Support NeoGAF

[Redbeard]

Red Dead Redemption looks good, but it's basically GTA4 re-skinned in the wild west. It's really not that impressive visually from a technical standpoint. From an artistic standpoint it's pretty impressive given the amount of time it must have taken to fully detail though.

And as much as I love Halo Reach, it doesn't belong anywhere in this thread. Graphically, it's a disappointment. The lighting looks incredibly flat and there's nothing particularly impressive about any of the character, environmental, or weapon modeling.

 

[def sim]

Halo Reach is a pretty game, but it's not some technical marvel to behold. It has amazing skyboxes, though.

edit: It is the first Halo game to have human models that don't look like butt. That's something, kinda.

 

[AAK]

See this is the shit I dont understand. The fight was amazing no doubt. But from a technical perspective it wasn't an achievement above all others. Chronos and kratos were obviously highly detailed - but the environment (tartarus) and enemies were sparse, low detailed and repetitive (copy pasted? :lol ). I can see how it appears epic and impressive but in a thread about technical achievements, god of war 3 is an arguable contender but that battle does nothing for it's technical merits.

If you're arguing from a technical point of view, just rewatch the first Making of GOW3 video in the bonuses section. You'll see how Vassily Filippov (Lead Programmers) and Tim Moss (Director of Technology) were struggling to make such a thing possible after everything they've already accomplished with the engine. If you want to nitpick about environments and completely ignore how such a massive structure was continuously shifting around you, then that's your choice.

 

[dimb]

Red Dead Redemption looks good, but it's basically GTA4 re-skinned in the wild west. It's really not that impressive visually from a technical standpoint. From an artistic standpoint it's pretty impressive given the amount of time it must have taken to fully detail though.

RDR is considerably more technically accomplished than GTA4. Resolution and image quality is significantly improved, especially on the 360 version, and the frame rate is much better.

 

[StuBurns]

RDR is considerably more technically accomplished than GTA4. Resolution and image quality is significantly improved, especially on the 360 version, and the frame rate is much better.

No, it is not. Both games are 720p native with 2xAA.

 

[Stripper13]

If you're arguing from a technical point of view, just rewatch the first Making of GOW3 video in the bonuses section. You'll see how Vassily Filippov (Lead Programmers) and Tim Moss (Director of Technology) were struggling to make such a thing possible after everything they've already accomplished with the engine. If you want to nitpick about environments and completely ignore how such a massive structure was continuously shifting around you, then that's your choice.

It's not a matter of nitpicking - or about how difficult it was to accomplish. If anything that helps my position with RDR. RDR manages to pull off incredible graphics with immense scale, LOD, and you can move quickly through it without issue. This is all very consistent, with very few technical issues (none that I noticed?), on aging hardware.

God of War 3 managed to pull off the best IQ and graphical 'beauty' this year, without a doubt (at least on consoles). The issue is, it is a fixed camera, extremely linear game that has proven it can pull off some epic set pieces (First battle on Gaia and the like) but even then, is (arguable) not on the same scale as RDR, and certainly doesn't have to deal with LOD, and streaming (while travelling on horseback) that RDR has to. I appreciate how difficult it would have been to create the Chronos battle, but it doesn't take away from the low detail enemies and environment surrounding the two foes.

I said it before, but I'm not taking anything away from Santa Monica - they pulled off something truly spectacular (even on a technical front) but as far as technical achievements, RDR managed to pull off at least as much detail on a much more immense scale, without issue.

On a side note - for the people nominating GT5... get out. The game can look gorgeous (especially in photomode) but for every 'photorealistic' image, there are 20 'average' shots. The game is not nearly consistent, or impressive often enough to be considered as a technical achievement (even moreso when considering the tearing and framerate issues). The photomode is clearly a product of care and attention to detail that only PD could accomplish, not necessarily something to be appreciated on a technical level.

 

[HankToms]

My vote is GoW3 as well.

