And everybody bashed Sony for the Killzone CG trailer, why shouldn't we jump at Microsoft for something just as bad?

Especially when Halo first came out in 2001 on the Xbox and recieved virtually no graphical improvements on the PC. They've completely disregarded the pleathera of great games (and great looking ones) over the past 7 years. Heck, why not mention Call of Duty 4? Oh wait, that's a good looking DX9 game, can't show people that DX9 still looks good because it might tell them that Vista isn't worth the upgrade yet.

completely wrong.

firstly, DX10 has nothing to do with Aero, you can use Aero with DX9 cards

secondly, DX10 is an upgrade like any other direct X upgrade, with new features and performance improvements across ALL uses of 3d accelleration, there is no difference between accellerating the desktop (which has been done for a long time before Aero) and games, making animated movies (although OpenGL is generally used here) etc

I personally am strongly in favor of Microsoft over say Mac for gaming I just thought it was outrageous that they would try and use a comparison of a game that came out in 2001 and a game that came out in 2007 to try and over exaggerate how much better directx10 looks in comparison to directx9.

OpenGL does all of that. All of it. And it did it years ago, with extensions. Microsoft doesn't like extensions to DirectX because it isn't an open specification. OpenGL also does all of that on ALL platforms, not just Vista.

Sorry, but that pic is also bullcrap. That second screen obviously has some more layers in it, aka, more programming and graphics made specifically to render with dX10, or either they were artificially added to take advantage of dX10(edit: or as that guy said earlier, they just paid a graphic artist to touch up the picture as a "target render" which is even worse). I want to see an actual screenshot of the same picture side by side with both running, not an enhanced version that takes advantage of dX10.

Like show me Halo 1 on dX9, then show it on dX10, and show me the difference. Or even something like Assassin's Creed or Crysis, if those games will even run on dX9(which they certainly could, but MS might not license the games anymore if they don't artificially require dX10, that's how they do business).

I'm sorry, but that pic you posted is just as much to fool "n00bs" as the example Microsoft used. It's just slightly harder to understand the con.

hmm, fine I guess this pic can help:



http://youtube.com/watch?v=0KvURb4-Hdg

^^ Directx 10 HAS more layers, so the water w/ mountain pic isn't necessarily a fake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bKUgCpi4k0&NR=1

old but funny

The most ridiculous things I've ever seen, comparing Halo, a game almost a decade old that had mediocre graphics when it hit the PC to Crysis, the only game I can think of that no current PC can run smoothly at max settings that came out last year near christmas.
It can't be for real, can it? Just seems too lame to be true.

You sir are full of win.

+1 for Soleron

Pete_Beast said: hmm, fine I guess this pic can help: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0KvURb4-Hdg ^^ Directx 10 HAS more layers, so the water w/ mountain pic isn't necessarily a fake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bKUgCpi4k0&NR=1

That first one is like enabling Hdr in Obvilion. That's what i looks like.

The second one dunno. It looks better, but do they have same level of textures packs enabled like this guy here says:

"bob333336 

 

it does look better, the lighting, the textures every thing. but i run dx9 very high against dx10 very high u wont see a difference... (dx9 very high "hack" is awsome)"