Support NeoGAF

[Metalmurphy]

Give me a break with your Gears 1.5 crap. If it is considered by critics as one of the best if not the best looking game to date I believe I'll take their words over yours any day of the week. You also have no idea what you are even talking about in that last comment what I stated early on was completely previewed by Game Informer.

"Critics"? All I saw was a Gamespy quote. And since when do we go to Gamespy for gaming advice?

Uncharted was also considered by critics to be the best looking game to date, yet many GAFers, you included probably, disagreed. So yeah... Gamespy != Fact


Not that you'd know, if you can't spot the differences in those shots you wouldn't be able to tell the differences in both Gears either.

 

[FrankT]

"Critics"? All I saw was a Gamespy quote. And since when do we go to Gamespy for gaming advice?

Uncharted was also considered by critics to be the best looking game to date, yet many GAFers, you included probably, disagreed. So yeah... Gamespy != Fact


Not that you'd know, if you can't spot the differences in those shots you wouldn't be able to tell the differences in both Gears either.

Wrong, I loved Uncharted and still to this day believe it is one of the best looking games to date. Astonishing I know. As for the critics, Game Informer stated this would set the bar again just like orginal. IGN gave this the 2008 E3 08 best graphics award. So I don't think it is merely GS in there thoughts that is one of the best looking games on consoles to date.

 

[f@luS]

Give me a break with your Gears 1.5 crap. If it is considered by critics as one of the best if not the best looking game to date I believe I'll take their words over yours any day of the week. You also have no idea what you are even talking about in that last comment what I stated early on was completely previewed by Game Informer. Now if somehow Epic just removed there lighting altogether then you might have a point. Is the occlusion lighting just gone and the character specific lighting?

Seriously, do you even care to read? i also think its one of the best looking game ever. Period. I also happen to think that gear 1 is still one of the best looking game. Period. Yet Gear 2 looks a lot like the 1, and they failed to give (from what i saw, correct me) the promised uber realistic lightning and the "almost fully" destructible environnement.
It is still the best 360 game ever, seconded by gow 1, imho

 

[shpankey]

what ever happened to loving a games gameplay? graphics are great and all, but dayamn. you'd think after the Wii's monumental success we'd have finally driven that home.

anyhow, most of the top tier games today blow my mind graphically. i'm still stupified playing Dead Space on my PS3, the game is drop dead gorgeous, and I guess it's not even considered the "elite" games in graphics.

i love gears of war for it's gameplay and fun factor. which reminds me, I need to get a 360 again, though i'm scared shitless after 3 red ringed systems. but fable 2 and gears 2 be callin' me maaaaan.

 

[WrikaWrek]

Not that you'd know, if you can't spot the differences in those shots you wouldn't be able to tell the differences in both Gears either.

Nice troll.

Metal is bringing out the fangs. Raaawwwr

 

[Metalmurphy]

Nice troll.

Metal is bringing out the fangs. Raaawwwr

The only thing I'm "trolling" is his eyesight.

 

[FrankT]

Seriously, do you even care to read? i also think its one of the best looking game ever. Period. I also happen to think that gear 1 is still one of the best looking game. Period. Yet Gear 2 looks a lot like the 1, and they failed to give (from what i saw, correct me) the promised uber realistic lightning and the "almost fully" destructible environnement.
It is still the best 360 game ever, seconded by gow 1, imho

Well and that is the entire point does it not have the ambient occlusion and character lighting that was promised in the initial preview from GI.

The engine now features a what's what of tech speak that includes ambient occlusion, improved character lighting, improved shadow lighting, liquid dynamics, soft body physics, a new fracture system, a new decal system that marks the world with your handiwork, and enhanced world detail.

Was all that just yanked because that is what is stated and included Gamespots E3 preview.

The only thing I'm "trolling" is his eyesight.

With so much more detail. I know, right. While I agree there maybe some level of incresed detail in those off screen shots, but much more, neh eh.

 

[itxaka]

360

[]http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/FO3360.jpg[/IMG]

That hard to see the difference there ?

no. The radroach on the ps3 image looks totally flat.

Is that the difference? Or the ligth?or the shadows? or the offscreen photos?

 

[WrikaWrek]

The only thing I'm "trolling" is his eyesight.

Don't play me as a fool, i saw wat yu did

You just said that the differences in Gears 1 / 2 are as big as the ones in the Fallout 3 Ps3/360!

Now that's a troll. And a good one too! It's harsh, like a kick to the balls, but still has a sort of bitter taste to it, like all troll plays do.

