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

New Gears Of War pics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bad_Boy said:
Then why do the character models look pretty damn close detail wise?
not to mention the HUGE vehicles with a lot of detail as well. enviroments also look very close. I could understand sacreficing a little bit of quality for ut2k7 as it's mainly an online based game. But still looks damn close....

http://www.tothegame.com/res/game/4257/feature/2006-05-10/screen1_large.jpg

http://www.tothegame.com/res/game/4257/feature/2006-05-10/screen3_large.jpg

http://www.tothegame.com/res/game/4257/feature/2006-05-10/screen4_large.jpg

ut2k7 can play the super high AA game as well. only huge difference between the games is art. imho of course.

Normal maps I think make it look closer than it is. If you look at the geometric detail in the faces and especially hair and bodies (which I'll admit, is quite hard to see in some spots) GoW looks better hands down, to me.
 
WHOAguitarninja said:
Really? It seemed to run fine at times but at some points it would just chug almost unbearably. Definitely worse than Halo 1. I'm 99% sure that'll be totally sorted out by the time it ships though, and if not completely, then itll be much better.
No game chugged worse than Halo when things got frantic. Did you ever do the time run at the end of the game especially on coop?
 
This game is clearly the best looking thing coming out any time soon... it's really nothing short of stunning. Wow.
 
ralexand said:
No game chugged worse than Halo when things got frantic. Did you ever do the time run at the end of the game especially on coop?

I guess that's true. But the game RARELY got that bad. I can't think of any other part that was close to that choppy.
 
ralexand said:
No game chugged worse than Halo when things got frantic. Did you ever do the time run at the end of the game especially on coop?

Yeah... but you're comparing a last-gen machine title to a next-gen xbox in new armor and steroid injected as well... I hope to high heavens I wouldn't see anything look like it's about to fall on it's face like the final run on co-op in Halo on the 360 or PS3... GRAW gets a lil iffy at times and it pisses me off... anything worse is truely unacceptable... like Oblivion, it falls on it's face so hard sometimes I have to walk away from the game (like when two summoners call up those trashy fireball tossing imp things)...
 
ralexand said:
Anyone read the description of these characters on ign? Why can't the black guy be the expert and the white guy be the brute sometimes? Seems like Diehard is the only fictional entertainment that did that.
MGS3 :)
 
op_ivy said:
gears-of-war-20060714024930523.jpg
Poor guy. There must not have been any accutane in the year 3000.
 
"OMG the guys are too big" is the worst troll I've ever witnessed :lol
Not everyone wants main characters that look like young females in their games ;)
 
HokieJoe said:
Truthfully, great game or not, Leon looks like a *ussy. I'd still like to play the game though. :)

If that's his taste of men, you can't judge him for that - obviously, buff manly men aren't his cup of tea... different strokes for different folks...

jarosh said:
come on now, everyone who's seen the e3 demo footage should know that gow looks pretty f*cking amazing

That's the bottom line right there actually... it's like the people trying to cause a ruckus in this thread forgot all that, and are just trying to start something over pics...
 
Skilotonn said:
If that's his taste of men, you can't judge him for that - obviously, buff manly men aren't his cup of tea... different strokes for different folks...


I'm not judging him, but I think I see where you're going with this . :)
 
Cliffy B's playthrough at E3 was the first moment I experienced anything like Killzone CG in realtime.

This game's the real deal, and it's going to open a lot of people's eyes as to what the X360 can do.
 
Uncle said:
I bet he is a burn victim and now you made him feel bad. Shame on you.
Wow, I didn't even think about that. Maybe he's the strong sensitive type. Mowing down hordes of grotesque mutants with his bloody chainsaw during the day, cuddling on the couch with his girlfriend at night while blowing his nose and watching Lifetime movies.
 
GreekWolf said:
Wow, I didn't even think about that. Maybe he's the strong sensitive type. Mowing down hordes of grotesque mutants with his bloody chainsaw during the day, cuddling on the couch with his girlfriend at night while blowing his nose and watching Lifetime movies.


Character depth.

Gears delivers.
 
The black guy reminds me of Curtis Mannings, from 24. Can't find a good photo of him, but I really feel they look the same.
 
acousticvan said:
Compare this

to this

I think it will come back and bite epic for deception.

