ameratsu said:
selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:
These screens are actually quite old unfortunately, so the visuals look a bit dated. Considering Carmack's a tech monster though, I don't think this game will lack in the visual front come release. It's just that these screens look dated. |
No doubts here. Carmack knows graphics and graphics engines better than anyone else in the world. Every engine has always been the frontrunner when it's released. Consider also that Rage is 60fps and games like KZ2 and Uncharted 2 and ME2 can only boast 30 FPS that is a big thing. Also heres an article from July 2009. Confirming PS3 issues of RSX being a bit slower, but CPU's of PS3 and 360 basically being identical in performance. If anyone would know how to get the PS3 version up to scratch it would be Carmack. 60 FPS is an amzing achievement. Imagine how much worse graphically U2 or KZ2 would have looked with a steady 60 fps. Double the speed of the games that released.
|
60fps is great for sure, but this game is going to look nothing like the shots in the OP on the 360. I mean the OP shots are the PC version with every possible setting maxed. With how few people here actually play PC games, posting PC shots to get people hyped for the console versions is a bit silly, but to each his own.
|
There are plenty of PC gamers on here too, we happen to be mulitplatform gamers too so this info is just as important to be posted. If people get all excited looking at pre release bull shots then thats their problem.
There is really no point comparing these screenshots to any game, it's obviously not a final build and we have no idea what hardware they're running (although we can assume).
