By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - I think it's safe to say the PS3 is the definitive graphics king for this gen

brendude13 on 09 March 2012
NintendoPie said:
brendude13 said:
NintendoPie said:

*picture*

I don't think anyone is denying this is CGI, it's pretty obvious. It's damn good CGI though, easily the best looking thing I have seen on my TV.

That's old compressed CGI by the way, this is better.

I know it's CGI. xD Not all consoles can render it that good though.

That is really pretty!

Oh, don't worry, I know that you knew. It's just that you posted the picture and everyone pounced on you saying "dats nut game footage!!!", well no shit.



Around the Network
Sal.Paradise on 09 March 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
Sal.Paradise said:

@Aldro

So you've seen that GT thread too huh (●ゝω)ノヽ(∀＜●)

 

 

kain_kusanagi said:
Silver-Tiger said:
kain_kusanagi said:
TadpoleJackson said:
Bullshots and trailer screens aren't proof of anything ^


Yep, every shot I've seen posted in this thread has more AA than a Pixar movie when every PS3 game I've witnessed in real life has little to no AA.


Again, since you obviously didn't read the comments or played the game, the God of War III screens are IN-GAME.

Did you take the screenshots yourself? I don't know what kind of magic PS3 enhancing HD TV  you have, but my HD TV doesn't show God of War III looking as AA smooth and crisp as the shots show in this thread. 

Devs often release what they call "In-Game" screens, and while they were in fact rendered on the console they often have more AA than the actual game will have when you play it. It happens all the time. For example "The Last of Us" is going to be full of jaggies just like all the other games this generation but you wouldn't know by looking at the "In-Game" screens released by Naughty Dog so far. It's what's called "Bullshots" and everybody does it. The internet is full of "in-game" screen shots that look far better than games look when we get to play them.

I'm not saying the game looks bad. But this thread is full of bullshots and in some posts flat out CGI.

You're a special breed. Again, the ONLY CG in this thread are those Final Fantasy pictures, not posted by me. Does a picture look better than I think it should? Does it look better than on my tv? Then I guess everybody posting these images must be adding AA to all their photos in post-processing or something. Seriously, you've outed me, it's a big conspiracy among PS3 gamers worldwide. We take hundreds of shots in-game and then add AA to them and touch them up to look better than they really are. Videos too! Have you seen those fake playthroughs of Uncharted and God of War? Months of work, trust me. 

Here, have an in-game picture of how I feel about your post. (Your post, that is, not you. I'm sure you're a fine person)

Now that's a very good example of an actual in-game GoW3 screen shot. See how it has jaggies all of the place, low res textures, and some low polygon models here and there, for example look at all the straight edges everywhere.

The shots I was complaining about look way better than this one because they were either "bullshots" or at the very least cut-scene shots using non-in-game models, textures, and such.  But, I doubt that because even the cutscenes in GoW3 don't have the level of AA those pics had. It's not a conspiracy by gamers, it's the devs and publishers. They always put out better looking shots than the actual game. It's just like how the pictures of McDonalds burgers in the menu look better than the one you're served. A company is always going to show you the best possible product to convince you it's good.

I've just learned to accept that pictures on the internet don't always represent the real game's level of graphical fidelity. I'm not blaming you or anyone else posting pics. You and the rest didn't capture the images so there's no way to know where they came from. I could go out and find "in-game" shots of Halo Reach that look so good you'd swear they where CGI or "in-game" shots of Gears of War 3 or even 2 that compare to everything in this thread. But like most of the pics posted here, they would be the very best the devs could muster and don't necessarily represent the quality of the retail game running on end user hardware.

BTW, I play PS3 with HDMI in 1080p. This pic looks like what I see when I play the game, the previous shots don't.

Here, have a gallery of over 300 GoW 3 images from the same source. http://imgur.com/a/wweVs

 These include the 'bullshot' images and the 'real' images, by your reckoning. Wonder why someone would be so crazy as to mix 'em all up. Where are the jaggies here compared to the other in-game pictures? Protip: 'bullshots' of in-game scenes using higher-res textures than real ones? Are you high? So I post one picture where you can clearly see lower-than-average quality textures as we are zoomed in, and lets face it no game has 100% great textures, and suddenly VOILA! All 300 other images are discredited.

Get real.

And no, you don't play the game at HD 1080p. The game runs at 720p and upscales. And textures don't suddenly change because of the resolution you play the game at, either. 



NintendoPie on 09 March 2012
brendude13 said:
NintendoPie said:
brendude13 said:
NintendoPie said:

*picture*

I don't think anyone is denying this is CGI, it's pretty obvious. It's damn good CGI though, easily the best looking thing I have seen on my TV.

That's old compressed CGI by the way, this is better.

-picture-

I know it's CGI. xD Not all consoles can render it that good though.

