• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Best graphics this gen: Prince of Persia?

CrushDance said:
Personally I think Halo 3 is the best looking game released thus far on consoles. I saw it at a friends house in multiplayer and it looks amazing in motion, especially the lighting. The bright and vibrant colours also helped with the overall presentation. Then you've got the features such as Forge, split screen, co-op, video uploads, nice matchmaking etc and I don't think any game comes close, on consoles or on PC. Crysis may look good, but it doesn't compare to all the things that Halo 3 pushes in one package. If I didn't already have a PS3 I'd invest in a 360 as well just for that game.

Every time a Halo game comes out it's a big deal around the world and for a good reason. All Crysis has going for it is high res textures with cutting edge graphics cards. Halo delivers a package that I haven't seen any FPS even get close to yet.

I'd give it to Halo. No contest.
Click to expand...


:lol :lol
 
CrushDance said:
Personally I think Halo 3 is the best looking game released thus far on consoles. I saw it at a friends house in multiplayer and it looks amazing in motion, especially the lighting. The bright and vibrant colours also helped with the overall presentation. Then you've got the features such as Forge, split screen, co-op, video uploads, nice matchmaking etc and I don't think any game comes close, on consoles or on PC. Crysis may look good, but it doesn't compare to all the things that Halo 3 pushes in one package. If I didn't already have a PS3 I'd invest in a 360 as well just for that game.

Every time a Halo game comes out it's a big deal around the world and for a good reason. All Crysis has going for it is high res textures with cutting edge graphics cards. Halo delivers a package that I haven't seen any FPS even get close to yet.

I'd give it to Halo. No contest.
Click to expand...

..What? I hate pulling the "jokepost?" card but seriously...is this a joke post?

EDIT: Okay, based on your follow-up it obviously is. It's scary that I can't even tell anymore.
 
CrushDance said:
Personally I think Halo 3 is the best looking game released thus far on consoles. I saw it at a friends house in multiplayer and it looks amazing in motion, especially the lighting. The bright and vibrant colours also helped with the overall presentation. Then you've got the features such as Forge, split screen, co-op, video uploads, nice matchmaking etc and I don't think any game comes close, on consoles or on PC. Crysis may look good, but it doesn't compare to all the things that Halo 3 pushes in one package. If I didn't already have a PS3 I'd invest in a 360 as well just for that game.

Every time a Halo game comes out it's a big deal around the world and for a good reason. All Crysis has going for it is high res textures with cutting edge graphics cards. Halo delivers a package that I haven't seen any FPS even get close to yet.

I'd give it to Halo. No contest.
Click to expand...
2j4yph1.jpg
 
Okay, so Killzone 2 and Crysis are the "best" right? Alright. So tell me, do any of those two have the feature set that the Halo 3 engine has? If you guys want to talk about technology, you can't disregard Halo in the discussion. It just goes to show how those two games are focused much more on graphics and lose out on some great features that are very impressive for a console game. I'm not saying those other two games are worst or anything, but the crux of this discussion seems to be the tech side of things. And it delivers totally in that regard.
 
CrushDance said:
Okay, so Killzone 2 and Crysis are the "best" right? Alright. So tell me, do any of those two have the feature set that the Halo 3 engine has? If you guys want to talk about technology, you can't disregard Halo in the discussion. It just goes to show how those two games are focused much more on graphics and lose out on some great features that are very impressive for a console game.
Click to expand...

You do understand what this thread is all about, right?
 
CrushDance said:
Okay, so Killzone 2 and Crysis are the "best" right? Alright. So tell me, do any of those two have the feature set that the Halo 3 engine has? If you guys want to talk about technology, you can't disregard Halo in the discussion. It just goes to show how those two games are focused much more on graphics and lose out on some great features that are very impressive for a console game. I'm not saying those other two games are worst or anything, but the crux of this discussion seems to be the tech side of things. And it delivers totally in that regard.
Click to expand...

Best graphics this gen: Prince of Persia?

Hmm...
 
Personally, I think Rock Band, Viva Pinata and Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm are the best looking games because it all mesh together with the art. Nothing looks out of place, you believe that this world is true and wouldn't say "oh this doesn't look real or it shouldn't look that way". That how good the art and " graphics" are.
But all the games here that were noted are good either way.

Rock Band also has the best fashion out there. I so want those boots
 
CrushDance said:
Okay, so Killzone 2 and Crysis are the "best" right? Alright. So tell me, do any of those two have the feature set that the Halo 3 engine has? If you guys want to talk about technology, you can't disregard Halo in the discussion. It just goes to show how those two games are focused much more on graphics and lose out on some great features that are very impressive for a console game. I'm not saying those other two games are worst or anything, but the crux of this discussion seems to be the tech side of things. And it delivers totally in that regard.
Click to expand...

