Support NeoGAF

[pixelbox]

Dude, not every gaffer is a tech-head. Most people know AA, HDR, V-sync and such, but please explain:
OMB?
SSS?
GI?
POM's?
I thought I was reletively clued up with tech lingo, but I've never heard of these before.

Object motion blur=moveable objects that blur, Sub surface scattering=like the appearance of soft skin, global illumination=surfaces being light source due to light bounces, paralax mapping=like bricks

 

[DarkChild]

Framerate wasn't that bad. I don't recall ever struggling against it.

It was pretty bad. Actually, that was first part of the game, as game was getting better looking, game ran better. Weird.

 

[DarkChild]

Object motion blur=moveable objects that blur, Sub surface scattering=like the appearance of soft skin, global illumination=surfaces being light source due to light bounces, paralax mapping=like bricks

And it doesnt have GI, doesn't have SSS, neither it has paralax mapping, its called bump mapping. its still beautiful.

 

[pixelbox]

That game had some pretty spectacular things. It had awesome post processing, HDR flares on all surfaces, high quality object and camera motion blur and on top of that bokeh DOF. Too bad it dropped frames like it did.

Flares were awesome. But that bokeh DOF was a shader operation without logic to decipher object depth. A predetermined filter. MB was an awesome shader technique as well.

 

[Massa]

???? I would say Versus CGI is more fitting, thats actually impressive looking CG...Rainbow 6 will look nothing like that proof of concept stuff, nothing

What I meant is that the technology we have now is so good that game designers are coming up with things like "Press square to kiss", which is just stupid.

 

[DarkChild]

Flares were awesome. But that bokeh DOF was a shader operation without logic to decipher object depth. A predetermined filter. MB was an awesome shader technique as well.

It was pretty cheap AFAIK. Whole HDR post processing pipeline took them 5 ms on consoles. They had much more problems with CPU than GPU, one of their lead programmers noted.

 

[pixelbox]

And it doesnt have GI, doesn't have SSS, neither it has paralax mapping, its called bump mapping. its still beautiful.

SSS was in a pdf for U2. It was used for some of the snow as well as skinand some statues. Its more accurate and plentiful in U3. It definitely has some sort of Gl, and POMs can be found all over the London act.

I forgot to add post processing effects(For the fire scene and others) AO and at 720p with AA.

 

[Fezan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqj1Qxs08a0

heh

After seeing this. i now really believe SCEA is run by monkeys>They can easily have two franchises similar in game play.Focuses on linear game play and set pieces Uncharted and syphon filter.

 

[DarkChild]

SSS was in a pdf for U2. It definitely has some sort of Gl, and POMs can be found all over the London act.

I think there is currently argument in UC3 thread at B3D about GI. There is no GI in UC3 it seems. Its most definitely bump mapping, try looking at it from 180 degrees and see if its flat or not.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Framerate wasn't that bad. I don't recall ever struggling against it.

I agree btw BUT the fact stands, it happens while not looking as good as other multiplats or stuff like Gears 3 (maybe best looking 360 exclusive) or lots of PS3 1st party games.

 

[pixelbox]

I think there is currently argument in UC3 thread at B3D about GI. There is no GI in UC3 it seems. Its most definitely bump mapping, try looking at it from 180 degrees and see if its flat or not.

Normals maps and POM are types bump maps. And you can break any POM/normal map by looking at it 180 degrees. Its still a flat surface. Texture filtering dictates well it looks at an angle They should know better. As for Gl, there are some extra light bounces there for sure, will wait for GDC. Patsu where art thou?

 

[SolidSnakex]

After seeing this. i now really believe SCEA is run by monkeys>They can easily have two franchises similar in game play.Focuses on linear game play and set pieces Uncharted and syphon filter.

There were two PSP entries and they both tanked. That's the reason the reason that the franchise is on the shelf right now.

 

[Fezan]

There were two PSP entries and they both tanked. That's the reason the reason that the franchise is on the shelf right now.