That is really pretty!

Oh, don't worry, I know that you knew. It's just that you posted the picture and everyone pounced on you saying "dats nut game footage!!!", well no shit.

People pounced on me? xD Other people were posting CGI footage, I'm pretty sure that UC3 desert footage is CGI. Right?



Sal.Paradise on 09 March 2012
NintendoPie said:
brendude13 said:
NintendoPie said:
brendude13 said:
NintendoPie said:

*picture*

I don't think anyone is denying this is CGI, it's pretty obvious. It's damn good CGI though, easily the best looking thing I have seen on my TV.

That's old compressed CGI by the way, this is better.

-picture-

I know it's CGI. xD Not all consoles can render it that good though.

That is really pretty!

Oh, don't worry, I know that you knew. It's just that you posted the picture and everyone pounced on you saying "dats nut game footage!!!", well no shit.

People pounced on me? xD Other people were posting CGI footage, I'm pretty sure that UC3 desert footage is CGI. Right?

Gameplay. You control Drake. 

Starts @6min in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RswxxH_a9wo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FAISlQtrHA&feature=related 

Seems like I'm doing this all by my lonesome :( 



blkfish92 on 09 March 2012
EpicLight said:
Let's just wait and see 'till we learn more about what the Wii-U can really do.


The wiiU is next generation not current.



           

Around the Network
Rainbird on 09 March 2012
Hynad said:
TadpoleJackson said:
brendude13 said:
TadpoleJackson said:
Ignoring the PC is like saying England is the best country as long as you don't count the US.

No it's not, PC is constantly evolving and is always state of the art, it's not fair to count it in comparisons like this. How good a game looks is dependant on the hardware for the most part.

That's a weakness for the home consoles. The graphics king title belongs to the system that has the best graphics, that would be the PC. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. 

And of course going by that logic the PS3 would look better than the X360. Since it came out a year later. So it's not fair to compare them. 

Nope, the title would go to the supercomputers used by the army, scientists and some specialised companies.  Not PCs (personal computers).

See how this makes any sense?

Not that I care to get into this discussion, but I would like to hear you justify the comparison with super computers. In my head, comparing PCs to consoles with respect to gaming makes sense, seeing as they both play games, but comparing super computers to PCs with respect to gaming doesn't, seeing as super computers don't do gaming. So please do explain the reasoning to me.



Solid-Stark on 09 March 2012

Instead of screenshots, let's post videos of how impressive the games run.



e=mc^2

Gaming on: PS4 Pro, Switch, SNES Mini, Wii U, PC (i5-7400, GTX 1060)

Hynad on 09 March 2012
Rainbird said:
Hynad said:
TadpoleJackson said:
brendude13 said:
TadpoleJackson said:
Ignoring the PC is like saying England is the best country as long as you don't count the US.

No it's not, PC is constantly evolving and is always state of the art, it's not fair to count it in comparisons like this. How good a game looks is dependant on the hardware for the most part.

That's a weakness for the home consoles. The graphics king title belongs to the system that has the best graphics, that would be the PC. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. 

And of course going by that logic the PS3 would look better than the X360. Since it came out a year later. So it's not fair to compare them. 

Nope, the title would go to the supercomputers used by the army, scientists and some specialised companies.  Not PCs (personal computers).

See how this makes any sense?

Not that I care to get into this discussion, but I would like to hear you justify the comparison with super computers. In my head, comparing PCs to consoles with respect to gaming makes sense, seeing as they both play games, but comparing super computers to PCs with respect to gaming doesn't, seeing as super computers don't do gaming. So please do explain the reasoning to me.

Isn't the subject just graphics king? =P

I turned this PC thing into derision to illustrate a point.

People keep saying that PC is king, yet PCs are constantly evolving.  That's just a given that graphics would be better on PCs, from a purely technical point of view. 

When it comes to consoles, they're set in stone.  They're not evolving, or different depending on how much money you put into them.  
So when you're comparing the HD consoles, you're doing it to see which of those console designs, created with parts from the same time, actually ended up being the better one.  Adding PC in the argument is completely stupid [and redundant] if you ask me.  And when we say "this gen" we mean "this console generation".  PCs are not consoles.   And besides, can anyone say which gen the PCs are in right now?  Not the same as the HD consoles, that's for sure.   




Areym on 09 March 2012

You can say whatever you want about the PS3 but there is no arguments. It has the best console graphics to date. It doesn't mean every single PS3 game has godly graphics or that the games are better than Wii or 360 games, it just means that the PS3 has the capability to produce the best looking graphics out of all the home consoles. There is no disputing it. It has been proven time and time again.



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

Dallinor on 09 March 2012

I think that's pretty obvious,

As others have mentioned though, it has a lot to do with the focus a lot of Sony studios had, on squeezing as much power out of the machine as they could.