Also, I love this pic, and I played the game a while back, but is this a screen cap/direct feed/whatever? It looks too perfect and beautiful.

 

[nib95]

1. God of War 3 - Just a ridiculous amount of detail and scale, with fantastic textures, lighting and MLAA to boot. Poseidon, Chronos and Hades battles in particular were real visual spectacles.

2. Gran Turismo 5 - Irrespective of some of the visual consistencies, at it's highest, nothing comes close to what this game offers technically in the racing world. Nurbergring from blistering rain in pitch black darkness to the cold mist of dawn, to sunny morning rays and a newly dried track all in one race, all with that glorious cockpit view. Nothing quite like it. Breathtaking.

3. Read Dead Redemption - Rich with detail and life, spanning over vast open spaces whilst retailing a level of graphical fidelity most closed games don't even offer. Fantastic art direction, textures and lighting, and a big improvement over GTA4's engine.

 

[derFeef]

Kane & Lynch 2´s unique visual style.
Alan Wake´s fog and ambient effects.
Metro 2033 for it´s overall graphic prowess.

Halo: Reach was also the first Halo game where I was impressed by it's graphics.

 

[AAK]

I said it before, but I'm not taking anything away from Santa Monica - they pulled off something truly spectacular (even on a technical front) but as far as technical achievements, RDR managed to pull off at least as much detail on a much more immense scale, without issue.

I never played RDR so I can't argue about how credible everything you say is, but I find it hard to believe that it is as detailed as GOW3.

And while you argue about the enemies being low detailed and the environments being barren, How detailed are RDR's enemies and environments in comparison?

 

[kittoo]

I never played RDR so I can't argue about how credible everything you say is, but I find it hard to believe that it is as detailed as GOW3.

And while you argue about the enemies being low detailed and the environments being barren, How detailed are RDR's enemies and environments in comparison?

I've played RDR and IMHO, while it has amazing atmosphere in some places, its not really all that great on technical front. It has its ups and downs. On downs it has really bad textures, no AF and AA it seems (on PS3), low-res blurriness (again, on PS3), drops in frame rate etc. On the upside, the water and rain effects were good, physics was decent.

 

[Stripper13]

I never played RDR so I can't argue about how credible everything you say is, but I find it hard to believe that it is as detailed as GOW3.

And while you argue about the enemies being low detailed and the environments being barren, How detailed are RDR's enemies and environments in comparison?

It has at least as much detail when you consider the environment, foliage/trees, animals, carriages, horses and people. From a pure horsepower perspective, it is displaying just as much if not more (at least from what I can gather - I have no specs or any expertise outside of what I can with my own two eyes). As for how RDR's enemies fare? Extremely well. Subject to the level of detail, they never look bad. From a huge distance I imagine they would look very bland or without detail, but from mid-close range (or even long range when you use a sniper scope), they all look great, and certainly no worse than the average NPC in the game. The environments never look bad either, every structure's exterior and interior (the ones you can enter, which is a large number) is detailed and designed (as in, no copy pasta interiors) - and the outdoor environments (as in the landscape) are only rivalled by Just Cause 2 from a technical perspective, though considerably better looking art-wise (in my opinion anyway).

The thing is, GOW3 displays a much better image with more effects, given the lighting, AA etc - but when considering what each engine is accomplishing - I can't see how GOW3 is somehow superior to RDR all elements considered.

 

[nib95]

I never played RDR so I can't argue about how credible everything you say is, but I find it hard to believe that it is as detailed as GOW3.

And while you argue about the enemies being low detailed and the environments being barren, How detailed are RDR's enemies and environments in comparison?

Without getting in to any weird little internet debate, RDR is still no where near as detailed as GOW3. Nor does the lighting or AA model come close. Don't get me wrong, I put RDR as my number 3 above (played the 360 version), but it's still imo not in the same league as GOW3, which borders on almost CGI levels of quality at times, whether it's closed environment or mass expansive open scale.

