Forums - Gaming Discussion - World's Best Graphics On Consoles! Top 10 by GameReactor

CGI-Quality said:
Oblivion86 said:
MikeB said:

@ CGI-Quality

I don't agree:

http://kineticninja.blogspot.com/2009/01/naughty-dog-realtime-graphics-and_31.html

Technically Gears of War 2 really shows its age in comparison with the best graphics this gen and personally I dislike the character models (especially as in art style).

I am not saying it's a horrible looking game and maybe not the worst looking one in this list, but I even consider one of your favourites, Heavy Rain, to top this head & shoulders in terms of graphics and that didn't make the list.


Gears 2 IMO deserves a spot above KZ2, because of it's art style, direction, and character models.. It is one of the smoothest games of this gen.. Meanwhile KZ2 has clunky textures, mono-palette scheme, and some awful pop-ins, so yeah..

Your opinion is fine, but Killzone 2 didn't have any pop-in (which is ironic since Gears 2 did) and I've never heard of "clunky" textures.


clunky meaning disportional or odd looking.. I noticed quite a number of pop-ins in the later levels, never did I notice one in GoW2 SP, that is just my experience..

 

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/949/949161p2.html

"That being said, there are still some technical issues that crop up here and there. There are a number of low resolution shadows that pop up on environments and character models, particularly when they're talking, which can detract from the action that's going on. The same can be said for the texture pop-in that will snap into view, frequently on camera pans of a location. Add to this some of the aliasing and even the grain filters, which give the game depth but are also a double-edged sword because it almost feels like they're overused in some areas."



Around the Network
Doobie_wop said:
Oblivion86 said:
XxXProphecyXxX said:
Oblivion86 said:
XxXProphecyXxX said:

Right now my list would be:

1.God of war 3

2.Killzone 3

3.Uncharted 2

4.Killzone 2

5.Crysis 2

special mentions to HEAVY RAIN,BATTLE FIELD  2 and UNCHARTED 1.

I know that my list will definitly change once UNCHARTED 3,LAST GUARDIAN and probly INFAMOUS 2 drops, can't wait!!!

ALSO:

LOL @ the guy who keeps saying CODE NAME KINGDOMS will say "bye bye to sony 1st party games",we don't even have a single screen shot from that game AHAHAHAHAH!

Killzone 2 is in no way shape or form even close to Crysis 2, please drop that comparison.. It is on par or slightly better then Killzone 3. Using a huge color palette it is alot more difficult to make things look sharp and crisp, rather then going the mono-brown approach that the Killzone series has always used. In terms of scale Crysis 2 blows everything away, but in terms of detail, textures, and lighting only UC2 is slightly better.

Uhhh I have both games on my ps3 and finished both so please spare me the "mono -brown is easier" excuse because I've seen both with my OWN EYES.

So have I, played through both KZ2 and KZ3.. I am giving you reasoning as to why it is "lazy" developing doing a mono-palette, nobody is going to deny that Killzone uses a mono-palette to shade their games. Just my personal opinion, but in no way is KZ2 on the level that C2 is at.

You'd have to also take into consideration that Crysis 2 barely runs in comparison to Killzone 2. One is 720p, a constant 30FPS, lacks bugs and has great looking character models, while the other has some serious pop in issues, the framerate drops to as low as 15FPS, ugly looking enemy character models and has some bugs.

I personally think Crysis 2 looks better than Killzone 3, but the visual issues it's suffers from can only make them equal in my personal list. Sure Killzone 2 is brown, but it's also flawless in it's visual execution, the same can't be said for Crysis 2.

It's all opinions anyway, you may think that a darker colour palette hurts the visuals more than a bunch of technical issues, I think otherwise, it's all cool.

Neither run at a constant 30. 



Why isn't Red Dead on the list??? 



I'll just leave this here.

LOL @ the end "ya hear that? the sound of bar being raised!"



gurglesletch said:

Neither run at a constant 30.

True, but Killzone 2 had FAR less inconsistencies and ran in 1280x720p.

As for Red Dead, I guess they don't it's one of the Top 10 most impressive games this gen, but then again, neither are some of the other titles on the list.



                                                                                                             

Around the Network
Oblivion86 said:
CGI-Quality said:

Your opinion is fine, but Killzone 2 didn't have any pop-in (which is ironic since Gears 2 did) and I've never heard of "clunky" textures.


clunky meaning disportional or odd looking.. I noticed quite a number of pop-ins in the later levels, never did I notice one in GoW2 SP, that is just my experience..

 

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/949/949161p2.html

"That being said, there are still some technical issues that crop up here and there. There are a number of low resolution shadows that pop up on environments and character models, particularly when they're talking, which can detract from the action that's going on. The same can be said for the texture pop-in that will snap into view, frequently on camera pans of a location. Add to this some of the aliasing and even the grain filters, which give the game depth but are also a double-edged sword because it almost feels like they're overused in some areas."

Clunky is a representation of a feeling or movement, not a look. Low-res textures it had, yes (although, so did Gears 2).

As for that review, I don't recall it personally, maybe they saw something I didn't. Could be wrong. I'll play through it again.

And I'd suggest playing Gears 2 again, because one of the things that plagued the game is texture pop-in. It was improved from Gears 1, but it was definitely there.



                                                                                                             

I agree with this list i wish they put some rpg's on it though 



CGI-Quality said:
Oblivion86 said:
CGI-Quality said:

Your opinion is fine, but Killzone 2 didn't have any pop-in (which is ironic since Gears 2 did) and I've never heard of "clunky" textures.


clunky meaning disportional or odd looking.. I noticed quite a number of pop-ins in the later levels, never did I notice one in GoW2 SP, that is just my experience..

 

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/949/949161p2.html

"That being said, there are still some technical issues that crop up here and there. There are a number of low resolution shadows that pop up on environments and character models, particularly when they're talking, which can detract from the action that's going on. The same can be said for the texture pop-in that will snap into view, frequently on camera pans of a location. Add to this some of the aliasing and even the grain filters, which give the game depth but are also a double-edged sword because it almost feels like they're overused in some areas."

Clunky is a representation of a feeling or movement, not a look. Low-res textures it had, yes (although, so did Gears 2).

As for that review, I don't recall it personally, maybe they saw something I didn't. Could be wrong. I'll play through it again.

And I'd suggest playing Gears 2 again, because one of the things that plagued the game is texture pop-in. It was improved from Gears 1, but it was definitely there.

i played it the day before KZ3 came out, and the only thing i noticed was slight pauses throughout the game were it was loading, not unlike crysis 2. if the was any pop-in, it wasnt noticable, or i just missed it, marveling at how good of graphics it still has. it does have some low res rocks, but for the most part, they are very good.



CGI-Quality said:
Oblivion86 said:
CGI-Quality said:

Your opinion is fine, but Killzone 2 didn't have any pop-in (which is ironic since Gears 2 did) and I've never heard of "clunky" textures.


clunky meaning disportional or odd looking.. I noticed quite a number of pop-ins in the later levels, never did I notice one in GoW2 SP, that is just my experience..

 

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/949/949161p2.html

"That being said, there are still some technical issues that crop up here and there. There are a number of low resolution shadows that pop up on environments and character models, particularly when they're talking, which can detract from the action that's going on. The same can be said for the texture pop-in that will snap into view, frequently on camera pans of a location. Add to this some of the aliasing and even the grain filters, which give the game depth but are also a double-edged sword because it almost feels like they're overused in some areas."

Clunky is a representation of a feeling or movement, not a look. Low-res textures it had, yes (although, so did Gears 2).

As for that review, I don't recall it personally, maybe they saw something I didn't. Could be wrong. I'll play through it again.

And I'd suggest playing Gears 2 again, because one of the things that plagued the game is texture pop-in. It was improved from Gears 1, but it was definitely there.

Gears had fade-in effect, different and more subtle from the obvious texture pop-in towards the later stages of KZ2.. Clunky can be used to describe an object or graphics by treating it as a metaphor meaning "disportionate or inconsistent from reality.."

 

coming back to my original opinion..

UC2 > Crysis 2 > KZ 3 & GoW3 > Gears 2 > Killzone 2



Only thing I don't like about the list is that it seems to me like it totally ignores the existence of downloadable games.  There are some games out there like Wipeout HD and Flower which are technically impressive and aesthetically beautiful that would fit really well on this list.  I wonder if they were considerred.



...