Well, thanks for the info. Still, if the game plays well I'm sure I won't remember what FPS it runs at. Do you know what FPS elder scrolls runs at by any chance? I've played that, Resistance, Motorstorm, and RR7. If none of those are at 60fps then I'm fine because I enjoyed them all.

As far optimization...I'm sure that the next generation of games for PS3 will be easier to reach the 60fps mark because developers will be more used to the hardware. Like I said, Ninja Gaiden Sigma for PS3 will run at 60fps because the developer was very worried about attacks being delivered in the correct frame. I believe VF5 runs at 60fps as well for that reason and was their excuse for no online play (lack of precise frame animations).

If you don't see the value in the $200 then don't get, what can I tell you?  I see it, and I'm perfectly content with my choice because I believe it'll be cheaper within 4 years of what I would be doing and that is playing online.  What you did, however, was say that Gears of War doesn't impress you, Lair doesn't impress you, and I see with your last post you say nothing is "next gen."  Well, I disagree, I'm sorry you don't see it.

That screenshot from Lair showed three (?) guys dressed in armor.

I would assume that for such a "nex-gen SUXXORS!!!111" system the developers (especially the ones making Lair) would have different LOD models to use depending on the in-game situation.

If those onscreen characters are the high LOD models, I would be even more disappointed, because... that's all they could muster?

I sincerely hope for your sanity's sake, Hus, that those models really are the same ones used in those huge environments you talk about and that the devs simply haven't got around to creating the uber-detailed LOD models for in-game cinematics yet; that would be far more excusable (a la sandbox).

Otherwise... it would mean even Factor 5, known for maximizing hardware limits, are either

- incapable of squeezing more out of the PS3, making it a horrifically difficult machine to work with, or (worse)

- have reached the technical ceiling of the PS3 for the foreseeable future.

Neither scenarios are ideal...especially for the SDF.

EDIT: windbane, I don't see it. The leap isn't enough compared to GoW, and the GoW leap isn't enough compared to many FPS that have been around for the PC for quite some time. You don't have to be sorry either. I sure am not.

Doom and gloom for no reason. The game looks great, as do other games already out on the PS3. If you don't think games will look better as the cycle moves on you're quite the funny guy.

Btw, the point isn't that Lair is supposed to look so much better than gears of war or whatever other game.  You can only play Lair on PS3.  That's the point.  If you don't want to play Lair then fine, but this discussion on graphics just seems pointless.  You aren't impressed, I get it. 

It's not doom and gloom for the PS3, it's that I don't see what is so great about the screens from Lair compared to GoW on the 360, which look better to me? 

Who said it won't look better as the cycle moves on? It always does. But you can say exactly the same for the Xbox360, can't you? And you can certainly say the same about PC games; in fact, within 5 years chances are PC games will destroy anything outputted from any console. 

And especially comparing Lair's graphics to GoW, I don't see why the $200 price premium. Not yet. It may come in the future. It may not. But right now, very unimpressed.

Sorry, I guess your standards are simply different from mine.

I don't have a PS3, and have only played a few minutes of MotorStorm, so I can't exactly comment.

I know Motorstorm was locked at 30fps - I think Resistance runs at 60fps (not sure).

...

Most people buy the PS3 for the graphics. Graphics relate to not only how "pretty" the screen is, but how fluid/regularly the screen updates (otherwise a SNES could do great graphics - at 1frame every minute :>).

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the graphics - essentially - don't matter, and that ENJOYMENT is what counts in the end.

But if graphics don't matter... maybe you shouldn't worry about a PS3??

...

For the record - there is a significant (gamplay) difference between 30fps/60fps. It does depend on the type of game, but I have played some games which felt "lame" simply because they were running at 30fps. It DOES matter - but whether it matters for Lair, only time will tell ;)

It especially matters on games with fast motion - 60fps gives you double the effective control, and extra smoothness in movement/attacks, etc. Especially matters with racers, fighters & flying games.

Ok.  Why doesn't Too Human look better than Gears of War?  Why doesn't Elder Scrolls?  Will Halo 3 look better?  We'll see I guess.  So far I'd say no.  Gears of War was created to be that ridiculous looking FPS. I don't think there are as many things going on in Gears of War as there will be in Lair.  Maybe I'm wrong.   By your logic every game, no matter the genre or scope of the game, should look better than Gears of War.

There will be games that look better than Gears of War, but it doesn't have to be every game released.  There are aspects of Motorstorm that look better, but it's a racing game with a lot of action on the screen.  I think your standards don't make sense.

Of course PC games will destroy anything outputted from a console.  That always happens.  And it costs $300 every time a new FPS game comes out to play it, too.  I used to play PC games more than consoles but I got tired of upgrading my video card at least once a year to play all the most recent games.  And btw, just because Doom 3 looked good didn't mean Civilization 4 had to have better graphics because it was released after it.  It's a different kind of game.