Um, how? Did you not see Cliff play the actual game at E3? IMO, it looked BETTER than either of the pics you posted.
 
acousticvan said:
Compare this


to this



I think it will come back and bite epic for deception.

you are on bucketloads of crack. The top pic actually looks more impressive (from a purely character model standpoint, not as much going on as in the 2nd pic), so i don't know what the **** you are trying to get at. And its SURELY not a big enough difference for it to "bite epic for deception" whatever the hell that means, like the millions of gamers who are sure to buy GoW are going to say "Wow this game is awesome, and it looks fantastic, but not QUITE as fantastic as the early pics...how disappointing." Sorry i give your troll 3 out of 10 futamis.
 
acousticvan said:
Compare this


to this



I think it will come back and bite epic for deception.

I duon't know... I think this pic looks great and in motion [dark10x mode on] with a sub 30 framerate, screen tearing and wonky animation [dark10x mode off] it will lokk better. :P

joke
 
Kolgar said:
Um, how? Did you not see Cliff play the actual game at E3? IMO, it looked BETTER than either of the pics you posted.

You're in a state of denial.

I like this game. But that is just the fact. The first pic has 16X AA. Well, to render that in-game, the frame rate will be like 2-3 frames per second.
 
acousticvan said:
You're in a state of denial.

I like this game. But that is just the fact. The first pic has 16X AA. Well, to render that in-game, the frame rate will be like 2-3 frames per second.


Stop bolding your words. No one likes it.

This game looks every bit as good as its original renders, and even better.
 
acousticvan said:
You're in a state of denial.

I like this game. But that is just the fact. The first pic has 16X AA. Well, to render that in-game, the frame rate will be like 2-3 frames per second.

We've already been over that, slick. Yes it's pumping AA/probably AF, but take that away and is it any less impressive? Would you REALLY look at it, then again in motion, and turn your nose up?

Seriously, just stop it.
 
acousticvan said:
You're in a state of denial.

I like this game. But that is just the fact. The first pic has 16X AA. Well, to render that in-game, the frame rate will be like 2-3 frames per second.

welcome to the wonderful world of modern videogame PR. Practically every developer/publisher does that. And it doesn't come back to bite them in the ass.
 
It's rendered at high resolution (scaled down after to viewable res), no AA added, or needed. It woul indeed be running at crawlspeed at this resolution.

Also, why is this 'if on PS3 it will look better yet' still going on in this and some other threads? Totally irrelevant, since it isn't, and it's hardly proven to be true so far. Both have good and crap looking games, none look objectively more technologically superior then others so far.

It' up to the developers talents, not so much the hardware of the 360 or PS3, how good games will look.
 
Kobold said:
It's rendered at high resolution (scaled down after to viewable res), no AA added, or needed. It woul indeed be running at crawlspeed at this resolution.

Also, why is this 'if on PS3 it will look better yet' still going on in this and some other threads? Totally irrelevant, since it isn't, and it's hardly proven to be true so far. Both have good and crap looking games, none look objectively more technologically superior then others so far.

It' up to the developers talents, not so much the hardware of the 360 or PS3, how good games will look.

You can't really blame them for being skeptical though, as many 3rd parties have cashed it on with horrible efforts on 360 so far. I'm glad the PS3 is coming out, because when games can be sold on both platforms it'll improve the quality and effort in these games quite a bit.
 
acousticvan said:
You're in a state of denial.

I like this game. But that is just the fact. The first pic has 16X AA. Well, to render that in-game, the frame rate will be like 2-3 frames per second.

Yeah, the bolding must stop.

And watching Cliffy's demo at E3 on a giant wall-sized sceen, I couldn't believe how great the game looks... and I didn't notice any "jaggies". Being contrarian doesn't make you 1337.
 
Kobold said:
Also, why is this 'if on PS3 it will look better yet' still going on in this and some other threads?
You are the first person to say that in this thread. A select few people are just complaining about the alleged double standards, when many PS3 titles get discredited for putting out devshots.
 
Some of the worst trolls ever attempted on GAF are featured in this thread. Games like Gears of War and MGS4 really show you who the idiots are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom