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

Michael-5 on 12 March 2012
NoCtiS_NoX said:

Killzone 2

"In a genre where technology plays such an important part in defining the gameplay experience, Killzone 2 was a world apart from its competition." 

Killzone 3

"Whether it's down to improved art direction, enhanced tech, or (as is most likely the case) a combination of the two, there's no denying that Guerrilla's latest shooter is a clear visual upgrade from Killzone 2.

Probably the biggest difference in the sequel is just how much lighter, brighter and more sharply defined the visuals are in comparison to Killzone 2. The dark and grungy atmosphere we're accustomed to rolls out across several levels, but the combination of a new anti-aliasing technique and dialled back post-processing allows more of the detail in the core art assets to shine this time around. When the location shifts to the more exotic locations in the game, the detail level is phenomenal - after the superb jungle level, the Scrapyard stage in particular stands out as a real visual highlight."

I also read that the only advantage of uncharted is it has veggies on it.

I said that, and I also said UC3 does vegitation best (after Crysis 1). Not the only advantage.

That article basically says that Killzone 2 is a bit blurrier then Killzone 3, and the sharper AA affects allowed Guerilla to make Jungle levels, and other levels with a better, non gray atmosphere. Graphically speaking, they didn't mention a difference. They said the visuals were better, and I agree. The richer environment (especially the snow level before the jetpakcs) are a lot more gorgeous to look at then gray slates. Also lighting is done better. However when you walk up to a building, and look at the gray slates, there isn't much of a difference from Killzone 2 and 3.

As for Crysis 2 vs. Killzone 3: Note: a verdict was not given considering the major differences between developers and graphics engines, and our staff choices  only reflect our personal preferences.

Me----can't get rid of Blue.... They also said graphically both games are about the same, but what makes KZ3 look better is the FMV (cut-scenes), and the fact that FPS don't drop. They said they look similar, but Killzone 3 edged it out, and in the end it's a matter of personal preferences because the graphics are close. This backs my statement that after UC3, it's a matter of personal choice.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Around the Network
Cheah_dresta on 12 March 2012

LOL! the fanboys in this thread is funny as hell but more the 360 side, you can literally sense their saltiness in their posts AHAHAH! salty fanboy reactions are priceless. =D

But TBH this topic is already over talked about over the years, new gen console is on the horizon and "EXCLUSIVE GAMES" that was intended to show cases the graphical capabilities of each respective console has already come out so there isn't much to discuss anymore the games says it all....

with that said PS3 did show more graphically impressive games as far as consoles goes.


This post has been moderated ~ Barozi



killerzX on 12 March 2012
Michael-5 said:
killerzX said:
Michael-5 said:

I am biased?, you took my linked source and said ", but......I don't accept it, so it's not true.......wahhh."

killzone was released a nearly a year after e3, ign impression were based off of pre-alpha footage, the article said nothing about any playable demo.

e3 impression of games are completely meaningless, especially when camparing a game a couple months away from release which is nearly finished (gears) and a game nearly a year away (killzone 2).

no, i dont accept the link because its meaningless, why would we base best graphics of unfinished unreleased versions of games. thats utterly idiotic.

You realize pre-alpha is also pre-demo? It's unfinished and generally unplayable...... IGN played a playable level, and said Gears 2 looked better.

Also Killzone 2 released 3 months after Gears, really not that far off. I like how 7 months is nearly a year, and 4 months is a couple (meaning 2).

Do you accept these facts? or am I biased again?

you realize, you lied again, as usual.

pre-alpha, is still playable. its just a early build, non-finished. just like the killzone 3 beta in december was pre-alpha. i saw nothing about them playing a level in that article, but i will take you at your word (which i shouldnt because you constantly lie and misrepresent, and back track on you own words).

also it was nearly 4 months after gears, 8 months after e3. thats a hell of a long time in game development. i was slihghtly exagerated the timeframes to get accross a point (i also thought gears 2 released in September)

but none of that matters ign, gave their impressions of games during e3, before the games were release. they were unfinshised builds, opinions of nonreleased games. it doesnt matter we are talking finished product here. and by your own argument, MGS4 has better graphics than Killzone 2. because ign, said MGS4 had better graphics than gears 2.

yes you are very very very biased. i dont think i have every seen someone more biased before, and think they are innocent at the same time.