How somebody can understand how to use crux correctly in a sentence but can't distinguish between worse and worst, baffles me.

It's about graphics dude, and only graphics. Not leaderboards and matchmaking. Crysis, Killzone etc
 
fizzelopeguss said:
Before you go, who's the lady in your avatar?
Click to expand...
34j3pzp.jpg

Dizzan said:
How somebody can understand how to use crux correctly in a sentence but can't distinguish between worse and worst, baffles me.

It's about graphics dude, and only graphics. Not leaderboards and matchmaking. Crysis, Killzone etc
Click to expand...

lighting?

Edit: NVM. It's all good, I'm done! Misunderstanding.
 
CrushDance said:
Whatever. I believe the game looks good and still holds its own on all fronts, I'm not losing sleep over this discussion.
Click to expand...

Dude, you're not even part of the discussion. I'm all for a discussion about feature sets (which KZ2, with its 32 player limit, deep clan support, multi-objective class based MP is all set for), but it really does not fit in here.

As for Crysis being nothing but high res textures, maybe you should play the game before offering your opinion on it. There is more gameplay variation in a single Crysis level than most other shooters can provide in a whole game.
 
Zophar said:
Fact: Crysis has no lighting.
Click to expand...

CrushDance was actually right. The reason the screenshots look so good is because of the high resolution textures! It's all an illusion. There is nothing else the game is doing under the hood.

FYI I just had to point out that this person compared Halo 3's forge editor/video uploads/etc to a PC game. One that comes with a vastly more robust sandbox editor, mod support, and all varieties of PC community clients and video/image capture software. This topic never ceases to astound me.
 
To be fair, Bungie made a little editor that was accessible and easy to use for a lot of console gamers. It's obviously not a full editor, but then it's also not a PC game.

On the other hand, I have played console games with deeper editors, so hey.
 
AltogetherAndrews said:
To be fair, Bungie made a little editor that was accessible and easy to use for a lot of console gamers. It's obviously not a full editor, but then it's also not a PC game.

On the other hand, I have played console games with deeper editors, so hey.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not saying Forge was bad or anything. It was pretty fun messing around with friends. But the comparisons to what PC gamers have been doing for ages now is more than a little silly.
 
Spoit said:
But really, there need to be more carrier and mines interior shots. Their lighting engine is really the best part of CE2.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd say those 2 areas are where Crysis comes close to photorealism.
 
Has the absurdity level in this thread finally risen to the point that I can assert that the one, real, true heir apparent to the crown that is gaming's best graphics of this generation, or any other, is Crackdown? That the concessions made in the simplified geometry and relative lack of a variety of textures actually enhances the experience and allows for a deeper, more enjoyable experience?

No? Not yet? Not ever?

Well okay then...

:D
 
CrushDance said:
I've seen it and own it, it looks great presentation wise. But ends up feeling cluttered, Halo just keeps going and has a much cleaner look to it(Which I prefer).
Click to expand...


Halo 3 has a clean look to it now? WAT? What kind of anti-aliasing goggles are you wearing?

Or are you trying to say Killzone 2 is cluttered because there are too many objects on the screen? Either way, you lose.
 
I think that is definitely the wrong argument to make for HALO 3 :lol .

If anything, HALO 3 doesn't look anywhere near as sharp as Killzone 2 because of the amount enemies and objects on screen at any one time, add to that the scope of the environments and you have something very impressive.
 
Games with such stylized graphics are a hit and miss thing and their technical impressiveness is hard to judge when compared with games that target photorealism. I will not bother with picking one over the other. Instead, I'll state that Crysis is hands down the technically most impressive and most photorealistic game ever released on a gaming machine, and Mirror's Edge is the best looking stylized game I've played this generation. I'd also say that I can give a nod to Prince as well and it's a great looking game.

This doesn't mean they do everything best though. There are things where Killzone 2 or even Gears 2 do better than Crysis, and Prince does look more beautiful than Mirror's Edge in areas. But from a (relatively) objective point of view, both Crysis and Mirror's Edge do more technically impressive things than all these games. Saying otherwise would be a funny denial in my opinion.
 
Mastperf said:
Its funny how we're supposed to nitpick in favor of Killzone to when comparing it to other games, but are expected to concede undeniable victory to Killzone when compared to all other console games.
We know very little about the per-frame load of other games but are more than willing to give KZ the crown. I'm willing to bet that there are games that push more polys and have a higher shader load than KZ. There's probably quite a few games with technically superior elements to KZ2 but those are ignored because they don't fit the agenda.