I think the games on psp were received well and sold good too..Also they didn't have so much production budget or marketing push..And they were on PSP.a system which sell zero software

 

[higherARC05]

Normals maps and POM are types bump maps. And you can break any POM/normal map by looking at it 180 degrees. Its still a flat surface. Texture filtering dictates well it looks at an angle They should know better. As for Gl, there are some extra light bounces there for sure, will wait for GDC. Patsu where art thou?

I dont believe there are any poms. Some surfaces may look like it but as you look at a angle it doesnt "break". They are just geometry with a texture layered on it. Why else would all rocks and such on ground arent poms and instead flat textures. I wouldnt put poms as a bullet point for uc3.

 

[Lord Error]

I think there is currently argument in UC3 thread at B3D about GI. There is no GI in UC3 it seems. Its most definitely bump mapping, try looking at it from 180 degrees and see if its flat or not.

The game absolutely has SSS, as did UC2, but it's better realized here. From what I've seen in videos it most likely has at least one bounce GI from the sun light source, or maybe a single light source of their choice in the scene. I'm pretty sure I've seen it in effect at one point in chapter 4 when standing close to some lit wall.

If u3 ran like c2, Nd would be skewered. The performance and iq is truly awful.

There's been one place in the game so far (Chapter 8) with some noticeable frame drops. There was one such place in UC2 as well early on (well, more if you stand near any waterfall in chapter 4, but you had to cross by one at least). I wouldn't say IQ is awful by any means either. I would say probably less edges are AA-ed as opposed to UC2, or at least different edges (AA in UC2 was selective as well) but playing UC2 right after UC3 makes it looks slightly blurry. I like the clarity of UC3 even if it comes with some shimmeryness on more distant geometry,

 

[KageMaru]

If they are taken in by the game and no other game came close to doing it, then they will think so.

In other words, if they have an obvious bias towards the system it's on, like you do, then they will think so. Of course I'm not speaking about everyone who shares this opinion, but some people are trying a bit too hard IMO.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Object motion blur=moveable objects that blur, Sub surface scattering=like the appearance of soft skin, global illumination=surfaces being light source due to light bounces, paralax mapping=like bricks

OK, cheers man. It turns out SSS is the only one I've never heard of.

But you learn something new everyday!

 

[pixelbox]

I dont believe there are any poms. Some surfaces may look like it but as you look at a angle it doesnt "break". They are just geometry with a texture layered on it. Why else would all rocks and such on ground arent poms and instead flat textures. I wouldnt put poms as a bullet point for uc3.

A lot are in London. On the ground as well as the tiles in the tunnels. If you have the game boot up London underground. Its used for all bricks and tiles.

 

[Boombloxer]

I think the games on psp were received well and sold good too..Also they didn't have so much production budget or marketing push..And they were on PSP.a system which sell zero software

No, that's wrong. The series did not sell well at all.

Another problem is that there just aren’t enough fans like you.
Dark Mirror and Logan’s Shadow just didn’t sell well enough to warrant
making more of them. Sorry! I wish it was otherwise. I’ve done
all the Syphon games since #1 in 1997, and I too am sad to see it end.

John Garvin

I loved that series, but odds of it coming back are remote, sadly. The U3 engine for a spy game would be pretty amazing.

 

[French]

ROFL. Gears 3 is top notch in every way. And there are great looking multiplatform games.

Battlefield 3
Crysis 1 and 2
Metro 2033
RDR
GTA4
Assassin's Creed Brotherhood

Are all technically impressive and all multiplatform. People on here love to act like Uncharted is on its own level. That isn't the case.

It is, Uncharted 3 ( and God of War III ) are more impressive than any other PS3/360 games.

 

[KageMaru]

It is, Uncharted 3 ( and God of War III ) are more impressive than any other PS3/360 games.

Why? (Honest question)

 

[(._.)]

I can't help but wonder what this game would look like on a decent pc *drool*

 

[inky]

Why? (Honest question)

I guess they have awesome scale and lighting. Also, the main character models are high quality and the animation is top notch. Animation quality goes a long way and, in the case of Uncharted, combined with how colorful it is the game does very well of hiding it's flaws. Dark games , or ones who have color palettes closer to the greys and browns are harder to jump at you the same way. If you look close enough you can see where they both struggle like in any other game.