Aldro on 12 March 2012
Sal.Paradise said:
Michael-5 said:
 

 

As to your comment about KZ2..I believe you thought Aldro said KZ2 was the 4th best looking game after U3>U2>KZ3, but he corrected you and said that Gears 3 was in fact the fourth best looking game. I'd definitely agree with him on that! So no problems here.  


Nothing more to add but to clarify this.

 

No. I did not say KZ2 was the 4th best looking game. I did neither say Gears 3 was the 4th best looking game. I said GOD of WAR 3 was the 3RD best looking game followed by KZ3. (I refer to Gears as GeoW). I apologize for not making this clear.


All three of these have won >20 awards in their respective years 09,10,11. That was all I was ever trying to say and prove.


To me, personally, it is:

Uncharted 3 > Uncharted 2 > God of War III > Killzone 3 which I already said to Michael-5 is shockingly similar to the majority of the critics. He argues that the second is a toss up because it is too similar. I argue that the 4-5th can be a toss up because it is too similar. For me however, these 3-4 are in a league of their own. If I was to continue it'd be something like

>>> Gears of War 3 > Crysis 2 > Killzone 2 and i'll draw the line here.

Killzone 3 is a massive improvement over Killzone 2. I've platinum'd it and just like the first post on page 33 says, it really is miles ahead of KZ2. Rightfully so after 2 years. I still however hold the Uncharted franchise on top due to its insane engine that allows for sick setpieces and jaw dropping moments. God of War 3 is very very close aswell.

<3.



brendude13 on 12 March 2012
Aldro said:

Nothing more to add but to clarify this.

 

No. I did not say KZ2 was the 4th best looking game. I did neither say Gears 3 was the 4th best looking game. I said GOD of WAR 3 was the 3RD best looking game followed by KZ3. (I refer to Gears as GeoW). I apologize for not making this clear.


All three of these have won >20 awards in their respective years 09,10,11. That was all I was ever trying to say and prove.


To me, personally, it is:

Uncharted 3 > Uncharted 2 > God of War III > Killzone 3 which I already said to Michael-5 is shockingly similar to the majority of the critics. He argues that the second is a toss up because it is too similar. I argue that the 4-5th can be a toss up because it is too similar. For me however, these 3-4 are in a league of their own. If I was to continue it'd be something like

>>> Gears of War 3 > Crysis 2 > Killzone 2 and i'll draw the line here.

Killzone 3 is a massive improvement over Killzone 2. I've platinum'd it and just like the first post on page 33 says, it really is miles ahead of KZ2. Rightfully so after 2 years. I still however hold the Uncharted franchise on top due to its insane engine that allows for sick setpieces and jaw dropping moments. God of War 3 is very very close aswell.

<3.

I'm guessing before this post there was a huge shit storm that I must have missed.

Anyway, I agree with most of the points you made in this comment. I don't really understand what all of you guys are arguing about.



Around the Network
Sal.Paradise on 12 March 2012
Aldro said:
Sal.Paradise said:
Michael-5 said:
 

 

As to your comment about KZ2..I believe you thought Aldro said KZ2 was the 4th best looking game after U3>U2>KZ3, but he corrected you and said that Gears 3 was in fact the fourth best looking game. I'd definitely agree with him on that! So no problems here.  


Nothing more to add but to clarify this.

 

No. I did not say KZ2 was the 4th best looking game. I did neither say Gears 3 was the 4th best looking game. I said GOD of WAR 3 was the 3RD best looking game followed by KZ3. (I refer to Gears as GeoW). I apologize for not making this clear.


All three of these have won >20 awards in their respective years 09,10,11. That was all I was ever trying to say and prove.


