yes
i don't think we will see a game that looks better then Uncharted 3 this gen. While GOW3 came close to being the top graphics dog this gen it let itself down in some scenes/areas of the game. It would go from looking draw dropping amazing to... average at best.

Aldro said: Pemalite said: Player1x3 said: It gives us a pretty good idea on how will the game look and not to mention its captured directly from a ps3 system. It will look better than uncharted 3 which is already an astonishing achievement Firstly... Add some aliasing so everything has jagged edges, add allot more blurry textures due to the lack of texture filtering and reduce the lighting and shadows due to the fact it's to demanding to do on-the-fly, have the game render at 720P or below then upscaled to 1080P and it may resemble the final product. That's a Pre-rendered scene of the game. Basically they take a screenshot of the game in action and then render it in vastly higher quality, it will not remotly look that clear and clean, on a PC? Sure it would look like that, but never on a console and you would be deluded to think otherwise. Fact of the matter is, the consoles are old and the graphics chips in the Xbox and PS3 were half-decent at release but we have had 6-7 graphics card generational leaps since then, the processors aren't anything to write home about, they're simple in-order cores which aren't going to dramatically increase image quality because they contain no rasterization hardware, they can do post-processing stuff like Morphological Anti-Aliasing, but that's still not on the same level as real Anti-Aliasing, the Cell is no exception. I think we have seen all the large graphical leaps this generation on the consoles, basically I think developers may go the path of reducing level sizes to increase image quality, but there won't be any large leaps from this point on untill next generation, as they say you cant get blood out of a stone. Honestly, I have a hard time telling the difference at certain parts: (Just an example below)    (ingame capture) pre-renderd cutscene: And like Player1x3 said: ND are very likely to improve even further than Uncharted 3 which is a crazy achievement in of itself. I'm anxious to see how they will wow me after shit like:

Those graphics, textures are INSANE! Just like the other UC3 pictures in this thread. All made possible by 2005 tech in the PS3 and the CELL processor, imagine what ND can do with PS4 O_o

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but look at the title of this thread. Now why is it you are arguing a case that console graphics are not better than non-console graphics? Of course they aren't, unless a console had the exact top of the pile it would only be at par until something new came out in about a year. Consoles provide consumers with cheaper entry access to gaming rigs. They give game developers a stable platform to develop on with measurable expectations due to uniformity in the hardware. It also provides consumers the ability to partake without having to research computer tech just to provide themselves with a machine that they know can operate games for an extended period of time.

Pemalite said: Aldro said: Honestly, I have a hard time telling the difference at certain parts: (Just an example below)    (ingame capture) pre-renderd cutscene: And like Player1x3 said: ND are very likely to improve even further than Uncharted 3 which is a crazy achievement in of itself. I'm anxious to see how they will wow me after shit like: The resolutions on those pictures are tiny and only 720P. What would happen if you grabbed that image and stretched it across say... A 50" or larger 1080P panel? Suddenly, it's going to suddenly have allot of jagged edges, it already looks like molasses at my resolution of 3240x1920. (3x 1920x1080 panels in portrait, can do landscape at 5760x1080). For example: Origional: Upscaled to 1080P then cut a chunk out for comparison: Most of the pictures though that are floating around are from the devs themselves. And here is an example of what they did. Now, if you're happy with that kind of image quality and think it's the "best" then you are sorely missing out. (When compared to a good PC) As another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3P9Y-at_JI If you look at the fences, the crates etc' in the opening sequence, there is a significant amount of aliasing, it looks horrible. The shadows are no where near as defined as those in the pictures (They are blurry and have artifacts.) Then if you look at the textures on some characters and objects and even parts of the ground it's low resolution and blurry.

"it already looks like molasses at my resolution of 3240x1920." What's the point here when most of them settle for 1080p panel display and that too a game designed to play at 720p? And for the E3 build and Final build differences, they did downgrade textures and sampling for 3D, but not to such a level which almost resembles the multiplayer character models. Even then I would say those are just images. As far as I have known and played the game, the images correponding to Final build do not represent them. I'm assigning you to make original screen shots from your PS3 immediately, to disapprove my comment, since you took the liberty in posting your molasses and that final build images. Here's atleast some of the in-game random snaps on android phone cam. They look like pre-rendered cutscenes.

I think it could peak at The Last of Us, but Naughty Dog aren't making any big improvements over Naughty Dog engine 3.0 so maybe it'll only be on par with uncharted 3.