I think much of the hyperbole comes from the exclusive factor sadly. They are very pretty games, top of the line, but that doesn't mean anything else isn't.

 

[lowrider007]

I'd argue that no other game does textures like Uncharted, in fact I'm struggling to even think of an unmodded PC game that does but I'm sure there is one, either way it seems that people gage what game is most technically impressive differently, depending on a variety of technical effects and how open the game is, for me personally I think texture quality is number one, imo it's the most important technical aspect of a game which is why I consider Uncharted the most impressive looking game to me.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

I guess they have awesome scale and lighting. Also, the main character models are high quality and the animation is top notch. Animation quality goes a long way and, in the case of Uncharted, combined with how colorful it is the game does very well of hiding it's flaws. Dark games , or ones who have color palettes closer to the greys and browns are harder to jump at you the same way. If you look close enough you can see where they both struggle like in any other game.

I think much of the hyperbole comes from the exclusive factor sadly. They are very pretty games, top of the line, but that doesn't mean anything else isn't.

This can absolutely sway people to throw out lavish statements just because they desperately want some type of bragging right but in the case of Uncharted I don't think that is the case. There have been gorgeous games this year with Gears 3 at the top of the heap but I sincerely think that its hard to argue that any of them top UC3. The Chateau, The Ship, The Sand are really staggering to look at when you see them. I don't believe that means the 360 couldn't handle UC3 I absolutely think it can but ND are truly technical wizards. Nothing on any game comes close to matching the spectacle they have created.

 

[scently]

Well I think that GeoW3 is as impressive as any PS3 exclusive out there including U3. The lighting, shadows, textures, post processing effects and set pieces in that game are simply spectacular. It has almost all the post processing effects in use today. Simply incredible.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Well I think that GeoW3 is as impressive as any PS3 exclusive out there including U3. The lighting, shadows, textures, post processing effects and set pieces in that game are simply spectacular. It has almost all the post processing effects in use today. Simply incredible.

Gears of War 3 looks amazing. Especially

Spoiler

The submarine part where your underwater

but it still is what I expect from the engine. I wasn't really staggered by anything I saw like I was from the jump of Gears 2 from 1. UC3 though has parts that don't seem even possible on current gen consoles right now.

 

[KageMaru]

I guess they have awesome scale and lighting. Also, the main character models are high quality and the animation is top notch. Animation quality goes a long way and, in the case of Uncharted, combined with how colorful it is the game does very well of hiding it's flaws. Dark games , or ones who have color palettes closer to the greys and browns are harder to jump at you the same way. If you look close enough you can see where they both struggle like in any other game.

I think much of the hyperbole comes from the exclusive factor sadly. They are very pretty games, top of the line, but that doesn't mean anything else isn't.

No doubt it has it's strong points. I too think it's a gorgeous game, but it's easy to just say "Game X looks better than anything else." while sometimes harder giving objective reasons why.

I'd argue that no other game does textures like Uncharted, in fact I'm struggling to even think of an unmodded PC game that does but I'm sure there is one, either way it seems that people gage what game is most technically impressive differently, depending on a variety of technical effects and how open the game is, for me personally I think texture quality is number one, imo it's the most important technical aspect of a game which is why I consider Uncharted the most impressive looking game to me.

I believe that has more to do with ND's artists, they sure are a talented bunch. The scope and size of the game should be in consideration when looking at the quality. I only mention this since it's easier to have good looking textures in a game like UC than it is in a game like RDR for example. (Not really debating with your opinion here, just putting my view on the matter into perspective =p)

 

[JWong]

Well I think that GeoW3 is as impressive as any PS3 exclusive out there including U3. The lighting, shadows, textures, post processing effects and set pieces in that game are simply spectacular. It has almost all the post processing effects in use today. Simply incredible.

I've only seen snippets of it, but UE3 is still UE3, which has this look I really don't like.