 

[RSTEIN]

Seriously, do you even care to read? i also think its one of the best looking game ever. Period. I also happen to think that gear 1 is still one of the best looking game. Period. Yet Gear 2 looks a lot like the 1, and they failed to give (from what i saw, correct me) the promised uber realistic lightning and the "almost fully" destructible environnement.
It is still the best 360 game ever, seconded by gow 1, imho

Yeah, and Resistance 2 and 1 look similar, too. But what can you expect? Fundamentally the same tech with tweaks here and there. Both are top notch, and as you said Gow2 is one of the best, if not the best, looking 360 games ever (art preferences aside). Same with Resistance 2.

It's easy not to see the lighting effects or the subtle differences, especially from the vids on the net. Some people have an eye for it, some don't. You're just a gamer, not a technical geek, I get that. For example, it's hard to tell that a lot of the character details are fully modeled now vs. textures (e.g. the lights on the Marcus' COG suit).

 

[WrikaWrek]

Yeah, and Resistance 2 and 1 look similar, too. But what can you expect? Fundamentally the same tech with tweaks here and there. Both are top notch, and as you said Gow2 is one of the best, if not the best, looking console game ever (art preferences aside).

That's not what he said. He said specifically, without mistake, that it was the best on the 360. Big difference.

 

[RSTEIN]

That's not what he said. He said specifically, without mistake, that it was the best on the 360. Big difference.

Ooop, excuse me. Edited!

 

[Metalmurphy]

Don't play me as a fool, i saw wat yu did

You just said that the differences in Gears 1 / 2 are as big as the ones in the Fallout 3 Ps3/360!

Now that's a troll. And a good one too! It's harsh, like a kick to the balls, but still has a sort of bitter taste to it, like all troll plays do.

Whatever makes you happy dude.

I've ran tired of you shit, it stopped being funny after the first 10 times.

 

[dejan]

Two more pages and the PS3 version of Fallout 3 will be declared even superior to the PC version.

 

[itxaka]

Two more pages and the PS3 version of Fallout 3 will be declared even superior to the PC version.

do you have any offscreen bad pictures of the pc version to show that is better?

 

[WrikaWrek]

Whatever makes you happy dude.

I've ran tired of you shit, it stopped being funny after the first 10 times.

You gotta be kidding me.

You:

Not that you'd know, if you can't spot the differences in those shots you wouldn't be able to tell the differences in both Gears either.

Whatever makes me happy?

I don't get your act. You say stuff and then blame others for reading what you say? Nice.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

do you have any offscreen bad pictures of the pc version to show that is better?

Just run the PC version at the worst possible settings.

I don't get your act. You say stuff and then blame others for reading what you say? Nice.

So HE makes you happy.

 

[PixelJunkie]

360 has the graphically edge? This is not news, and it's not enough of an edge to matter most of the time.

I bought a PS3 and sold my 360 because of exclusives not because the PS3 is slightly worse in multiplatform games.

At this point, I can't believe people still care so much about this.

 

[Metalmurphy]

do you have any offscreen bad pictures of the pc version to show that is better?

Offscreen shots that magically remove the normal/specular mapping/shaders/whatever too.

Spoiler

facepalm.gif

 

[dark10x]

Two more pages and the PS3 version of Fallout 3 will be declared even superior to the PC version.

It obviously is not, but I am curious to see if the textures in the PC version were based off of the 360 version or the PS3 version. While minor, the difference in texture quality is precisely the type of thing that typically falls in favor of the 360. It's very odd to see the opposite occur here. The texture work in the PS3 version is clearly superior in a fashion similar to Call of Duty 4 on the 360 (superior) versus the PS3 version.

Just run the PC version at the worst possible settings.

The PS3 and 360 versions look significantly better than that, though. I've seen the 360 version in action, at least, and while it's certainly not as attractive as the PC version, it's surprisingly close. It only really seems to falter when it comes to loading, framerate, and the drawing of distant objects. The PC version on even medium settings is less attractive than either console version.

do you have any offscreen bad pictures of the pc version to show that is better?

There's nothing wrong with taking off-screen shots in this situation as the argument has nothing to do with actual image quality. A camera does not magically add or subtract texture detail. It was off screen shots that initially revealed the difference between the PS3 and 360 versions of Call of Duty 4, afterall (taken by someone at B3D).

 

[danwarb]

360

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/FO3360.jpg

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/FO3PS3.jpg

That hard to see the difference there ?

The shadows in the PS3 version there look terrible.

 

[itxaka]

Offscreen shots that magically remove the normal/specular mapping/shaders/whatever too.

Spoiler

facepalm.gif

who cares, I don't even know what are we arguing about. Are we talking about the ps3 version being superior or the 360?