Tbh, I'm also more impressed with GOW3's dynamic large scale environmental gameplay shifting than I am with RDR's out right scale. With RDR, the main design challenge I'd assume would be with the monotony or re-creating vast spans of similar environment and picking the right LOD system to make best use of it. With GOW3, it's not just the LOD, but the thinking behind knowing you're going to have to immediately stream whatever segment of an ever moving and shifting hugely detailed and absolutely massive character/object, the titans finger, arm, neck etc all in one sequence. I mean, it's a gargantuan design task and my head implodes just at the idea of having to sit down and plan out one of those massive battles (Poseidon or Chronos). I don't think anyone else in the industry has achieved something of the same quality? Not even Uncharted 2's big cinematic dynamically shifting sequences (train sequence, collapsing building etc) rivaled what GOW3 offered in scale and dynamism.

 

[Stripper13]

I've played RDR and IMHO, while it has amazing atmosphere in some places, its not really all that great on technical front. It has its ups and downs. On downs it has really bad textures, no AF and AA it seems (on PS3), low-res blurriness (again, on PS3), drops in frame rate etc. On the upside, the water and rain effects were good, physics was decent.

Objectively incorrect. There is no IMHO about it. We can argue about what accomplishes more, GOW3, Metro 2033, RDR etc - and what each accomplishes, pros and cons wise - and none of us would be wrong until someone offered indepth specs or something similar. But to say RDR is not all that great from a technical perspective is 100% incorrect. For every issue (and I experienced very few, if any while playing it on the 360), there are many more things it is doing that nothing else (on consoles) is doing nearly as well.

 

[Stripper13]

Without getting in to any weird little internet debate, RDR is still no where near as detailed as GOW3. Nor does the lighting or AA model come close. Don't get me wrong, I put RDR as my number 3 above (played the 360 version), but it's still imo not in the same league as GOW3, which borders on almost CGI levels of quality at times, whether it's closed environment or mass expansive open scale.

Tbh, I'm also more impressed with GOW3's dynamic large scale environmental gameplay shifting than I am with RDR's out right scale. With RDR, the main design challenge I'd assume would be with the monotony or re-creating vast spans of similar environment and picking the right LOD system to make best use of it. With GOW3, it's not just the LOD, but the thinking behind knowing you're going to have to immediately stream whatever segment of an ever moving and shifting hugely detailed and absolutely massive character/object, the titans finger, arm, neck etc all in one sequence. I mean, it's a gargantuan design task and my head implodes just at the idea of having to sit down and plan out one of those massive battles (Poseidon or Chronos). I don't think anyone else in the industry has achieved something of the same quality? Not even Uncharted 2's big cinematic dynamically shifting sequences (train sequence, collapsing building etc) rivaled what GOW3 offered in scale and dynamism.

Of course it is impressive (GOW3 that is). From a design point of view, it borders on unrivalled... but from a technical perspective, even with all of it's accomplishments and excellence, I can't see how it is doing more (from a pure rendering/graphics standpoint) than RDR? Again, if you are arguing what 'looks' better, I'll give it to GOW3 everytime - but the thread is about technical achievements. I have played both games (RDR to death, GOW3 just in the last few days) and RDR is simply more awe-inspiring from a purely technical point of view. If you want to talk about what is more epic, or designed 'bigger' etc it is GOW3 without a doubt, but it's not what the thread is really asking... at least not from what I understand.

 

[kittoo]

Objectively incorrect. There is no IMHO about it. We can argue about what accomplishes more, GOW3, Metro 2033, RDR etc - and what each accomplishes, pros and cons wise - and none of us would be wrong until someone offered indepth specs or something similar. But to say RDR is not all that great from a technical perspective is 100% incorrect. For every issue (and I experienced very few, if any while playing it on the 360), there are many more things it is doing that nothing else (on consoles) is doing nearly as well.