Of course, it doesn't help that I've done extensive level design with Unreal Editor 3. I know the textures can't rival UC3. It's just a limitation of the engine.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

I believe that has more to do with ND's artists, they sure are a talented bunch. The scope and size of the game should be in consideration when looking at the quality. I only mention this since it's easier to have good looking textures in a game like UC than it is in a game like RDR for example. (Not really debating with your opinion here, just putting my view on the matter into perspective =p)

RDR is a good example since you can argue that as far as technical accomplishments its right up there with UC3 and the best of them. What I am mainly talking about is really just immediate shock factor. If your playing Uncharted and someone walks by there going to be blown away just by the spectacle of the thing where as with RDR your going to have to sit down and get into it to really appreciate the feats they pulled off.

 

[inky]

I'd argue that no other game does textures like Uncharted, in fact I'm struggling to even think of an unmodded PC game that does but I'm sure there is one

You are struggling because most PC games are dependent on assets used for consoles in the first place, so excluding obvious things like resolution and AA they aren't very capable games. That said, take a look at the PC screenshots thread for unmodded games and you'll immediately see the difference. And simply put, take a look at The Witcher 2 for what a real PC game can do texture-wise.

The Chateau, The Ship, The Sand are really staggering to look at when you see them. I don't believe that means the 360 couldn't handle UC3 I absolutely think it can but ND are truly technical wizards. Nothing on any game comes close to matching the spectacle they have created.

Well, my only experience with U3 has been the beta, and that was unimpressive to me, which obviously comes from the fact that it is the multiplayer component so I'm not judging the game on that basis.

I don't play many console games these days, but to me Assassin's Creed on my 360 (for example) can be considered as impressive as Uncharted. Of course, AC is not dependent on set pieces the same way UC is, thus, the spectacle factor you mentioned is not there, but the game is beautiful and just as technically competent. The only thing I put UC over AC would be the lighting, which is phenomenal but also shines due to the kind of game UC is and AC is not.

 

[scently]

Gears of War 3 looks amazing. Especially

Spoiler

The submarine part where your underwater

but it still is what I expect from the engine. I wasn't really staggered by anything I saw like I was from the jump of Gears 2 from 1. UC3 though has parts that don't seem even possible on current gen consoles right now.

Actually I feel the exact opposite of how you feel about the two games. The lighting and post processing effects in GeoW3 is not what I expect from Unreal, given the graphics in Gears 2 or even Bulletstorm.

Anyway I feel at this point in time of this gen, I think it's simply a matter of art on the developers side and preference on the gamers side.

 

[BruiserBear]

This can absolutely sway people to throw out lavish statements just because they desperately want some type of bragging right but in the case of Uncharted I don't think that is the case. There have been gorgeous games this year with Gears 3 at the top of the heap but I sincerely think that its hard to argue that any of them top UC3. The Chateau, The Ship, The Sand are really staggering to look at when you see them. I don't believe that means the 360 couldn't handle UC3 I absolutely think it can but ND are truly technical wizards. Nothing on any game comes close to matching the spectacle they have created.

I agree, and I've played Crysis 2 (on the 360) and Gears 3 (completed twice), and I don't think either of those games bring the overall tech package that U3 does.

I think U3 doesn't wow some people as easily because they don't see whiz bang pow things in their face showing them how impressive it all is. That's because Naughty Dog aren't silly like that. They do it with class and good design. The effects are there when they're needed, and the underlying tech driving their big set pieces is a notch above most games, even if it's not readily apparent to the masses.

And they do it all with a smooth framerate and no screen tearing.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Well, my only experience with U3 has been the beta, and that was unimpressive to me, which obviously comes from the fact that it is the multiplayer component so I'm not judging the game on that basis.

Oh you haven't even played the game? The MP is pretty great looking but nothing spectacular. If you haven't seen the actual SP campaign there is no way to appreciate the insanity of some of the sections.

Actually I feel the exact opposite of how you feel about the two games. The lighting and post processing effects in GeoW3 is not what I expect from Unreal, given the graphics in Gears 2 or even Bulletstorm.

Anyway I feel at this point in time of this gen, I think it's simply a matter of art on the developers side and preference on the gamers side.

Did you play all of UC3?