To me, personally, it is:

Uncharted 3 > Uncharted 2 > God of War III > Killzone 3 

Ah yes, that's what I meant. Sorry, didn't want to misrepresent your views!



Michael-5 on 12 March 2012
Aldro said:
Sal.Paradise said:
Michael-5 said:
 

 

As to your comment about KZ2..I believe you thought Aldro said KZ2 was the 4th best looking game after U3>U2>KZ3, but he corrected you and said that Gears 3 was in fact the fourth best looking game. I'd definitely agree with him on that! So no problems here.  


Nothing more to add but to clarify this.

 

No. I did not say KZ2 was the 4th best looking game. I did neither say Gears 3 was the 4th best looking game. I said GOD of WAR 3 was the 3RD best looking game followed by KZ3. (I refer to Gears as GeoW). I apologize for not making this clear.


All three of these have won >20 awards in their respective years 09,10,11. That was all I was ever trying to say and prove.


To me, personally, it is:

Uncharted 3 > Uncharted 2 > God of War III > Killzone 3 which I already said to Michael-5 is shockingly similar to the majority of the critics. He argues that the second is a toss up because it is too similar. I argue that the 4-5th can be a toss up because it is too similar. For me however, these 3-4 are in a league of their own. If I was to continue it'd be something like

>>> Gears of War 3 > Crysis 2 > Killzone 2 and i'll draw the line here.

Killzone 3 is a massive improvement over Killzone 2. I've platinum'd it and just like the first post on page 33 says, it really is miles ahead of KZ2. Rightfully so after 2 years. I still however hold the Uncharted franchise on top due to its insane engine that allows for sick setpieces and jaw dropping moments. God of War 3 is very very close aswell.

<3.

Shockingl similar to 1  website... just so you're clear at what you presented.

Anyway, the only difference between you and me is that your mix up takes place after 4 clear cut games, where mine is after #2 (I still think Gears 3 is #2, it lost to UC3)....and really Killzone 3? Even the guys at Digital Foundry said the difference between KZ3 and Crysis 2 was close, giving KZ3 the Win for cutscenes, and no screen tear.

Personally I still think Forza 4 and GT5 are the best, but GT5 has serious performance issues, and in both, your only modeling cars and some rocks/buildings..maybe a distant tree or two, where in UC3 and Gears 3, you're modeling water, fabric, human movement, and in the case of UC3, sand.

Either Way, it's not as if PS3 exclusives are by a significant volume, better looking then 360 exclusives. You say 4 PS3 exclusives look better then Gears 3, I say only 1 does. How many exclusives come out a year for both consoles? Far more then 4 (If you coun't PC iterations and Kinect exclusives for 360 LOL)

Debate concluded.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Michael-5 on 12 March 2012
killerzX said:
Michael-5 said:
killerzX said:
Michael-5 said:

I am biased?, you took my linked source and said ", but......I don't accept it, so it's not true.......wahhh."

killzone was released a nearly a year after e3, ign impression were based off of pre-alpha footage, the article said nothing about any playable demo.

e3 impression of games are completely meaningless, especially when camparing a game a couple months away from release which is nearly finished (gears) and a game nearly a year away (killzone 2).

no, i dont accept the link because its meaningless, why would we base best graphics of unfinished unreleased versions of games. thats utterly idiotic.

You realize pre-alpha is also pre-demo? It's unfinished and generally unplayable...... IGN played a playable level, and said Gears 2 looked better.

Also Killzone 2 released 3 months after Gears, really not that far off. I like how 7 months is nearly a year, and 4 months is a couple (meaning 2).

