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

Forums - Microsoft - Best looking Xbox 360 game?

Zappykins on 30 October 2012

Nobody has said it yet, but I thought Halo: Reach has some pretty great details - and used it graphics well. You could see aliens flying in the distance - but if you get to close they will attack you. Plus the lighting from you energy pulses in the weapons and such. It was great. (Halo Anniversary uses the same engine.)

Course I think Halo 4 will be even better. But at the time, way back two whole years ago, it was quite good.




 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!
Around the Network
DirtyP2002 on 30 October 2012

We are finally talking about PS3 games in a 360 thread again .



Imagine not having GamePass on your console...

kain_kusanagi on 30 October 2012
CGI-Quality said:
kain_kusanagi said:

Naughty Dog needed the truckloads of cash from Sony to create Uncharted 2 and 3 and the upcoming Last of Us. Without the money for R&D, Naughty Dog would have done what most developers do, use Unreal Engine. Nuaghty Dog is talented, no doubt about it, but other developers have tons of talent too. The difference is Sony needed Naughty Dog to hit a home run with Uncharted 2. Sony needed Uncharted 2 to look better than everything else at the time. Sony was willing to pay what ever it takes to get that. Naughty Dog pulled it off thanks to that money. Most publishers are willing to have good enough graphics instead of paying for outstanding graphics.

I don't think the Uncharted games had that big of a budget (or The Last Of Us, for that matter). The Killzone games had higher budgets than the Uncharted games, and the latter are considered better looking titles. I'd argue that mainly Naughty Dog's talent has allowed for the results. 

The PS3 is a percent, or so, more powerful than the 360 (in peak performance and number crunching), but that has hardly impacted the final products. Sony's teams were just better equipped with in-house resources (going back to Naughty Dog + Santa Monica's tech wizardry), which is why their exclusives stayed ahead.

Halo 4 is built with in-house resources (pulling away from the redundance of the Unreal Engine 3.0, many 360 exclusives are known to run on), and it shows.

Sony spent money on building the resources that Naughty Dog, Santa Monica,  etc. used. Naughty Dog's budgets may not have been huge, but the money Sony spent to make sure their 1st party devs had the tools to thrive was sky high.



leo-j on 30 October 2012
BenVTrigger said:
Halo 4.

Honestly think its the best looking FPS on any console


well it's not..

Crysis 3.. or Halo 4..

probably Crysis 3..

 

not too long ago the majority of 360 fans on here touted HALO REACH as the best looking FPS..  and yes I've seen footage for Halo 4.. it's not on par with anything in KZ3 or KZ2 from what I've seen in footage..



 

mM
RaiderMX on 30 October 2012

I'll just drop this here...



Spartans Ops Trailer Season 1



Around the Network
Nsanity on 30 October 2012
DirtyP2002 said:
We are finally talking about PS3 games in a 360 thread again .

This place is slowing turning into N4G.



d21lewis on 30 October 2012
BenVTrigger said:
Really CGI?

I platinumed Killzone 3 and Halo 4 looks at least equal. In fact Halo 4s lighting is vastly better


He mind controlled you.  You and I know what he was implying but you shouldn't have acknowledged.  Take the high road.  He's got total deniablity, now!



enrageorange on 30 October 2012

Damn it threads like these always end up getting derailed by someone. This time it was by 360 fans. The thread is asking about best looking 360 game. There is no need to add your 2 cents about the game compared to a ps3 game, because that will obviously just lead to arguements over ps3 vs 360 graphics instead of arguements over what the best looking 360 game is...


Anway, in my opinion Forza Horizon is the best looking game. Obviously it has the advantage that in my opinion it is much easier to make cars look super realistic, than it is living organisms.

As for the none racing genre, Crysis 2 is probably the best looking game. It simply looks stunning, even on hd console.

As for art direction, Rayman Origins takes that. It really is just a very nice looking game. It obviously has an unfair advantage over games trying to look realistic because facial expressions, and movement is really hard to do realistically, but rayman origin just looks perfect for what its trying to accomplish. I can't really complain about anything in that game graphics wise.

Not nominating Halo 4 yet simply because it isn't out so I haven't got to play it myself.



d21lewis on 30 October 2012

The XBLA game Deadlight was pretty stunning, too. Not something that will make many stop and take notice but I constantly found myself in awe of the art style. Art and graphical power are two different things but I really liked what I saw.



kain_kusanagi on 30 October 2012
CGI-Quality said:
kain_kusanagi said:
CGI-Quality said:
kain_kusanagi said:

Naughty Dog needed the truckloads of cash from Sony to create Uncharted 2 and 3 and the upcoming Last of Us. Without the money for R&D, Naughty Dog would have done what most developers do, use Unreal Engine. Nuaghty Dog is talented, no doubt about it, but other developers have tons of talent too. The difference is Sony needed Naughty Dog to hit a home run with Uncharted 2. Sony needed Uncharted 2 to look better than everything else at the time. Sony was willing to pay what ever it takes to get that. Naughty Dog pulled it off thanks to that money. Most publishers are willing to have good enough graphics instead of paying for outstanding graphics.

I don't think the Uncharted games had that big of a budget (or The Last Of Us, for that matter). The Killzone games had higher budgets than the Uncharted games, and the latter are considered better looking titles. I'd argue that mainly Naughty Dog's talent has allowed for the results. 

The PS3 is a percent, or so, more powerful than the 360 (in peak performance and number crunching), but that has hardly impacted the final products. Sony's teams were just better equipped with in-house resources (going back to Naughty Dog + Santa Monica's tech wizardry), which is why their exclusives stayed ahead.

Halo 4 is built with in-house resources (pulling away from the redundance of the Unreal Engine 3.0, many 360 exclusives are known to run on), and it shows.

Sony spent money on building the resources that Naughty Dog, Santa Monica,  etc. used. Naughty Dog's budgets may not have been huge, but the money Sony spent to make sure their 1st party devs had the tools to thrive was sky high.

If so, that's a good thing. It helped produce better titles.

Yes it is a good thing. My point was only that Sony had to proove to buyers that the PS3 had great graphics while MS didn't feel they had to spend the money. Sony promised the PS3 would be leages ahead of the competition, but the PS3 isn't really more powerfull than the 360 so Sony had to buy graphics to make good on the graphical promise. It's a good thing Sony did or games would probably look worse on PS3 than 360 and people wouldn't understand why the PS3 costs so much.