 

[Limanima]

Using duplicated data to overcame the seeking speed of the shitty bluray drive is hardly "unparalleled". Also let's get 1 thing straight : the game looks gorgeous in some places (yemen, france) and kind of ugly in others (syria). But just because ND has some great texture and shader artists doesn't make their tech "unparalleled" . I mean, come on, it's a 3rd person shooter (without open spaces i might add) with gorgeous graphics . What's so unparalled about that ?!

The fact that UC series are amongst the highest quality games (gameplay and graphics wise) and there are almost zero pauses for loading is enough to put UC in the technically wizardry shelf.

 

[lowrider007]

This is thing with debates like these, in becomes 'technically most impressive' vs 'best looking game' I'm amazed at Crysis (1) on the 360 and could potentially argue that it's technically more impressive that UC3 in terms of what it's managing to do in open world environments but it noway looks as impressive as UC3 so which is better?

I say the one that you personally prefer depending on how you judge a game based on it's technical merits.

 

[inky]

Oh you haven't even played the game? The MP is pretty great looking but nothing spectacular. If you haven't seen the actual SP campaign there is no way to appreciate the insanity of some of the sections.

Well I've seen it of course (live, in front of me) but I don't own it or haven't played through it. My opinion was more of a general statement of why I feel people like to talk about UC3 and GoW3 the way the do in the comments here i.e. "more impressive than any other game" and that good part of it is the exclusive factor. Also, like I said, many other things come into play, the palette and the scripting (and the game's charm even) not necessarily because they are more complex games geometry-wise or texture-wise or lighting-wise.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

They are describing more than one technique across those 50 pages so I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that other than browbeating. It's pretty obvious in some scenes what the general level of quality of SSS is going on in U3. There are some pretty clear instances of artefacting in real-time shots with U3 that wouldn't happen if they were using SSSSS or a texture space alternative (costly!) or even the new pre-integrated technique proposed at this year's SIGGRAPH.

Or maybe they invented their own technique, but you wouldn't know if not for technical papers like the one I posted. Trying to directly compare one game to another in technical terms without this info is ridiculous.

I still feel like ac1 is the best looking of the trilogy. The textures are just zomg.

Animation too. They made it more responsive in the sequels but it's not as smooth as in AC1.

Which is one thing to note about ND. They do what they do and at a solid frame rate on this limited HW. Crytek just figured to throw in some fancy effects but at a shoddy frame rate. Unacceptable. Playable but not near as impressive as other games even on the the 360 (Gears 3) and certainly not even close to the best PS3 exclusives.

Well, if Crysis 2 was as tightly scripted as U3, with precalculated lighting and it was optimized for only one platform things would be different, or not, who knows xD

From what I've seen in videos it most likely has at least one bounce GI from the sun light source, or maybe a single light source of their choice in the scene. I'm pretty sure I've seen it in effect at one point in chapter 4 when standing close to some lit wall.

And this is why technical papers are needed. How is it calculating the indirect lighting (not really GI, since it's diffuse only and very limited)? Is it in real-time? Is it using light probes? Light fields? A screen-space effect? LPV grids? etc...

I mean, even last gen we had games with indirect lighting support for dynamic objects:

http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2004/screen0/914940_20040810_790screen002.jpg

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Well I've seen it of course (live, in front of me) but I don't own it or haven't played through it. My opinion was more of a general statement of why I feel people like to talk about UC3 and GoW3 the way the do in the comments here i.e. "more impressive than any other game" and that good part of it is the exclusive factor. Also, like I said, many other things come into play, the palette and the scripting (and the game's charm even) not necessarily because they are more complex games geometry-wise or texture-wise or lighting-wise.

You saw the Chateau and the Shipyard?
Cause stuff is going on there that has nothing to do with exclusivity its just unbelievable looking. Your on a ship with a randomly proceduralized(Is that a real word?) wave simulator that makes the boat never lean in the same exact fashion twice with waves crashing over the sides, moving geometry that your supposed to use as cover and fighting guys the whole time. Couple just all of that with the animation blending and texture work and NO LOADING from indoor to outdoor sections. Who is even attempting something remotely close to that in any other game except maybe GOW3 with Chronos?

