selnor said:
Mazty said:
selnor said:
Forget your stupid PC graphics card. Uncharted 2 would know doubt run on an older PC graphcis card if it was a PC game.
It also depends on the game engine and how it's been designeed to work with Hardware. We know UE3 is very efficient. Probably the most efficient Engine whilst using resources extremely well. Thats why it still looks amazing now. So, you haven't played ME2, yet loads of peple that have think it looks amzing, best of gen or there with the top runners.
Also saying what you said about Call Of Juarez was rediculous. You and I both know it doesnt work like that. If you base good graphics by waht PC graphics card you need, then you have alot to learn. As for my post. No I didnt say Carmack said PS3 was more powerful. I used PS3 as an example. Because Rage is said to be better than anyhthing currently on PS3. Carmack actually said in Raw processing power of CPU PS3 and 360 are virtually the same. It's the RSX is a bit slower than GPU on 360. I know you'll spin that somehow. But for him to say that midway through 2009 isnt some wierd comment. PS3 has been around for the last 3 years to buy. So they have probably had dev kits for PS3 for over 4 years.
|
Forget your stupid graphics card? Wait, if you don't like it, ignore it?? And no, U2 would most likely not run on the 8800GT is you compare the complexities of the soft shadows and post processing effects as well as god rays - effects seen in much more demanding PC titles.
UE3 is efficient because it is simplistic. Have generally low textures for the surrounding, while some detailed textures for some characters. ME2 also uses the trick of having strong shadowing in many scenes which helps effects such as bump mapping. Well gamespot mentioned nothing about the graphics being good, but said the art direction was good.
As I'm debating the technical side of things you have yet to show a screenshot which can be seen to be comparible to Uncharted 2. ME2 seems to have very few post-processing effects and far worse shadowing and AA.
And graphics do work like that...But you seem to be someone who doesn't look at the small details and so doesn't notice if what you are seeing is either good graphics or 'good' graphics e.g. bump mapping with clever lighting. Cal of Juarez has HDR, god rays etc - go run the benchmark if you don't believe me. And in raw processing power that's BS as the PS3 has almost 1 TFlop more than the 360, with the CPU having over 100GFlops more alone. Plus if the CPUs are virtually the same and the GPU is weaker in the PS3, then how come the PS3 is more powerful? Think about it.
But back to my point, you've yet to show any screenshot which can be compared to Uncharted 2 and you won't be able to find any, mainly because ME2 has no field of depth and poor soft shadows, with little AA. How you can then say it's graphics are better I don't know. Please, enlighten me as to exactly how the graphics are better. Saying they just are is just trolling at this point.
|
The whole point is the PS3 is 'NOT' more powerful. Only Sony and it's first party devs have said it is. well known devs with no faveouritism say something quite different. And IMO, the screenshots I have seen of late look better than the Uncharted 2 ones. So I and other reviewers will never agree with you.
|
well dude, while you're looking at screens and running your fingers off here, CGI just dropped and set the record straight and I believe him. And when you find a better looking 360 game than a high-ranked PS3 exclusive, you let me know and we'll talk of power. I couldn't care less about power, I judge during actual play not by "screenshots", if the 360 is as powerful as whatever you want to compare it to, let the developers show it. No show, no power.