KZ2 is not the undisputed king of graphics, console or PC. Some people (dare I say) think the burned out wasteland art style is ugly, just as other think the organic environments in Crysis are stale and lifeless..Best graphics is completely subjective and cannot be argued. Saying a game has the best graphics because it has a checklist of spiffy buzzwords is like saying 1 game is better than another because it sold more.
Click to expand...
We call these people "fanboys who haven't played Crysis and think that realism is the only style ever attempted or pulled off in the game".
 
The fact that Halo 3 is in here, fuck. The game doesn't even have good art direction going for it. My personal vote goes to Resident Evil 5. There might be better looking games from this gen, I just haven't played them. GoW2 was pretty impressive as well.
 
I love how people honestly think Killzone 2 comes even close to the visual beauty of Crysis :lol
I'm in the possession of all the consoles this generation and a powerfull PC. I'm also in the possession of the best looking games this generation. Gears of War 2, PoP (PC), Killzone 2, Resident Evil 5, Dead Space (PC) and Crysis (Warhead).
I'm playing all these games on exactly the same HDTV (even Crysis).
First off, Resident Evil 5 looks better than Gears 2 does in my opinion. About the same color palette, but just better textures, better lighting etc (I do prefer the Gears 2 artstyle (destroyed beauty etc, not the character design)).
Killzone 2 looks amazing, but the textures are quite weak most of the time and well, there's hardly any game with less color in it. I know it fits the artstyle, but it's only appealing in some levels (like the industrial level with those canons that shoot electricity)., not all.
Then comes Dead Space. I know it's the PC version, but it doesn't take a lot of PC power to play it with maximum settings and my God it looks amazing. Textures were amazing, especially when comparing to almost every console game out there. It is however hard to say whether it looks better than RE5/Killzone 2, since there isn't a lot of variation in environments. It's now an actual complaint, since it fits the game perfectly. But it's hard to compare an amazing view of space in a spacestation, with a view of landscape (which has to be a lot more detailed).

Then comes Crysis. I'm running Crysis on max settings (no custom tweaks, I sport the natural look). And I can assure you, nothing, nothing even touches Crysis. Not only does Crysis have it all (destructive environments with amazing physics, the best looking textures and the best looking lighting effects, best looking... well "everything" effects), but it's also able to show the most appealing side of realistic graphics. People who say Crysis looks bland are the ones who don't own the game (and are playing it on max settings). Cause once you've played Crysis, you will be able to apreciate the visuals of console games, but there will always be something wrong with them, always something to complain about. I understand some people who play only on console games believe that their RE5/KZ2 is the best looking game they've played, but it sure as hell isn't the best looking game there is.

Another fine example. My boss at work recently bought himself a PS3. His younger sister has an Xbox 360 with Gears 2 and he was amazed by the visuals. So he asked me for something similar, visualy on PS3. So I said to him he should try Killzone 2, best looking PS3 game atm. After the weekend he came to me and told me he had already finished the game and said "Well too bad it's so damn short. And yeah it looks nice, but in the beginning I was even checking if my new TV wasn't broke, there's no color in the game? Even less than Gears 2."
 
Halo 3 looks good, in my opinion. Still, it has that look of the old Quake-engine games where objects in the game world were designed with the geometry builder in the level editor, as opposed to being real 3d-models. Hard to explain, but that's the vibe I get.
 
Hard to imagine, but even the mighty Halo 3 might get toppled when this comes out: FNR4!

Seriously, this could take the console crown... how insane does that look? No clipping, all physics? Like the Crysis of boxing!
 
I was going to plant Resident Evil 5, Killzone 2, Crysis and Gears of War 2 here, but then I remembered the fuckawful tearing in RE5, so I'm gonna drop that one.

Best graphics this gen: Killzone 2, Crysis, Gears 2, each in their own way. KZ2 has best art, Crysis has near realistic gfx, Gears 2 strikes a nice balance between the two.
 
Technically, that is the retail game. They just changed settings in the config. No tech was added to make it look that way.
 
Best graphics??? Well, I never played Crysis, but these are mine.


Killzone 2



Uncharted.............


Resident Evil 5







Resistance 2...Gears of War 2
 
FTWer said:
Are those screen caps from the original tech demo?

EDIT:
A mod huh? No wonder, the retail game does NOT look like that.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. All of that geometry is exactly the same. The foliage, weapon model, textures, effects, everything. Maybe the lighting in those perticular shots is a little more overblown than what you see there but that is easily attainable. That fact that that EXACT area is those exact lighting conditions are not in the retail version per se doesn't mean those shots are not representative of what it looks like.

Waqas said:
I think that aesthetically; Killzone 2 > Crysis

Crysis just look sterile and very pc-like.
Click to expand...

2v80oid.jpg
 
PC screenshots should only be posted by people's own setup & from the retail game.

Anyone can find pics of something that is not possible to run on normal PCs. Maxed out AA 16FSAA & 1680x1050+ & the latest graphical mods? Bullshit, game will either run in the single digits or the setup is thousands of dollars in the latest gear.