 

[Boombloxer]

Well I've seen it of course (live, in front of me) but I don't own it or haven't played through it. My opinion was more of a general statement of why I feel people like to talk about UC3 and GoW3 the way the do in the comments here i.e. "more impressive than any other game" and that good part of it is the exclusive factor. Also, like I said, many other things come into play, the palette and the scripting (and the game's charm even) not necessarily because they are more complex games geometry-wise or texture-wise or lighting-wise.

Then your opinion is not valid because you have not played the parts of the game that lead people to make that statement in the first place.

For the last part of your statement, in both texture and geometry, there's sections in U3 that are the flat out best, console wise. The game definitely has issues, but graphics aren't in that list.

Your on a ship with a randomly proceduralized(Is that a real word?) wave simulator that makes the boat never lean in the same exact fashion twice with waves crashing over the sides, moving geometry that your supposed to use as cover and fighting guys the whole time. Couple just all of that with the animation blending and texture work and NO LOADING from indoor to outdoor sections. Who is even attempting something remotely close to that in any other game except maybe GOW3 with Chronos?

Same thing with the plane and its shifting geometry cover, the Chateau and watching the wallpaper curl up in 3D, the desert, etc.

Chronos is up there as well, but I'm having a lot of trouble actually thinking if anything else surpasses those console-wise. U2's Train was pretty crazy, but nowhere near the Ship.

 

[French]

Why? (Honest question)

 

[Sullichin]

Well I think that GeoW3 is as impressive as any PS3 exclusive out there including U3. The lighting, shadows, textures, post processing effects and set pieces in that game are simply spectacular. It has almost all the post processing effects in use today. Simply incredible.

I played through both games, and while I think GeOW3 looks awesome, no doubt, I'd say Uncharted 3 looks a fair bit better. Uncharted seems to have way more complex geometry and better textures. Also the Chateau on fire in U3 is definitely better than any fire effect I've seen in Gears. The set pieces in Gears.. to me they don't compare favorably to U3 at all.

 

[KageMaru]

RDR is a good example since you can argue that as far as technical accomplishments its right up there with UC3 and the best of them. What I am mainly talking about is really just immediate shock factor. If your playing Uncharted and someone walks by there going to be blown away just by the spectacle of the thing where as with RDR your going to have to sit down and get into it to really appreciate the feats they pulled off.

IMO that can only be said to a point. True in UC3 it'll be easier to reach one of the many cinematic moment to give a more immediate impression, but I think the same wow factor also comes into play the first time you're free to travel the lands (which isn't too far into the game either). However I do see where you're going with this and do agree to an extent, I can see how it would be easier to give off such an impression in UC3.

None of it really changes my point though. =p It's all a game of trade offs and I think some of the people putting UC3 on such a high pedestal may be ignoring the trade offs taken in UC3.

Edit:

I'm sorry, all I see are a couple screenshots and really we all can find great looking screens of many games.

I was hoping you could actually explain your view instead of just making claims and leaving it at that.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

IMO that can only be said to a point. True in UC3 it'll be easier to reach one of the many cinematic moment to give a more immediate impression, but I think the same wow factor also comes into play the first time you're free to travel the lands (which isn't too far into the game either). However I do see where you're going with this and do agree to an extent, I can see how it would be easier to give off such an impression in UC3.

None of it really changes my point though. =p It's all a game of trade offs and I think some of the people putting UC3 on such a high pedestal may be ignoring the trade offs taken in UC3.

Yeah absolutely. Even Gears 3 and God of War 3 which are absolutely phenomenal looking are very tightly choreographed experiences. There are definite trade-offs with tech that make the experiences possible.

 

[dark10x]

I'm sorry, all I see are a couple screenshots and really we all can find great looking screens of many games.

I was hoping you could actually explain your view instead of just making claims and leaving it at that.

In regards to God of War III, what makes it stand out is the incredible amount of detail crammed within every scene and the ability to display massive areas without loading screens. Within those areas you have a crazy amount of shader work, high resolution textures, and absolutely incredible dynamic lighting. God of War III also features some of the best motion blur I've ever seen (better even than anything on the PC). In motion, it looks almost like playable CG. The framerate is also pretty impressive with no tearing while bouncing between 45-60 fps (which somehow appears fairly smooth). I can't forget the incredible animation either.

