Mr Puggsly said:
Aldro said:
Because few games run at 1080 and look as good as those games do.
Obviously this isn't a "If 1080, insta win" kind of thing. But clearly you can agree on Shadow Fall giving Ryse a run for its money.
And ontop of that: Uncharted and TLOU while arguably the best looking games on the PS3, visually: are not exactly as technically impressive as say.. GTAV. Most awards seem to be based off of visual detail and fidelity hence why they are regarded as the best looking games on consoles.
But anyway back to TECHNICAL graphics =>
Now factor in 1080 for SF, with a variable framerate of 30-45 or whatever "unlocked" means (we have to wait and see) along with 60 fps on MP.
All I am saying is that the gap between Ryse and Shadow Fall is a "wait and see" as of now. It's hard to judge based off of videos only (check out the high bitrate release that GG did for SF and you'll see just how much youtube and other websites are ruining the real quality of these games).
And the resolution and framerate is in favour of Killzone.
Ontop of that: Killzone also offers larger levels with several ways to tackle things along with Higgers (helghast xD) which are known to have a great AI (furthermore: I've played it on the game convention and infact it was pretty damn clever) =>
When you add 1+1, you get 2.
Could Ryse still be visually better? Sure. Technically? It isn't likely but who knows. Maybe SF has some major issues. We have to wait and see.
|
The thing is you were speaking as if 1080p is "insta win."
I could argue Halo 4 is the best looking game of the gen because of its large enviornments, many character models running around, vehicles, etc. Yet people tell me Uncharted and Last of U are the best looking games of the gen.
Based on the Ryse game play trailers. We see a large number of character models and large detailed enviornments. It was stunning. I saw Killzone trailers, they honestly didn't really impress me much compared to BF4.
However, I'm gonna wait for the final products before I make a judgement.
|
You are missunderstanding me my friend.
You could argue Halo 4 is the best looking game TECHNICALLY (although sandbox games are in general the most impressive ones technically).
I am trying to tell you that there's a difference between a game being visually stunning and technically stunning.
I am telling you that there is a vast chance that Killzone will be technically more impressive than Ryse. But I am not saying Killzone will be the better looking one visually.
Awards and what people generally go by is mostly visually.
Yes a game that is large is impressive, but if you judge them based on pure looks without taking any of that into consideration => Linear games most of the time will take the win. Hence why Uncharted and TLOU are known as being among this generations best looking console titles.
Now:
Selnor said that Ryse is technically better than Killzone whereas I stated: Due to Killzone looking the way it does compared to Ryse AND running on 1080 => it is unlikely (especially since you have to factor the KIND of games they are here as well). Technically: Killzone is probably doing more than Ryse just like Halo 4 did more than ..say Beyond Two Souls (to make a very clear example).
What will people find more visually appealing and give awards to most likely had Beyond and Halo been released at the same time? Beyond (seeming as Journey even got more than Halo 4 in 2012).
But who knows. Maybe Killzone looks like shit once its released and it was all smoke and mirrors. I am not debunking that Ryse might be visually, better looking. I too am waiting for a release.