Alright, let me phrase it differently. I personally didnt think it looked great and didnt feel that I was seeing anything all that special on technical front. That might also be so cause I am almost exclusively a PC player and RDR was my first console game (I only have PS3 and not 360 so dont know how it was on that, though I do know that it had better resolution and AA on that).

 

[nib95]

Of course it is impressive (GOW3 that is). From a design point of view, it borders on unrivalled... but from a technical perspective, even with all of it's accomplishments and excellence, I can't see how it is doing more (from a pure rendering/graphics standpoint) than RDR? Again, if you are arguing what 'looks' better, I'll give it to GOW3 everytime - but the thread is about technical achievements. I have played both games (RDR to death, GOW3 just in the last few days) and RDR is simply more awe-inspiring from a purely technical point of view. If you want to talk about what is more epic, or designed 'bigger' etc it is GOW3 without a doubt, but it's not what the thread is really asking... at least not from what I understand.

But why is RDR's scale technically impressive and not GOW3's? Just because it doesn't have as much environment repetition does not mean it isn't more technically impressive. The way I look at it is that GOW3 has to consider most of the challenges RDR does and the one's it doesn't (as much open scale), it has to in other areas. Such as vertical scale, more dynamic environments, a more complex lighting and shadowing system, better textures, geometry, character modelling and MLAA.

I mean, this time next year we'll probably have another open scale sandbox game that is better looking than RDR, RDR seemed a naturally progressive upgrade of the GTA4 engine (which in itself has now imo been graphically ousted by Mafia II's). But I doubt we're going to see anything like what GOW3 has offered till GOW4. Others will and have tried, but they're still not offering any where near the kind of graphical and technical fidelity GOW3 is.

I mean, I'm willing to guess that GOW3 is making far more and better use of the PS3's hardware than RDR is. Be in in Blu-ray streaming, SPU usage and so forth. Bear in mind, I only played the 360 version of the game which I do hear is marginally better.

 

[Stillmatic]

God of War 3.

 

[gofreak]

GoW III for me too. Some moments in that game felt like I was playing a prerendered movie (and no, I don't mean the cutscenes ).

 

[CrushDance]

God of War 3.

 

[bj00rn_]

Easily Red Dead Redemption. It's in an class of its own.

 

[brain_stew]

Just Add Water:

For managing to get a barebones Xbox port to perform worse than Crysis! :lol

 

[Gomu Gomu]

GT5 photo mode is the biggest technical achievement this gen imo. The way pictures are rendered is pure magic. Most realistic graphics I've seen generated by a gaming platform. Too bad it's not real time, so it doesn't count. That's why I have to agree with God of War III. I've said "HOLY SHIT" so many times playing it.

Honorable mention goes to Castlevania: LoS for making the most beautiful atmosphere I've seen in a long time. True the frame rate is shit and the camera is fixed, but the world just lives through the screen.
Other beautiful games:

- Super Mario Galaxy 2
- Read Dead Redemption
- Mass Effect 2


Man this year was awesome .

 

[CrushDance]

GT5 got moments when it's able to top GoW3, but GoW3 is a much more directed effort and therefor able to maintain a very constant level of awesome. GoW3 it is.

Please name them.

 

[roxya]

God of War 3 for me. I don't think Metro 2033 is a great achievement when you compare the hardware requirements.

 

[Finalow]

God Of War III.

:lol

 

[StuBurns]

Just Add Water:

For managing to get a barebones Xbox port to perform worse than Crysis! :lol

It's concerning for the PS3 SKU. I never played the Xbox version, and GAF tells me it's an underrated modern classic so I've been pretty excited to play it.

 

[szaromir]

It's concerning for the PS3 SKU. I never played the Xbox version, and GAF tells me it's an underrated modern classic so I've been pretty excited to play it.

It's not underrated when everyone who played the game rates it high.

As for the best graphics achievement, Metro 2033 on PC.