Cheer up a bit, serious business and all that..

There's nothing wrong with taking off-screen shots in this situation as the argument has nothing to do with actual image quality. A camera does not magically add or subtract texture detail. It was off screen shots that initially revealed the difference between the PS3 and 360 versions of Call of Duty 4, afterall (taken by someone at B3D).

See metal? That is how someone normal answers. You don't have to be defensive for console wars all the time.

 

[Metalmurphy]

who cares, I don't even know what are we arguing about. Are we talking about the ps3 version being superior or the 360?

We're talking about differences in both versions. Not everyone cares which version is better, some just like to be informed on the differences, for better or worst.

You were implying the reason the 360 looked worst was cause of the offscreen shots, and like dark10x just explained, that's not really true.

See metal? That is how someone normal answers. You don't have to be defensive for console wars all the time.

Are you kidding me? Are you really saying something like that after saying something like this:

do you have any offscreen bad pictures of the pc version to show that is better?

Really?

rolleyes.gif

 

[bj00rn_]

Uncharted

:lol

8 pages??? Too much lag!

 

[Metalmurphy]

:lol

8 pages??? Too laggy.

Did you even read what I was talking about or did you just Ctrl+Fed your way around this thread?

 

[lowrider007]

no. The radroach on the ps3 image looks totally flat.

Is that the difference? Or the ligth?or the shadows? or the offscreen photos?

The textures on the bugs, they are a world apart, look at their outer shells, the PS3 version is a lot better, note I'm not saying the PS3 version of the game is the better version but it certainly is looking to have better textures in places.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Eurogamer, fighting the good fight once again. rofl. I suppose it is just coincidence that for most multiplatform reviews they review the 360 version, only. Nice of them to go out of their way to try out the PS3 versions for this feature.

That said, they still have some good content once you run it through the bias filter a couple times.

 

[J-Rzez]

but it didn't look as good as COD4. Yeah, i'll get flamed

i'm gonna be right again, you can always bet on Xboat !

This is where I bring our discussion to an end, because this is absurd. Even from the old direct feed vids compared to what I've played of CoD4 on both (I owned both versions), KZ2 pisses all over it visually, I can only imagine what it's going to look like when I have it running on my HDTV.

And, the war is over. PS3 is the superior cock roach render machine.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

This pretty much sums up the bulk of people's feelings, at least here in the US where it's not blind faith and love for sony forever no matter what and Microsoft is an evil puppy killing machine.

I wouldn't put it that way exactly but one thing I've learned this gen is that for the most part the vast majority of posters here that are diehard PS3 supporters, the till death till us part kind tend to be from outside the US.

 

[antiloop]

The shadows in the PS3 version there look terrible.

True, I mean... that resolution is something the C64 would manage. Really lazy on their part.
Although the 360 version isn't much better. Snes quality.

 

[Nizz]

what ever happened to loving a games gameplay? graphics are great and all, but dayamn. you'd think after the Wii's monumental success we'd have finally driven that home.

anyhow, most of the top tier games today blow my mind graphically. i'm still stupified playing Dead Space on my PS3, the game is drop dead gorgeous, and I guess it's not even considered the "elite" games in graphics.

i love gears of war for it's gameplay and fun factor. which reminds me, I need to get a 360 again, though i'm scared shitless after 3 red ringed systems. but fable 2 and gears 2 be callin' me maaaaan.

Wow, the same thing happened to me! Three 360 consoles down and I gave up. I'm considering getting a 360 again. I had some great times with Gears 1 and the sequel looks sh!t hot...

Eurogamer, fighting the good fight once again. rofl. I suppose it is just coincidence that for most multiplatform reviews they review the 360 version, only. Nice of them to go out of their way to try out the PS3 versions for this feature.

That said, they still have some good content once you run it through the bias filter a couple times.

I feel like it's not only Eurogamer who reviews mostly 360 versions of multiplatform games. Just look at Gametrailers' reviews. Most of the time, the only version you see in the video reviews are the 360 versions of games. And as much as I love the GiantBomb guys, they too almost always discuss the 360 versions of multiplatform games. It's almost like they don't even acknowledge PS3 versions exist...

 

[OldJadedGamer]

I feel like it's not only Eurogamer who reviews mostly 360 versions of multiplatform games. Just look at Gametrailers' reviews. Most of the time, the only version you see in the video reviews are the 360 versions of games. And as much as I love the GiantBomb guys, they too almost always discuss the 360 versions of multiplatform games. It's almost like they don't even acknowledge PS3 versions exist...

But this was done last gen with the PS2 version and I don't remember many people complaining about it. You almost always saw the PS2 version of multiplatform games being reviewed even if the Xbox/Gamecube version was superior.