There are few other games this gen that nail so many aspects in one package.

 

[French]

I'm sorry, all I see are a couple screenshots and really we all can find great looking screens of many games.

I was hoping you could actually explain your view instead of just making claims and leaving it at that.

Did you play those levels ?

 

[KageMaru]

Yeah absolutely. Even Gears 3 and God of War 3 which are absolutely phenomenal looking are very tightly choreographed experiences. There are definite trade-offs with tech that make the experiences possible.

I agree 100% and that's pretty much the point I'm trying to make. =)

In regards to God of War III, what makes it stand out is the incredible amount of detail crammed within every scene and the ability to display massive areas without loading screens. Within those areas you have a crazy amount of shader work, high resolution textures, and absolutely incredible dynamic lighting. God of War III also features some of the best motion blur I've ever seen (better even than anything on the PC). In motion, it looks almost like playable CG. The framerate is also pretty impressive with no tearing while bouncing between 45-60 fps (which somehow appears fairly smooth). I can't forget the incredible animation either.

There are few other games this gen that nail so many aspects in one package.

Never tried to insinuate that GoWIII wasn't a stand out title, and to add to your list, I'd also say that it has no equal in IQ on consoles as well.

Did you play those levels ?

All you're doing with these diversionary techniques is proving my point. You made a claim and I asked you to explain why. If you can't that's fine, but it doesn't do anything to support your claim.

 

[inky]

You saw the Chateau and the Shipyard?
Cause stuff is going on there that has nothing to do with exclusivity its just unbelievable looking. Your on a ship with a randomly proceduralized(Is that a real word?) wave simulator that makes the boat never lean in the same exact fashion twice with waves crashing over the sides, moving geometry that your supposed to use as cover and fighting guys the whole time. Couple just all of that with the animation blending and texture work and NO LOADING from indoor to outdoor sections. Who is even attempting something remotely close to that in any other game except maybe GOW3 with Chronos?

I saw up from the beginning to the Chateau, which is what?, chapter 6? I've seen small demos of the ship part as well (and even the desert) but only in video.
Those are good questions, but the same could be said about other games. Who is attempting the level of fidelity on a city the same way Assassin's Creed is or GTA for that matter, with interactive crowds, the size and still keeping the graphics up there? Didn't Gears of War have moving cover ( I mean, the whole worm sequence is up there for me), RDR openness without loads, etc. What is our measuring stick here? The impressiveness of the game? All is entirely subjective.

I get what you say, I really do and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you in that UC series is awesome looking and worthy of praise, I just offered my opinion on why I think guys go over the top with these games. I think the games have strengths and weaknesses (graphics-wise) like any others and you and others are probably thinking that I meant to say UC or GoW are not that great, which is not the case.

lo, I can't believe the shit I'm reading here. There is nothing like UC3 on consoles, not even on PC. UC3 @1080p with 60FPS and perfect IQ could easily be sold as a PS4 launch title and I wouldn't be disapointed with it. It's a sneak peak at next gen and nothing comes close to it this gen, especially not a game which utilizes UE3 engine which plagued this generation like nothing else.

See, this is the kind of comments I'm wary of when comparing UC to other games.

 

[Thrakier]

lo, I can't believe the shit I'm reading here. There is nothing like UC3 on consoles, not even on PC. UC3 @1080p with 60FPS and perfect IQ could easily be sold as a PS4 launch title and I wouldn't be disapointed with it. It's a sneak peak at next gen and nothing comes close to it this gen, especially not a game which utilizes UE3 engine which plagued this generation like nothing else.

 

[Clear]

Graphics in games is a science of illusion, so its hard to separate technology from artistry.

Nothing is "real", so the acid test is the verisimilitude of the illusion. Point being that it doesn't really matter if your epic cityscape backdrop is a 2D billboard or an actual 3d model if all you can do in game is gaze on it from a fixed perspective at a distance.

In the end its all subjective, because if you're art assets are good enough they can cover a large shortfall in geometric processing.

Carmack covered the hard engineering answer years ago when he gave the PS3 a small advantage over 360 based on the assumption of both machines performing at peak.