 

[StuBurns]

It's not underrated when everyone who played the game rates it high.

A fair point indeed. An 88 on metacritic is not so impressive though.

 

[szaromir]

lol metacritic lol

 

[StuBurns]

lol metacritic lol

An evener fairer point.

If the port is okay, I'll be able to tell GAF if they're right or not myself.

 

[UrbanRats]

Just Cause 2 (PC) and RDR(consoles).

for the balance between scale & detail.

Also, regarding JC2: the game is even better optimized, if you think that with the Superman flying mod (which i have) with all at max (minus AA but you don't really need it at high res) at 1200p, i can fly from one corner of the map, to the other in SECONDS, without a visible drop in the frame rate, while, at the same time, with the huges explosions mod(which i have)i'm shooting from my missle launcher at random shit, which causes amazing explosions all around.

Regarding RDR, aside from the stunning graphics(especially Mexico) and scale, i've loved the implementation of interesting stuff, for once: advanced physics, cool AI and so on, instead of focusing on just the character butt's skin texture.

 

[Stripper13]

But why is RDR's scale technically impressive and not GOW3's? Just because it doesn't have as much environment repetition does not mean it isn't more technically impressive. The way I look at it is that GOW3 has to consider most of the challenges RDR does and the one's it doesn't (as much open scale), it has to in other areas. Such as vertical scale, more dynamic environments, a more complex lighting and shadowing system, better textures, geometry, character modelling and MLAA.

I mean, this time next year we'll probably have another open scale sandbox game that is better looking than RDR, RDR seemed a naturally progressive upgrade of the GTA4 engine (which in itself has now imo been graphically ousted by Mafia II's). But I doubt we're going to see anything like what GOW3 has offered till GOW4. Others will and have tried, but they're still not offering any where near the kind of graphical and technical fidelity GOW3 is.

I mean, I'm willing to guess that GOW3 is making far more and better use of the PS3's hardware than RDR is. Be in in Blu-ray streaming, SPU usage and so forth. Bear in mind, I only played the 360 version of the game which I do hear is marginally better.

It's more impressive from a technical standpoint, because it is putting out superb image quality (not as good as GOW3, but still great), has a much bigger scale, a state of the art LOD system, flawless draw distance/streaming while travelling, has much 'more' to do in terms of creating and displaying the world, and to top it all off it has the one of the best physics system (if not the best) working behind the scenes.

Again, there's no doubt that GOW3 can output a better picture, but in terms of what each of the games is creating, running and displaying - RDR has, from a technical perspective, achieved more (albeit slightly). At least that's how I see it. Apart from the lighting/AA/IQ of GOW3, there was very little that I could see that was any sort of achievement, it was more of the same 'epic' set pieces we've seen over the years (previous GOW's, Castlevania LOS even), just a hell of a lot prettier.

 

[zlatko]

God of War 3.

 

[spats]

gt5

 

[SmokyDave]

For me, GoW3, closely followed by GT5 on a good day. Nothing else has impressed me as much as those two games. Honourable mention goes to Just 'Howfuckingbigisthisgame?' Cause 2.

People are still saying God of War III after the Video Game Graphics Cognitive Dissonance Thread?

Yes, they are. They'll continue to do so because the game is absofuckinglutely jaw-dropping.

I'm sure you have a handful of better looking titles but I'm also sure only a (comparative) handful will have played them. Given that, it shouldn't be too surprising to see lots of GoW3 in here.

 

[Yoshichan]

God of War III

 

[ChryZ]

Please name them.

Mostly random moments when everything is coming together: sunset on the Nordschleife, alaskan snow rally event (blinding sunlight bouncing off the snow, light scattering by atmospheric haze, etc), tuscany tarmac rally at dusk then night (starry sky, fireworks, head lights blooming up street signs, etc) ... all garnished with stunning premium cars.