 

[vilmer_]

But this was done last gen with the PS2 version and I don't remember many people complaining about it. You almost always saw the PS2 version of multiplatform games being reviewed even if the Xbox/Gamecube version was superior.

I think the difference then was there were probably 60 million more people with PS2's out there than the others. That's hardly the case with PS360.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

I think the difference then was there were probably 60 million more people with PS2's out there than the others. That's hardly the case with PS360.

So your saying the system with the largest install base and where the game was leading on was used as the system to do the reviews of the game?

Then nothing has changed from last gen to this gen.

 

[Psychotext]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say reviewers tend to review the versions they're sent to review...

 

[vilmer_]

So your saying the system with the largest install base and where the game was leading on was used as the system to do the reviews of the game?

Then nothing has changed from last gen to this gen.

I just think there isn't as big of a gap in ownership this generation. It was safe to review PS2 games as pretty much everyone had one. Now it's much more of an even playing field with the competing consoles. It's almost as if a lot of these big review sites now just want to sweep anything Playstation under the rug. If I was a PS3 only owner, I'd be pissed about the preferential treatment too, especially since they probably receive review copies of both.

 

[Pojo]

People say the 360 version looks better? Are my eyes broken?

Don't get me wrong, the whole concept of comparing games to judge a system is utterly ridiculous. But there must be another reason why the PS3 was docked points?

 

[danwarb]

People say the 360 version looks better? Are my eyes broken?

Don't get me wrong, the whole concept of comparing games to judge a system is utterly ridiculous. But there must be another reason why the PS3 was docked points?

Because it seems the 360 version has a more consistent frame rate, 4xAA and fewer bugs.

 

[DCharlie]

This is where I bring our discussion to an end, because this is absurd. Even from the old direct feed vids compared to what I've played of CoD4 on both (I owned both versions), KZ2 pisses all over it visually

and from direct feed vid comparisons i totally agreed that KZ2 looked to pish all over COD4 and pretty much everything else.

Then i played it in person and i came away thinking "what the hell - that looked pretty decent but not the mindshattering graphics fest i was expecting"

now - i will say that the scripted segment intro crash looked incredible but the second you're switched over to control, it just looks like any other shooter.

And that's my point - i thought (me, IMO, personally (though i know i'm not the only one as the few people there who tried it at the same time came out sayign the same thing)) it was pretty shocking how ordinary it was - the times it looked/moved better were all scripted events, with the meat of the game looking no better than a slew of other shooters.

So yeah, perhaps waiting and playing it will show this rather than the vids?
I do cover myself here by saying that this -is- only a demo, and from MS2 and other games recently, the final game might get a boost. But we shall see.

360: AA, solid framerate, tearing
PS3: better textures, framedrops, no tearing.

i never understood how tearing was seperated from framerate - surely tearing is a symptom of the frame rate NOT being solid (the inability to refresh the frame before the next frame draws?)

So in effect it's two different approaches - just let the framerate be and let it try to complete the refresh but tear vs. drop the frame totally and then have framedrops instead of bad tearing ?

 

[J-Rzez]

and from direct feed vid comparisons i totally agreed that KZ2 looked to pish all over COD4 and pretty much everything else.

Then i played it in person and i came away thinking "what the hell - that looked pretty decent but not the mindshattering graphics fest i was expecting"

now - i will say that the scripted segment intro crash looked incredible but the second you're switched over to control, it just looks like any other shooter.

And that's my point - i thought (me, IMO, personally (though i know i'm not the only one as the few people there who tried it at the same time came out sayign the same thing)) it was pretty shocking how ordinary it was - the times it looked/moved better were all scripted events, with the meat of the game looking no better than a slew of other shooters.

So yeah, perhaps waiting and playing it will show this rather than the vids?
I do cover myself here by saying that this -is- only a demo, and from MS2 and other games recently, the final game might get a boost. But we shall see.

I'll be able to discuss this better later. My lucky friend got into the KZ2 beta.

 

[Psychotext]

I'll be able to discuss this better later. My lucky friend got into the KZ2 beta.

We've seen your opinions on KZ2... I somehow doubt you'll be posting anything different from this point on. :lol

 

[OldJadedGamer]

It's almost as if a lot of these big review sites now just want to sweep anything Xbox under the rug. If I was a Xbox only owner, I'd be pissed about the preferential treatment too, especially since they probably receive review copies of both.

See, it goes both ways. I just think it's not fair to cry about "teh bias" in this regard when it only affects the system you own but when the bias is in your favor then to look the other way. Again, everyone was fine with them only reviewing one version of the game last gen and applying it to both but now that the bias doesn't work in their favor then all of a sudden it's an outrage.

