Xbox 360 OWNS 2010 !

[selnor]

Mazty said:

selnor said:

I give up. ME1 was considered awesome textures. Gears 2 was when it released by many considered the best textures on any console game. Even in arguements over KZ2 versus GeoW 2, Often everyone agreed that Gears 2 had the better textures but KZ2 looked better in motion ( thanks to great animation and brilliant use of Post Processing affects. ) UE3 is fantastic at textures. If ME1 is considered great textures, ME2 beats it in every way. Textures are gonna be a very strong point. Especially considering UE3 is fantastic at textures. It always has been. 
As far as this so called jittering, we are clearly watching a different video. We really are. 

Just because 1 had good textures & 2 is an improvement doesn't mean 2 is instantly amazing as you have to look at the games and how the market has developed since ME1. Which is a hell of a lot.

As you clearly are not looking at what I've noticed, I have far too much spare time and so have highlighted them in the following screenshots:
http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/8544/vlcsnap2010012512h04m22.png
As you can see the textures for the enviroment are very simple and so are the shadows. On the left during the video the soft shadows are basic, which is seen on the right as there is a very clear distinction between hard & soft, not a gradual change. Hardly top notch graphics and you have to remember, this game runs great on the 8800GT, which is telling about the graphics.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7648/vlcsnap2010012512h05m09.png

The above link shows how the supposed amazing textures aren't there. Look at the facial hair. It's just texturing, whereas the skin is quite low res bump mapping. Though a mad amout of detail has gone into Shepard who looks ace.

So there we are - exact screenshots from the video at 720p and the game looks ace, but the graphics are hardly the best on the consoles.

Again disagree. These screenshots are video captures. Poor video captures at that. motion blur etc affecting the quality of the image on the capture. ( It is Image Shack after all ).

On the Ps3 argument you were making it's interesting to note that 5 months after KZ2 relesed the worlds most influential and greatest graphics designer gaming has ever known had this to say about making Rage. Lets not forget Rage is 60 FPS to.

"CVG details an extensive 10-page feature on id Software's Rage in the latest issue of UK games magazine Edge. The piece includes confirmation by John Carmack that the Xbox 360 version of the game will run at a brisk 60 frames per second, but that he has found PS3 to be at a disadvantage to Microsoft's console in terms of rendering power. "The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," he said.

As a result, Edge reports that the game runs at "just 20-30fps" on Sony's console. Carmack places the blame on the PS3's GPU -- the RSX -- saying that, "The rasterizer is just a little bit slower -- no two ways about that...the RSX is slower than what we have in the 360." He sees both consoles as being comparable in terms of raw processing power, however. "The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off," he told the magazine. "...that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3."

Now, before you go making a comment you can't take back, know that the Edge article doesn't clarify whether or not the performance of the PS3 version will be improved prior to release. It's also telling that Carmack states that the PS3 is only "a little bit slower" than 360 in his findings -- if that's the case, we can't imagine that the finished will run at fully half the speed."

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/30/edge-rage-running-at-60fps-on-360-just-20-to-30fps-on-ps3/