 

[nib95]

It's more impressive from a technical standpoint, because it is putting out superb image quality (not as good as GOW3, but still great), has a much bigger scale, a state of the art LOD system, flawless draw distance/streaming while travelling, has much 'more' to do in terms of creating and displaying the world, and to top it all off it has the one of the best physics system (if not the best) working behind the scenes.

Again, there's no doubt that GOW3 can output a better picture, but in terms of what each of the games is creating, running and displaying - RDR has, from a technical perspective, achieved more (albeit slightly). At least that's how I see it. Apart from the lighting/AA/IQ of GOW3, there was very little that I could see that was any sort of achievement, it was more of the same 'epic' set pieces we've seen over the years (previous GOW's, Castlevania LOS even), just a hell of a lot prettier.

Ok, I don't want to downplay RDR's merits because I think it is extremely technically accomplished, but I think just having "bigger scale" (which is a debatable term here) is definitely not enough to make up for the fact that it is less technically impressive in pretty much all other areas when compared to GOW3 (maybe even scale as well depending on how you classify the term). Even the quality of the LOD and streaming system is likely less technically adept in comparison to GOW3's which is not very forgiving and demands a lot more from any given scene, whereas RDR's is extremely forgiving (when a lot is on screen it tends to just blur, focus out, or use 2D versions of backdrops). In RDR the fastest you're really going to travel is by horse (using the War Horse myself), in GOW3, you can literally get flung a half a mile to a mile or more in a matter of a few seconds, and never even see a drop in LOD quality or even notice there is one in place.

Despite the open (albeit slightly sparse) scale of RDR, I'm willing to guess that GOW3 at it's highest points has more on screen at any one time too, on top of pushing hardware a lot further than RDR. Scale doesn't really mean much depending on other factors. You could technically just have tonnes of scale with lesser quality textures, shadows, lighting etc. Which is basically the case here (in comparison to GOW3, compared to most games RDR is more accomplished.). And with respect to scale, it's easy to forget that GOW3 also has gigantic open areas and has you fighting against mile high giant Titans. Again, in dynamic ways. Just because it's not a sandbox game does not mean it doesn't have as much scale at any given time.

Again, I'm not downplaying RDR. It was my no 3 choice for most technically impressive for 2010.

 

[PaperBoy_JJ]

I usually just view and don’t provide input, but in one of these images you can reach the mountains in the background stumbling upon all kinds of crazy things on the way. The other you can only press a single button to advance the action if memory servers me. I do not see how this is the same as far a scale goes. Even when in battle you are very limited in where you can go. I’m just damn glad to be a gamer right now. RDR followed by GOW3 for me.

 

[Metalmurphy]

I usually just view and don’t provide input, but in one of these images you can reach the mountains in the background stumbling upon all kinds of crazy things on the way. The other you can only press a single button to advance the action if memory servers me. I do not see how this is the same as far a scale goes. Even when in battle you are very limited in where you can go. I’m just damn glad to be a gamer right now. RDR followed by GOW3 for me.

That's not the whole story... You actually fight your way across his arm like it was an actual level. Same for Gaia.

 

[StuBurns]

I found the whole moving levels thing incredibly shallow, it makes the level design appear more contrived than ever. I remembered all the big talk about how levels were going to change it's center of gravity completely in real-time, things like that. They made a trailer that showed how this would happen too, all essentially bullshit. It happens at very defined times, only at the start and you can't fall or anything.

 

[Manus]

No mention of Castlevania Lords of Shadow? The game is gorgeous. I just wish the character models weren't so stiff.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Ok, I don't want to downplay RDR's merits because I think it is extremely technically accomplished, but I think just having "bigger scale" (which is a debatable term here) is definitely not enough to make up for the fact that it is less technically impressive in pretty much all other areas when compared to GOW3 (maybe even scale as well depending on how you classify the term). Even the quality of the LOD and streaming system is likely less technically adept in comparison to GOW3's which is not very forgiving and demands a lot more from any given scene, whereas RDR's is extremely forgiving (when a lot is on screen it tends to just blur, focus out, or use 2D versions of backdrops). In RDR the fastest you're really going to travel is by horse (using the War Horse myself), in GOW3, you can literally get flung a half a mile to a mile or more in a matter of a few seconds, and never even see a drop in LOD quality or even notice there is one in place.