I'm guessing they don't have the time to review both versions so they end up picking the version that is known to be the lead platform for the game or the version they receive in the office first.

 

[J-Rzez]

We've seen your opinions on KZ2... I somehow doubt you'll be posting anything different from this point on. :lol

No doubt I'm going to be impressed visually, but, gameplay can "suck" like the first one did. If you read, I hated the first KZ's gameplay. It was sluggish and sloppy. From what I've heard, it's changed, but i'll believe it when I see it. I'll get to check that out in just a bit.

 

[DCharlie]

No doubt I'm going to be impressed visually, but, gameplay can "suck" like the first one did

the game play was decent enough, no complaints there and the AI wasn't anywhere near as bad as i suspected it to be - it's a pretty competent (if standard) fps (single player wise).

So - i went in expected the gameplay to suck and the graphics to blow me away, in the end the graphics were good, but not amazing, and the gameplay was decent and non-offensive. It wasn't a bad experience, it was just a bit disappointing (but to beat the dead horse again - could be a bad demo)

 

[vilmer_]

See, it goes both ways. I just think it's not fair to cry about "teh bias" in this regard when it only affects the system you own but when the bias is in your favor then to look the other way. Again, everyone was fine with them only reviewing one version of the game last gen and applying it to both but now that the bias doesn't work in their favor then all of a sudden it's an outrage.

The PS2 was such a monster that there really wasn't a need to review another version. The vast majority of console gamers worldwide were already going to buy the PS2 version, because they already owned one. I'm not sure the total dominance is there this gen between the PS360 to exclusively review one side on a consistent basis, 'lead platform' or not. It would just be refreshing to see them mix it up once in a while, especially for those who are uncertain about which system they want to invest in. As someone looking in from the 'outside', there's no doubt that many popular sites these days have an obvious "preference" for one party, complete with bogus video comparisons, etc. People can cry about bias all they want, I just want fairness.

 

[J-Rzez]

the game play was decent enough, no complaints there and the AI wasn't anywhere near as bad as i suspected it to be - it's a pretty competent (if standard) fps (single player wise).

So - i went in expected the gameplay to suck and the graphics to blow me away, in the end the graphics were good, but not amazing, and the gameplay was decent and non-offensive. It wasn't a bad experience, it was just a bit disappointing (but to beat the dead horse again - could be a bad demo)

After putting in 2-3hrs with it at my friend's, I am going to have to say you thinking it's comparative to CoD4 visually is absurd. The game is the real deal, it has soo much going on in it, it is super clean (basically a total lack of jaggies, and the textures are incredible), and it sounds incredible. Gameplay is far from the steaming pile of horse shit the first was. This title raised the bar visually and in MP shooters of this type in general to a new level.

 

[DCharlie]

After putting in 2-3hrs with it at my friend's, I am going to have to say you thinking it's comparative to CoD4 visually is absurd. The game is the real deal, it has soo much going on in it, it is super clean (basically a total lack of jaggies, and the textures are incredible), and it sounds incredible.

well i stand by it until i see it as the "total lack ofjaggies" goes against the demo at TGS too.

As i say, it might be we got an old demo at TGS (it wouldn't be the first time).

On the demo at tGS, i don't think it's absurd at all, and i'll hold off until i see the final game for myself (or the beta)

oh and the sound was decent EXCEPT for overly looped voice samples at certain points, hard to tell if it was incredible on the headphones, needed my set up for me to tell.

then again, KZ2 being incredible to you still doesn't change the fact that almost all X360 multiplatform games are superior to PS3 games!
Neither is it (or will it be) the silver bullet game that cements the PS3's superiority over the X360

 

[antiloop]

Don't get me wrong, the whole concept of comparing games to judge a system is utterly ridiculous. But there must be another reason why the PS3 was docked points?

I think it's just a matter of priority (some could argue bias) that decides what people compare in games. I have noticed PS3 games looking better in some areas and I have noticed 360 games looking better in some areas.

When I visit the Internet it's almost one version that is superior.

 

[mr_bishiuk]

There are people arguing that the PS3 version of fallout looks better than the 360 version?

Wow just wow

 

[DCharlie]

i remember days when minor differences like sparks were the absolute proof of one machines 3rd party supremacy.

I pressume they are more important that, say, frame rate , texture quality, etc. given these differences aren't worth discussing!

we just need to just call it and have done :

at the moment, X360 third party games are usually better than the PS3 versions.
PS3 1st party games have tended to be better than X360 1st party games technically (but some are taking longer to "bake")