You're paying $200 more for free online play (in 4 years that's already even), a blu-ray player, wireless connectivity, and a higher ceiling for games.  Yes, I think that we'll see PS3 games look better than 360 games at some point (maybe not multi-platform games), but Home and Littlebigplanet are also part of the equation.  So yeah, I think the $200 is well spent.  I can live without the 360 exclusives (Halo 3 I'd like to try because of pop culture's sake but I prefer PC FPSs), but I'd really like to play a lot of the PS3 exclusives.  To each his own, but I'm not sure why you are criticizing Lair's graphics because they don't stand up to images (whether in game or not) of Gears of War.  Let it go? 

I think we're mostly on the same page.  I'm not just worried about graphics, and I think the PS3 has great graphics so far and of course it will get better.  SNES couldn't even show the frames from the games we use now.   But since only time will tell, I'm not sure why certain people are being so critical of the game.  According to Narder, though, the experts are as well.  I just wish there was a link.

It's tough being a Sony fan, I'll tell you that.  I should go to sleep. 

"Why play Lair when you can play Gears of War who have better graphics and 200$ cheaper console"

I dont really know if the graphics are better if they are better the reason is that Lair has much bigger levels and thousands of people on screen. GoW is one of the many many FPS games and Lair is dragon/adventure game. I dont really think that it is good idé to compare both games.

"Ok.  Why doesn't Too Human look better than Gears of War?  Why doesn't Elder Scrolls?  Will Halo 3 look better?"

That's simple. You should know this too: They are different games. As with another forum post comparing fixed-screen vs sandbox games, you just can't.

"We'll see I guess.  So far I'd say no."

We will see, but honestly, I don't care what looks better than the other (see above); my gripe is about how Fony touted the supposedly untouchable graphics that everyone on Earth and its closest planetary neighbors have yet to see. Pixar-level graphics... right...

"Gears of War was created to be that ridiculous looking FPS."

It's a Third Person Shooter...

"I don't think there are as many things going on in Gears of War as there will be in Lair. Maybe I'm wrong."

Maybe you're right. Who knows? I guess when it comes out we will all know.

"By your logic every game, no matter the genre or scope of the game, should look better than Gears of War."

No, not at all. I just think that certain people on these forums are very selective about what they consider good or bad, always finding the angle to bash what they don't like and glorifying what they like. And yes, myself included now, but wouldn't you like to know I don't care which console wins - I just like to make a counterpoint.

"There will be games that look better than Gears of War, but it doesn't have to be every game released.  There are aspects of Motorstorm that look better, but it's a racing game with a lot of action on the screen.  I think your standards don't make sense."

See above. Of course if you look at it that way, it doesn't make sense. It's like saying an RTS doesn't have the LOD of, say, a FPS. Of course not. Again, my issue is those certain people that only see the good things about their console and only the bad things about other consoles. I like to see the good and bad, but when faced with (mostly) the SDF spewing off nonsense well...

"Of course PC games will destroy anything outputted from a console.  That always happens.  And it costs $300 every time a new FPS game comes out to play it, too.  I used to play PC games more than consoles but I got tired of upgrading my video card at least once a year to play all the most recent games."

Strange... I haven't upgraded my graphics card in over a year and I still play many of the latest games on PC...  But I do agree that if you want the very latest graphics, upgrading is a bitch. Again, that's not my point. See above. You should know who I am talking about.

"And btw, just because Doom 3 looked good didn't mean Civilization 4 had to have better graphics because it was released after it.  It's a different kind of game."

Sure. Right on there. Nobody is arguing that. See above.

"You're paying $200 more for free online play (in 4 years that's already even), a blu-ray player, wireless connectivity, and a higher ceiling for games.  Yes, I think that we'll see PS3 games look better than 360 games at some point (maybe not multi-platform games), but Home and Littlebigplanet are also part of the equation.  So yeah, I think the $200 is well spent.  I can live without the 360 exclusives (Halo 3 I'd like to try because of pop culture's sake but I prefer PC FPSs), but I'd really like to play a lot of the PS3 exclusives.  To each his own, but I'm not sure why you are criticizing Lair's graphics because they don't stand up to images (whether in game or not) of Gears of War."

I'll tell you when it's well-spent: When those "killer exclusive" games are out, when I know for sure Home is free and not just another way to siphon money out of my pockets by having to buy all the cool stuff Home offers (ever played Tiger Woods?), and when the graphics really live up to the hype (not generated by me, mind you, but by the very people making the "so-far-it's-nothing-but-snake-oil" console).

I seriously doubt the PS3 will be unable to overtake the 360 in graphics (it better have to if it is to live up to 1/10 of the Fony PR BS they fed to the masses), and Blu-Ray will be nice to have once there are enough movies out where I live (read: Not the US).

"Let it go?"

If you "let it go", I just might myself.