kain_kusanagi said:
I don't think PS3 hardware is why games like Uncharted 2/3 and GOW3 looked better than 360 games. I've always been of the opinion that Sony spent the money and resources to ensure their dev teams could outdo the 360 because they had to. Sony made big promises that the PS3 was superious, but when the console launched Gears of War still looked the best. Sony had no choice but to put in enormous effort and money into nothing but graphics. Naughty Dog, Guerrilla, and Santa Monica all benefitied from that. Without the expensive Sony resources tow ork with Uncharted 2 would have looked like Uncharted 1 and Killzone 2 would have looked like Resistance. Sony knew they had to spend the money if they wanted to convince people that the PS3 was worth buying or they knew people would just continue to buy Xbox 360s. Halo 4 is the first game on 360 that MS did the same with. 343i cost MS a ton of cash, but like Uncharted 2 it payed off. Now it seems we see the truth. The great graphics of Uncharted 2 isn't proof of PS3 superiourity, but instead proof of effort. Uncharted 2 and Halo 4 proove tegether that the machines are equaly capable when the same level of effort is applied to graphics specificly. That's my take on the matter anyway. As for Halo 4 alone. What impresses me the most is that the game looks so good and runs so smooth while so much is happening in such large areas. |
Yes wit how good Halo 4 looks, I forgot about the amount onscreen.
In one phrase Halo 4 looks and plays up their at the top of the gen for visuals. But where it moves far aead of games like Killzone 3, Uncharted and GOW3 is ehats happening with those visuals onscreen. Sometimes theres 30-40 od soldiers battling it out. In flying craft, Ghosts, Warthogs and then the onfoot guys. Its crazy what is tecnically being achieved here. This sort of thing rarely gets considered in Graphics arguements. But adding that really shows just what an achievement Halo 4 is for this generations consoles.