Maybe, Sony was over exagerating about the graphic potential of the PS3?!?!!?!? Nevermind they would NEVER Do that...
Seriously, Everyone has been saying PS3 wont have super duper 1000x better graphics than 360, i doubt it will even have the same graphics as the 360, because the weaker GPU.
My opinion.
| Porcupine_I said:
yes, i see how this works, it's YOUR definition after all :) gotcha! |
wait how did you get that from that post? I am starting to doubt you ability to see how it works at all..: )
@TheVoxelman on twitter
zarx said:
|
because you didn't provide any definition of IGN's scoring policy regarding the changing standards you mentioned, i i assumed it was all your own definition of their scoring.
anyway, i still can't figure out how the "best looking game on console" can not get a perfect graphic score. by MY definition this means it's not the best by todays standards, regardless of earlier games.
“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”
- George Orwell, ‘1984’
| V-r0cK said: In Sony's mind they're probably thinking ..."It's about dam time a dev making a multiplat game knows how to utilize the PS3 instead of giving us the crap end of the deal!" lol |
Sony intentionally made the ps3 very difficult to develop for, I doubt they care about 3rd parties struggling to keep up
| Garnett said: Maybe, Sony was over exagerating about the graphic potential of the PS3?!?!!?!? Nevermind they would NEVER Do that...
Seriously, Everyone has been saying PS3 wont have super duper 1000x better graphics than 360, i doubt it will even have the same graphics as the 360, because the weaker GPU.
My opinion |
it's 2006 all over again!
Japanese Pop Culture Otaku
| Garnett said: Maybe, Sony was over exagerating about the graphic potential of the PS3?!?!!?!? Nevermind they would NEVER Do that...
Seriously, Everyone has been saying PS3 wont have super duper 1000x better graphics than 360, i doubt it will even have the same graphics as the 360, because the weaker GPU.
My opinion. |
but the GPU isn't weaker
FACT
| Garnett said: Maybe, Sony was over exagerating about the graphic potential of the PS3?!?!!?!? Nevermind they would NEVER Do that...
Seriously, Everyone has been saying PS3 wont have super duper 1000x better graphics than 360, i doubt it will even have the same graphics as the 360, because the weaker GPU.
My opinion. |
Everyone knows thats the case. But Sony had to do the "we have premium graphix" pr cause of the cost of the console.
The fact that PS3 came out a year later and is on par with the 360 tech wise is quite a bad planning decision by Sony. A year is an eternity in R&D time...3DO to PS1, Dreamcast to PS2, PS2 to Xbox 1.
I believe the cost of the Cell processor screwed them. The initial yields on that processor were like 25% successful and I don't think they got much better for a few years. They couldn't afford to use a better GPU and add more ram (as well as other promissed features which were missing or cut like dual HDMI outputs and backwards compatibility).
If sony were to use a less powerful, over the counter available CPU and a 8800GTX GPU (most powerful GPU at PS3s release), the console graphics race would have been a slaughter.
| disolitude said: What is this all sub HD talk? Do you people know how rediculous you sound when you claim a game can not look good if its sub 720p? We're talking 1280x720 versus 1152x720 Are you people that thick to think this makes absolutely any difference? Take Uncharted 2 at HD and Crysis 2 at "sub hd" and they look equaly good (or bad depending what you're used to) on a 1080p TV. Both get upscaled to shit, and since they cant afford much AA on consoles both have the exact same issues.
|
Are you a PC user? If so then run a game in 1280x720 and 1152x720 e see the difference... that's 12% more pixels make the graphics.
Show me the resolution didn't make difference in graphics and performance.
Uncharted had better graphics than Crysis 2 and run in 720p without fps drop or texture pop-up... THAT IS GRAPHIC KING!
goforgold said:
but the GPU isn't weaker
FACT |
The Xbox360 GPU is close to the X1950 but enhanced with 48 unified shaders, tessellation support, 10MB on chip RAM and other goodies. The PS3's RSX is a 7800GT and only 8 ROPs instead of 16. Combined that disadvantage with only 256 mb of dedicated ram VS 360s unified RAM structure...
Thats whats called a FACT Jimmy...
ethomaz said:
Are you a PC user? If so then run a game in 1280x720 and 1152x720 e see the difference... that's 12% more pixels make the graphics. Show me the resolution didn't make difference in graphics and performance. Uncharted had better graphics than Crysis 2 and run in 720p without fps drop or texture pop-up... THAT IS GRAPHIC KING! |
At this point, looking at your posts, I'm pretty sure I know a lot more about PC and resolutions than you do...and you're wrong.
1280x720 is better than 1152x720 but using that as a a factor which solely determines graphics quality is absurd.
You can have a 720p game look better than a native 1080p game if you give it nice amount of anti aliasing and a better frame rate.
I am not saying Crysis 2 looks better than Uncharted 2 mind you. I havent even played Crysis 2 yet on consoles... But you people posting the "its sub hd so it sux" argument need to stop as it sounds follish and makes it obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