Do you accept these facts? or am I biased again?

you realize, you lied again, as usual.

pre-alpha, is still playable. its just a early build, non-finished. just like the killzone 3 beta in december was pre-alpha. i saw nothing about them playing a level in that article, but i will take you at your word (which i shouldnt because you constantly lie and misrepresent, and back track on you own words).

also it was nearly 4 months after gears, 8 months after e3. thats a hell of a long time in game development. i was slihghtly exagerated the timeframes to get accross a point (i also thought gears 2 released in September) in other words...you lied.

but none of that matters ign, gave their impressions of games during e3, before the games were release. they were unfinshised builds, opinions of nonreleased games. it doesnt matter we are talking finished product here. and by your own argument, MGS4 has better graphics than Killzone 2. because ign, said MGS4 had better graphics than gears 2.yup, that is correct.

yes you are very very very biased. i dont think i have every seen someone more biased before, and think they are innocent at the same time.

Guess you don't know your greek ABC's... Alpha comes before beta, not the other way around, and no they don't overlap, they are different stages in development.

Pre-Alpha is before the character models are all finished, Alpha is when all the models are done, and the game is technically playable, beta is the stage where they smooth it all out.

This below is pre-alpha

Notice, no background, floor, and only a character model? Not at all playable...

Take a guess which game it's for.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

killerzX on 13 March 2012
Michael-5 said:
killerzX said:
Michael-5 said:
killerzX said:
Michael-5 said:
 

I am biased?, you took my linked source and said ", but......I don't accept it, so it's not true.......wahhh."

killzone was released a nearly a year after e3, ign impression were based off of pre-alpha footage, the article said nothing about any playable demo.

e3 impression of games are completely meaningless, especially when camparing a game a couple months away from release which is nearly finished (gears) and a game nearly a year away (killzone 2).

no, i dont accept the link because its meaningless, why would we base best graphics of unfinished unreleased versions of games. thats utterly idiotic.

You realize pre-alpha is also pre-demo? It's unfinished and generally unplayable...... IGN played a playable level, and said Gears 2 looked better.

Also Killzone 2 released 3 months after Gears, really not that far off. I like how 7 months is nearly a year, and 4 months is a couple (meaning 2).

Do you accept these facts? or am I biased again?

you realize, you lied again, as usual.

pre-alpha, is still playable. its just a early build, non-finished. just like the killzone 3 beta in december was pre-alpha. i saw nothing about them playing a level in that article, but i will take you at your word (which i shouldnt because you constantly lie and misrepresent, and back track on you own words).

also it was nearly 4 months after gears, 8 months after e3. thats a hell of a long time in game development. i was slihghtly exagerated the timeframes to get accross a point (i also thought gears 2 released in September) in other words...you lied.

no in other words, i thought gears released in September, and in other words my point still stands gears got realeased like 3-4 months after e3, so much closer to complete, killzone released 4 months after that, 8 months after e3. game was no where near finished. and my whole point is e3 awards for best graphics of non released non finished games is pointless. and by your own accord MGS4 has better graphics than KZ2, which is utterly ridiculous.

but none of that matters ign, gave their impressions of games during e3, before the games were release. they were unfinshised builds, opinions of nonreleased games. it doesnt matter we are talking finished product here. and by your own argument, MGS4 has better graphics than Killzone 2. because ign, said MGS4 had better graphics than gears 2.yup, that is correct.

yes you are very very very biased. i dont think i have every seen someone more biased before, and think they are innocent at the same time.

Guess you don't know your greek ABC's... Alpha comes before beta, not the other way around, and no they don't overlap, they are different stages in development.

it was called a "beta" but was still alpha code.

and if you look at the e3 footage it said pre alpha.

 

Pre-Alpha is before the character models are all finished, Alpha is when all the models are done, and the game is technically playable, beta is the stage where they smooth it all out.

and the killzone "beta" was Alpha, and e3 build was pre-alpha

This below is pre-alpha

Notice, no background, floor, and only a character model? Not at all playable...

Take a guess which game it's for.

so in other words your whole argument is debunked and meaningless.

end of the year awards of finished games > mid year early impressions of non finished games.



NotStan on 13 March 2012

When I saw the title at first, I knew shitstorm would commence no matter what . I could care less either way, but those 14 pages provided some very good entertainment.



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.