All those really good looking Crysis pics posted, they don't look anywhere even remotely close to the retail version I played. The suped up Crysis pics look to the regular Crysis as Killzone 2 does to Killzone 1.
Seriously, comparing some of the Crysis screens posted here is like comparing Halo3/PGR4 photo modes pics, with the added AA & resolution.

From what I played & seen Crysis only had a few graphical "holy shit" moments , IMHO are more games this gen that easily surpass that.
 
Mr. Durden said:
I love how people honestly think Killzone 2 comes even close to the visual beauty of Crysis :lol
Click to expand...

killzone2 is being praised as the best looking game out there by far and no contest, no question asked. It's just some kind of universally accepted dogma.
It does use a lot of nice effects i haven't seen used anywhere (i was impressed when i saw firing weapons casts shadows from the surroundings) but while it's probably the best looking non-sandbox fps out there (like i said, i wouldn't know how to compare it to stuff like far cry 2) i wouldn't say all the visual tricks Guerrilla came up with really qualify the game as the absolute best looking console title.
For instance, I am not sure how latest CODs compare to KZ2, considering they're committed to 60fps (while KZ2 dipping below 30 is not that rare)
Underneath all those cool effects the game doesn't really do a lot in terms of geometry, draw distance or textures; from what i've seen it doesn't feature large open areas or very complex environments; for you to be able to tell a game is 'technically vastly superior' to its competitors, when its competitors are not directly comparable (different genres, or same genre but different scope and conditions) said game should be significantly ahead of them in every single area, which killzone 2 isn't.

Crysis, on the other hand, obviously is; you don't really have to compare it to games which are similar in genre, structure or scope to be able to tell. On the other hand, that much is so obvious and predictable that it really doesn't need to be said.

As for which game 'looks better' that's entirely subjective and only partially tech-related. Wind Waker still looks gorgeous, Mad world looks great...
 
he's right. on Low, the game doesn't look as good as those screenshots. on High, it comes very close, and on Very High it's amazing.

but lol @ KZ2 not being sterile when every fucking level in that game is a drab gray corridor, yet Crysis with a gigantic open jungle is somehow sterile. and then "PC-like" as some kind of pejorative? keep on fighting the console wars, son, because calling something "PC-like" graphics would be a good thing.
 
firex said:
he's right. on Low, the game doesn't look as good as those screenshots. on High, it comes very close, and on Very High it's amazing.

but lol @ KZ2 not being sterile when every fucking level in that game is a drab gray corridor, yet Crysis with a gigantic open jungle is somehow sterile. and then "PC-like" as some kind of pejorative? keep on fighting the console wars, son, because calling something "PC-like" graphics would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

You mean KZ2 isn't based in Hawaii?

who knew
 
FTWer said:
PC screenshots should only be posted by people's own setup & from the retail game.

Anyone can find pics of something that is not possible to run on normal PCs. Maxed out AA 16FSAA & 1680x1050+ & the latest graphical mods? Bullshit, game will either run in the single digits or the setup is thousands of dollars in the latest gear.
Click to expand...

Full. Of. Shit. My E8400 3.6Ghz/4GB DDR2 ram/Radeon 4870x2 run it at 1080p with 4xAA maxed out at a pretty constant 30fps, and the whole things costs me significantly less than "thousands of dollars."

And the people going on about "PC graphics" being "clinical" or "sterile" is the most asinine opinion that populates these boards. PCs don't use some kind of different graphical technique or any shit like that. Console graphics chips are derived from PC r&d. What do you think the point of the "HD" generation is? Consoles are slowly trying to catch up to the resolution and image quality you can get on a PC. What will you do when that happens? Complain that EVERYTHING looks 'sterile' and they should drop down the resolution and get rid of AA so it looks more.. I don't even know how someone would justify it. It's just stupid.
 
As much as I love Halo 3, it doesn't deserve to be anywhere near this thread.

Don't have a PS3, so going by the 360 games I've played Gears 2 and Banjo are some of the best looking. Crackdown I've also gotta say looks great.

I've been lacking on my PC gaming for a bit though, I'd assume Crysis would be my favourite graphics wise if I'd played it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Prince of Persia port on a Flipper Zero
Trailer Hardware 
1
135
Gamer_By_Proxy replied
Alleged look of the Prince in the canceled Prince of Persia Remake
Rumor  2 3
126
1K
Itchy Tickles replied
Indie Mirror's Edge + Nier Automata's machines + Prince of Persia traps = MOTORSLICE
17
161
Magic Carpet replied
Prince of Persia Remake actors were filming marketing up-until surprise cancellation
2
55
687
CellarDoor81 replied
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Remake has been officially rated by the ESRB
2
79
981
Mayar replied
Top Bottom