CGI's HYPE Series: Graphics Showdown 2011

[Jdevil3]

RAZurrection said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I captured the second image from campaign myself to avoid any confusion.

Jdevil3 said:

And why do you say "Uncharted 2 looks like a 2009 game"? as far as I know, Uncharted 2 was released in 2009... so it IS a 2009 game, what do you want it to look like? a 2015 game? 2009 games look like 2009 games... it's simple logic O_o are we going to call every game that has worse graphics than Uncharted 2 a 2008 game? no, we know most games that will release in 2011 will have worse graphics than Uncharted 2 and I doubt anyone is going to say they look like 2007-2008 games O_o

I said Uncharted 3 (a 2011 game) looks just like Uncharted 2 (a 2009 game)

Jdevil3 said:

Also, why do you say people expect from Uncharted 3 a generational leap "like Crysis 2 or Rage"? I don't see any generational leap in those games... maybe they'll improve their graphics by the time they're released... but I doubt it... even Killzone 2 has better graphics than those games (from what we've seen so far). Maybe you were talking about the PC version? that's the only way what you said makes sense.

Open world? Twice the framerate? I'm just mirroring the post E3 press commentary. I already link to Sessler's Ragegasm.

Jdevil3 said:

And why do you bring that Uncharted 2 received a 9.5 in graphics and Modern Warfare 2 received a 10 into the discussion? I think we both know that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has way worse graphics than Uncharted 2. You don't seem to be one of those people who don't know anything about graphics, I'm sure you can see that MW2 has worse graphics than Uncharted 2 and I believe we both agree on that, right? or am I wrong? if I'm right, it doesn't make any sense that you brought that into the discussion O_o

Um it wasn't Uncharted 2, it was god of war 3. It just seemed strange to me to bring up an exclusives graphics when they're rated less than a cross platform game.

@bolded No1

Then I guess you must have taken that picture on Dec 16, 2009 or earlier since look what I've found doing a quick search on Google:

 

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/6942/raz1.jpg

 

 

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/664/raz2.jpg

 

 

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/3784/raz3.jpg

 

I think you're lying about that

 

Specially when you said you played and finished the game. I only played the demo and I'm able to tell the difference between singleplayer models and the multiplayer models you posted. Look at these images I found, I believe they're from singleplayer, you should be able to notice the difference:

 

I believe you're either lying or just trolling, tell me... What are you trying to do?

Also... you never answered me when I asked you why you're trying to pass Uncharted 2 multiplayer screenshots as single player ones? Why are you doing that? O_o

 

 

@bolded 2

 

Yeah, you said that

 

@bolded 3

 

I asked you first, so don't ask me :P. But if you want to know if I think that Open world and Twice the framerate mean a generational leap in graphics then I'll tell you that I don't.

I think a generational leap in graphics means better Anti-Aliasing techniques (Something better than MLAA or a combination of MLAA and at least 4xMSAA), higher resolutions (1920x1080 or 2560x1600), Better motion blur, better lighning, better animations, higher textrures, higher framerate, lack of screen tearing, etc. That's what I believe the jump from this gen to the next one should be like.

I expect at least twice of the best we've seen in this generation to consider that a game has done a generational leap in graphics (or next gen graphics).

Let's take God of War III as an example:

Kratos' textures were around 2048x2048 (don't remember the exact resolution), GoWIII had a resolution of 1280x720, it had a very good lightning technique, no screen tearing, more than 50 enemies on screen, MLAA (it's results are simillar to something between 4xMSAA and 8xMSAA), moving environments and a big scale, pretty good textures in the environment, an average of 45-60 FPS, a very good motion blur technique, etc.

Ok, now I doubt those games are going to have character's textures of 4096x4096, a resolution of at least 1920x1080, more than 100 enemies on screen, some form of anti-aliasing which results are simillar to something between 8xMSAA and 16xMSAA, bigger and better moving environments with animations twice as good as GoWIII and a scale at least 2 times bigger than GoWIII, environments' textures twice as detailed as those on GoWIII, an average of 90-120 FPS and a motion blur technique twice as good as that one implemented in God of War III.

If you believe a generational leap in graphics implies that a game must be open world game and only 60 FPS, you're wrong.

Take the PS2 and PS3 as an example to be able to realize what a generational leap in graphics is. There isn't such a big difference between those 2 games and Killzone 2 to say that they've made a generational leap in graphics :S

 

@bolded 4

Yeah, it was GoWIII but that makes it even worse, God of War III has even better graphics than Uncharted 2... but you think Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has better graphics than God of War III? it doesn't make any sense.

Hmm... wait, I think it does... 1st you can't tell the difference between singleplayer and multiplayer in Uncharted 2 even though you said you played the game from beginning to end. Then you say that there's a generational leap in games like Crysis 2 when you compare them to other games. And you also seem to believe than MW2 has better graphics than GoWIII.

I think all those facts prove that you aren't able to distinguish the graphical differences in Video Games.

And you no longer need to answer the "why did you try to pass those Uncharted 2 multiplayer screenshots as single player ones?" question since I've already been able to determine the reason myself. You can't even distinguish the difference :O

If you can't tell the differences yourself, there are many sites that state the technical aspects of games.

This is one of those (it seems to be a bit biased towards Xbox 360, but you should only take into account the technical side of things such as framerate, screentearing, resolution, antialiasing, shadows, motion blur, etc and ignore the "opinion" bits):

http://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry

Here's another one (this one seems to be a bit biased towards the PS3, but just do what I said before... their comparisons are a bit poorer, though):

http://www.lensoftruth.com/

 

Those are pretty helpful to make comparisons between games, they usually just compare multiplatform games... but sometimes they analyze the technical aspects of exclusives too... so they're good to learn some stuff about the games you buy or want to buy... or just to learn for curiosity alone.

I hope you find those sites useful... and if you ever find a better one, please tell me.

Sorry if my english sucks.