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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - So I have a PS3...have Uncharted and MGS4...and the saw a HD video of GOW2

Dgc1808 on 10 November 2008

I still say that Graphics don't need to get any better than how they look right now....



4 ≈ One

Around the Network
makingmusic476 on 10 November 2008
twesterm said:
dbot said:
mrstickball said:
As a X360 owner, I think it's hard to argue that the X360 will always have the 'better looking' games, or 'equivalent looking' games. When you look at the specs, the fact is, the Playstation 3 is better on paper - Blu-Ray, 8 SPEs. Things like that make it impossible to say that "in 4 years, games will still look the same on both systems".

Ultimately, the Playstation 3 will have the better graphics. But I agree with your statement: At what costs?

The problem with the PS3 is that it IS a nightmare to develop for. Games are constantly being delayed due to developmental woes, projects are becoming costly, and in general, it's just a bad system to develop for (not to mention the actual return on your investment vs. the Wii and X360).

Because of that, we're going to see a split in the future of what gets greenlit for the Playstation 3. There may be better 'blockbuster' MGS4-esque uber-exclusives, but they will suffer in cost, development, and rarity.

Food for thought: Gears of War 1 + 2 were made for less money than Metal Gear Solid 4 or Killzone 2. Which games, do you think, earned a better return, and will have a higher probability of seeing sequels? (Of course, KZ2 hasn't come out, but the deck is stacked against it in some ways).

Link it please.

 

You should probably be able to figure that one out by common sense.

I don't know the development cycle for Gears, but Gears 2 was two years.  How long was MGS4?  Five at least?

 

 

MGS4 took a bit under 4 years.

And to be fair, for Killzone 2 and MGS4 you have to include the time and cost required to develop their specific engines, while for Gears, Epic counts the majority of the development of UE3 seperately.



flames_of on 10 November 2008

Wasn't development costs for the first Gears at about 10 million?



flames_of - "I think you're confusing Bush with Chuck Norris."

 Wii: 80-85 Million end of 2009 (1.1.09)

Snarf Barf on 10 November 2008

It's gonna be sweet when the PS3 is bogging down the 720's development. :)



selnor on 10 November 2008

It's actually not even currently close. Gears 2 is definately the best console graphics and the new standard. The minute you see the cavern for the first time, well thats enough said. Every single PS3 owner I know in real life agrees with me. The texture detail alone is on a completely different level.

Gears 2 is easily x3 over Gears 1. And after finishing Uncharted Uncharted imo is only about x1.5 (possibly to over Gears 1.



Around the Network
Stats87 on 10 November 2008

Uncharted's "graphical greatness" is more then just its raw visual appeal. It is also its excellent animations, physics and texture work.

It also has the advantage of the color green



twesterm on 10 November 2008
Stats87 said:

Uncharted's "graphical greatness" is more then just its raw visual appeal. It is also its excellent animations, physics and texture work.

It also has the advantage of the color green

 

What was the big deal about Uncharteds physics?  I'm not trying to flame, I just honestly don't remember anything great or even, well, memorable about the games physics.  I remember the occasional physics object but that isn't anything impressive.

Sorry to be tooting my own horn and make another shameless plug, but I consider this impressive:

 

 

 

Not the occasional physics object.  Even Half-Life 2 has better physics than Uncharted.

 



 

mrstickball on 10 November 2008
dbot said:

@Twestern - I agree with your last post.

I still do not agree with mrstrickball's statement that it cost less to develop both GeoW and GeoW2 than it did to develop either Killzone 2 or MGS4.  I don't feel as though you can just use common sense to come to that conclusion.  That being said, I think that mrstickball makes a good point that titles like Gears of War provide a much better return than MGS4 and presumably Killzone 2. 

Any chance we can move along?

dbot said:
mrstickball said:

Food for thought: Gears of War 1 + 2 were made for less money than Metal Gear Solid 4 or Killzone 2. Which games, do you think, earned a better return, and will have a higher probability of seeing sequels? (Of course, KZ2 hasn't come out, but the deck is stacked against it in some ways).

Link it please.

 

You should

Gears of War 1 - $10,000,000

Gears of War 2 - $18,000,000 (trying to find validation for this claim)

Metal Gear Solid 4 - $50,000,000 (cited via multiple sources, including VGC)

Killzone 2 - $40,000,000-$60,000,000.  Minimum Budget Stated at ~17m Eur

Will update once I get the quote's I've seen for GeoW2 pinned down.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

makingmusic476 on 10 November 2008
mrstickball said:
dbot said:

@Twestern - I agree with your last post.

I still do not agree with mrstrickball's statement that it cost less to develop both GeoW and GeoW2 than it did to develop either Killzone 2 or MGS4.  I don't feel as though you can just use common sense to come to that conclusion.  That being said, I think that mrstickball makes a good point that titles like Gears of War provide a much better return than MGS4 and presumably Killzone 2. 

Any chance we can move along?

dbot said:
mrstickball said:

Food for thought: Gears of War 1 + 2 were made for less money than Metal Gear Solid 4 or Killzone 2. Which games, do you think, earned a better return, and will have a higher probability of seeing sequels? (Of course, KZ2 hasn't come out, but the deck is stacked against it in some ways).

Link it please.

 

You should

Gears of War 1 - $10,000,000

Gears of War 2 - $18,000,000 (trying to find validation for this claim)

Metal Gear Solid 4 - $50,000,000 (cited via multiple sources, including VGC)

Killzone 2 - $40,000,000-$60,000,000

Will update once I get the quote's I've seen for GeoW2 pinned down.

 

Like I said ealier in the thread, both the time and costs required to develop MGS4 and Killzone 2's engines are included in the numbers for their respective development cycles.

The development of UE3, however, is not included in the figures of Gears of War's development cycle.



twesterm on 10 November 2008
mrstickball said:
dbot said:

@Twestern - I agree with your last post.

I still do not agree with mrstrickball's statement that it cost less to develop both GeoW and GeoW2 than it did to develop either Killzone 2 or MGS4.  I don't feel as though you can just use common sense to come to that conclusion.  That being said, I think that mrstickball makes a good point that titles like Gears of War provide a much better return than MGS4 and presumably Killzone 2. 

Any chance we can move along?

dbot said:
mrstickball said:

Food for thought: Gears of War 1 + 2 were made for less money than Metal Gear Solid 4 or Killzone 2. Which games, do you think, earned a better return, and will have a higher probability of seeing sequels? (Of course, KZ2 hasn't come out, but the deck is stacked against it in some ways).

Link it please.

 

You should

Gears of War 1 - $10,000,000

Gears of War 2 - $18,000,000 (trying to find validation for this claim)

Metal Gear Solid 4 - $50,000,000 (cited via multiple sources, including VGC)

Killzone 2 - $40,000,000-$60,000,000

Will update once I get the quote's I've seen for GeoW2 pinned down.

 

Damn, I was wrong about Gears 2 costing less than Gears 1.   Guess it makes sense since one was a new IP and the other was a sequel to a huge hit.  >_<