money. Which is understable considering difference of console's capabilities.
*at least the ones I played
It's like you read my mind. :lolPimpwerx said:OMG! Real life has been downgraded. The lighting isn't as real as it was before, and why does his skin look so plasticky? :yawn
Nice attempt at logic, Bad_Boy, but we'll have none of that in this thread.
I posted the same basic thing on B3D. Not a pic, but it's clear that the lighting is different because of the proximity and intensity of the muzzle flash. Like this pic, there is no flash suppressor on the gun, so anything within a few feet is now washed in gold, casting hard shadows that are overpowering those cast by the ambient lighting. There is no repeat of this situation in the trailer. All the lighting in the trailer was ambient, no real point sources (not sure how it was indoors however) that drown out the ambient like that.
The same for the ground. The angle of the camera to the ground determines the clarity of the textures. As you rotate the camera around, you see there are many sharp textures of the quality seen in the trailer. They are, unsuprisingly, facing the camera pretty squarely. The ones at an extreme angle are looking blurrier due to texture filtering. You'd need like 16x AF to resolve some of those properly, but what do I know? They've clearly downgraded...amirite?
The most retarded part of this thread is not the know-nothings that are dropping the signal-to-noise ratio with their ignorant prattle, but the fact that they are doing all of this based on one single frame of animation. You may produce 10-100 individual screens from it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still just one single frame of animation. The lighting, environment, etc... none of that will change in the pics b/c it's just 1/30th or 1/60th of a second from what could be minutes or hours of footage. Yet this one frame in this one location at this one camera level (the camera rotates around just one axis) is enough to deduce that not only have the textures been downgraded (something refutable once you actually rotate the image), but the environments and lighting as well. Might as well conclude that the animation has also been downgraded, there's just no logic in this thread. My last post in it. PEACE.
EDIT: I'm not gonna make a new post for this, so just added this shot from the original trailer:
Is that blurry, angular terrain I see? Can we stop cherry-picking against one new screen, please?
Could you explain that real-time lighting thing? Because I didn't notice it. Maybe it was too subtle for me.Doom_Bringer said:Dude the games are completely open and have no loading at all. I mean just sit and watch the traffic density in Jak games NO PC/Xbox/gamecube game has that kind of traffic density. Real time lighting, faked shader effects, dynamic lighting, good physics, completely open. Doesn't take much to appreciate the game's tech. As far I am concerned there is no Xbox game that does all that. Jak engine was awesome
Jak 1 had IQ problems, Jak 2 and 3 didn't. But there was screen tearing
NinSoX said:Some would find it more offensive to have someone like you actually anticipate bans and act like you're not part of the problem.
szaromir said:Could you explain that real-time lighting thing? Because I didn't notice it. Maybe it was too subtle for me.
You should play Conker or Oddworld on Xbox and then you should Jak 3. Sure, maybe they don't have open world, but other than that you'll see every aspect heavily downgraded in Jak 3.
xaosslug said:oh, do go on, please.
Ugh, someone should put a doorstop in this conversation before it derails the thread even further.xaosslug said:oh, do go on, please.
Did you actually play those games?Doom_Bringer said:you seem like a pretty dense fanboy so I am not going to argue with you any longer. Those games don't do half the thing Jak does, all they do is push polygons which is lame...
Real time lighting - Day and night cycles, nothing is pre baked, real time dynamic lighting from weapons etc
szaromir said:Did you actually play those games?
szaromir said:Nothing is pre-baked? Damn, I must plug in my PS2 and play the game, because while there were day/night cycles etc. it looked prebaked too me, just liked day/night cycle in Gothic 1, for example.
So when exactly do you see loading screens in Oddworld? These games had better textures, superior effects, superior lighting and so on. And actually they did have plenty of things going on on screen. But ok, let's stop this discussion, I won't change your mind and you won't mine so it's quite pointless now.Doom_Bringer said:yeah I did and I wouldn't compare those to Jak even though they are the same genre. Lots of loading broken levels, they don't have the sort of freedom that's in Jak. No awesome stream engine, less amount of stuff on screen etc
The game doesn't have a streaming engine. Of courses it uses the xbox HDD and more ram to cut it but still can't beat the streaming engineszaromir said:So when exactly do you see loading screens in Oddworld? .
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/advent...w.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&page=2gamespot said:there are very few loading screens
Shompola said:You said lots of loading broken levels you dolt.
There are only loading screens when you go into interiors, which is several times during the entire games. Other then that it has no loadings - it is actually better than Jak, when you have tto wait wait for a door to open, go into a small room, wait there until the second doors opens and then you have your level loaded.Doom_Bringer said:The game doesn't have a streaming engine. Of courses it uses the xbox HDD and more ram to cut it but still can't beat the streaming engine
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/advent...w.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&page=2
Shompola said:Its streaming engine is better handled than in JAK 3, Get over it.