Despite the open (albeit slightly sparse) scale of RDR, I'm willing to guess that GOW3 at it's highest points has more on screen at any one time too, on top of pushing hardware a lot further than RDR. Scale doesn't really mean much depending on other factors. You could technically just have tonnes of scale with lesser quality textures, shadows, lighting etc. Which is basically the case here (in comparison to GOW3, compared to most games RDR is more accomplished.). And with respect to scale, it's easy to forget that GOW3 also has gigantic open areas and has you fighting against mile high giant Titans. Again, in dynamic ways. Just because it's not a sandbox game does not mean it doesn't have as much scale at any given time.

[IM G]http://img.hexus.net/v2/gaming/screenshots_ps3/reddead/reddead1_large.jpg[/IMG]

[IM G]http://gradly.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/20100328_2.jpg[/IMG]

Again, I'm not downplaying RDR. It was my no 3 choice for most technically impressive for 2010.

If the camera wasn't fixed in GoW3 you'd have more of a point, but what is being rendered at any given moment is pretty tightly controlled. That's what enables the GoW games to look so good.

 

[plagiarize]

as ever more expansive games, or games with more going on at once get overlooked in favour of games with a much tighter focus. not that God of War 3 and Metro 2033 don't look amazingly good, and not that they aren't achievements, but you can't just compare screenshots between them and titles pushing open environments, or games going mad with a lighting and particle effects (like Vanquish or Halo Reach).

i don't really feel i can weigh on what does and doesn't deserve the nod, but games with real time lighting systems, with dynamic weather and day night transitions, and massive open worlds definately deserve recognition for those effects.

also, GT5 deserves to be up here. this is a thread about technically impressive games, and whatever archaic assets GT5 may have left on the disc, it's irrelevant. throw a bunch of premium models on one of the better looking tracks with some weather or headlights going on... you can't take away it's technical achievement just because only a fraction of the cars demonstrate it.

that fraction prove its achievement, on a technical level.

 

[StuBurns]

as ever more expansive games, or games with more going on at once get overlooked in favour of games with a much tighter focus. not that God of War 3 and Metro 2033 don't look amazingly good, and not that they aren't achievements, but you can't just compare screenshots between them and titles pushing open environments, or games going mad with a lighting and particle effects (like Vanquish or Halo Reach).

Your eyes are broken.

 

[KAL2006]

God of War 3
Red Dead Redemption
Just Cause 2
Metro 2066
Castlevania LoD
Vanquish
Final Fantasy XIII
Gran Turismo 5

 

[plagiarize]

Your eyes are broken.

you're alluding things i'm not.

i haven't played ANY of those games at length, but i also haven't seen segments of GOW3 pushing as many particle effects as Vanquish throws about with physics, and i haven't seen segments of it that have as many light sources as Reach plays with in expansive areas.

GOW3 is an impressive game that deserves discussion here. i'm just saying let's not rule out games that attempt things that GOW3 *doesn't* because GOW3 is better at some of the things they both do.

again, i'm making no claims as to which game is better technically, because i haven't played any of those games long enough to make that kind of judgement. i have seen enough of them to know they are all impressive achievements.

 

[Hojaho]

If the camera wasn't fixed in GoW3 you'd have more of a point, but what is being rendered at any given moment is pretty tightly controlled. That's what enables the GoW games to look so good.

Well, check this from Christer Ericson, Director of Technology of Sony Santa Monica :

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1396612&postcount=17

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1397979&postcount=29

 

[charsace]

No Alan Wake mentions. It has an open world engine that renders huge environments and has great pp effects.