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

Forums - Microsoft - could Gears of War 3 surpass Killzone 2? Let's have a debate

Kantor on 09 March 2009
Dark Chaos said:
Kantor said:

Unannounced. I'll believe it when I see it. Wasn't Resistance 2 supposed to look better than Gears 2?

His logic doesn't make much sense, but neither does your logic, because we have no proof of these unnannounced games looking better than KZ2. Of course, there are no more games being made for the GameCube, while plenty more are being made for 360.

He does have a point, though, in that despite the year advantage for MS, the best looking game so far this gen is on PS3. Partly because of four years of development, but still.

You forget to mention about $50 million spent just for the game to sell about 3.5million(unless bundled). And even if the PS3 has the better looking games that doesn't really make the console more successfull. Look at the GC and Xbox. I am sure MS is happy having a crapier looking game like Halo 3 sell 9million than having one which needed more money to make to only sell 3.5million.

 

Absolutely right. But that's not what we are discussing.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
Pristine20 on 09 March 2009
Dark Chaos said:
Kantor said:
 

Unannounced. I'll believe it when I see it. Wasn't Resistance 2 supposed to look better than Gears 2?

His logic doesn't make much sense, but neither does your logic, because we have no proof of these unnannounced games looking better than KZ2. Of course, there are no more games being made for the GameCube, while plenty more are being made for 360.

He does have a point, though, in that despite the year advantage for MS, the best looking game so far this gen is on PS3. Partly because of four years of development, but still.

You forget to mention about $50 million spent just for the game to sell about 3.5million(unless bundled). And even if the PS3 has the better looking games that doesn't really make the console more successfull. Look at the GC and Xbox. I am sure MS is happy having a crapier looking game like Halo 3 sell 9million than having one which needed more money to make to only sell 3.5million.

 

...and what has that got to do with the topic? since graphics don't matter to M$, why are they promising to beat kz2? LMAO. And you're probably the type that runs around calling people "fanboys"

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Squilliam on 09 March 2009
Kantor said:

Unannounced. I'll believe it when I see it. Wasn't Resistance 2 supposed to look better than Gears 2?

His logic doesn't make much sense, but neither does your logic, because we have no proof of these unnannounced games looking better than KZ2. Of course, there are no more games being made for the GameCube, while plenty more are being made for 360.

He does have a point, though, in that despite the year advantage for MS, the best looking game so far this gen is on PS3. Partly because of four years of development, but still.

They had pre-production kits based on the Cell processor since at least early 2005, and the actually Cell since at least early 2004, and remember the PS3 was delayed so its quite likely that the Sony 1st party/2nd party devs have had access to the hardware for close to the time the Microsoft devs have with the Xbox 360 hardware. The year advantage is for sales, not for development.

There are many graphically impressive multi-plat games which perform better on the Xbox 360 than the PS3 in spite of an extensive PS3 development effort. Cue GTA IV, COD IV and RE V etc. So comparing identical games across systems gives the Xbox 360 an edge and therefore theres no definative way to call the PS3 as a whole a better/more powerful architecture because it introduces some considerable doubt into that assertion.

Lastly, Microsoft simply hasn't expended the time, money and development talent (Sony has that in spades) to make games like how Sony has. Also there simply aren't any comparable efforts that can easily be compared across platforms. Is there an open world game like Fable 2 with similar artistry on the PS3? Is there a first person shooter which has has an equivelent development effort? Is there a third person action adventure game with a similar development style to uncharted?

The actual comparable data points to Xbox 360 > PS3, the exclusives on the PS3 imply PS3 > Xbox 360 but the reality of the matter is it probably comes down to the developers with the talent and money to pull off something amazing rather than any significant overall performance differences.

 

 



Tease.

papero2 on 09 March 2009
Dark Chaos said:
Kantor said:

Unannounced. I'll believe it when I see it. Wasn't Resistance 2 supposed to look better than Gears 2?

His logic doesn't make much sense, but neither does your logic, because we have no proof of these unnannounced games looking better than KZ2. Of course, there are no more games being made for the GameCube, while plenty more are being made for 360.

He does have a point, though, in that despite the year advantage for MS, the best looking game so far this gen is on PS3. Partly because of four years of development, but still.

You forget to mention about $50 million spent just for the game to sell about 3.5million(unless bundled). And even if the PS3 has the better looking games that doesn't really make the console more successfull. Look at the GC and Xbox. I am sure MS is happy having a crapier looking game like Halo 3 sell 9million than having one which needed more money to make to only sell 3.5million.

 

Who gives a shit about MS being happy. When game companies are happy we all lose. Take a look at nintendo. I want MS and Sony to keep the competition going. Did you had a ps3 at launch? it was awefull. thanks to the 360 the ps3 is now has in game xmb, trophies, and its closer to xbox live than ever. If xbox live ever goes free, ill be because of the competition of the ps3.

 



PSN = vic_haste

Dark Chaos on 09 March 2009
Pristine20 said:
Dark Chaos said:
Kantor said:

Unannounced. I'll believe it when I see it. Wasn't Resistance 2 supposed to look better than Gears 2?

His logic doesn't make much sense, but neither does your logic, because we have no proof of these unnannounced games looking better than KZ2. Of course, there are no more games being made for the GameCube, while plenty more are being made for 360.

He does have a point, though, in that despite the year advantage for MS, the best looking game so far this gen is on PS3. Partly because of four years of development, but still.

You forget to mention about $50 million spent just for the game to sell about 3.5million(unless bundled). And even if the PS3 has the better looking games that doesn't really make the console more successfull. Look at the GC and Xbox. I am sure MS is happy having a crapier looking game like Halo 3 sell 9million than having one which needed more money to make to only sell 3.5million.

 

...and what has that got to do with the topic? since graphics don't matter to M$, why are they promising to beat kz2? LMAO. And you're probably the type that runs around calling people "fanboys"

 

Got off topic.

OT: I doubt it. Gears of war 3 will have to probably have a new engine built to make it look better so the time frame for the game will prolly be the same as KZ2. Hence it will release on the next MS console. However, I am pretty sure games like Heavy rain will be the new industry standard for best looking game

 



Around the Network
michael-moore on 09 March 2009
Dark Chaos said:
Pristine20 said:
Dark Chaos said:
Kantor said:
 

Unannounced. I'll believe it when I see it. Wasn't Resistance 2 supposed to look better than Gears 2?

His logic doesn't make much sense, but neither does your logic, because we have no proof of these unnannounced games looking better than KZ2. Of course, there are no more games being made for the GameCube, while plenty more are being made for 360.

He does have a point, though, in that despite the year advantage for MS, the best looking game so far this gen is on PS3. Partly because of four years of development, but still.

You forget to mention about $50 million spent just for the game to sell about 3.5million(unless bundled). And even if the PS3 has the better looking games that doesn't really make the console more successfull. Look at the GC and Xbox. I am sure MS is happy having a crapier looking game like Halo 3 sell 9million than having one which needed more money to make to only sell 3.5million.

 

...and what has that got to do with the topic? since graphics don't matter to M$, why are they promising to beat kz2? LMAO. And you're probably the type that runs around calling people "fanboys"

 

Got off topic.

OT: I doubt it. Gears of war 3 will have to probably have a new engine built to make it look better so the time frame for the game will prolly be the same as KZ2. Hence it will release on the next MS console. However, I am pretty sure games like Heavy rain will be the new industry standard for best looking game

 

 HEAVY RAIN DOES NOT INTEREST ME BUT IT WILL BE A GOOD LOOKING GAME NO DOUBT



NightAntilli on 09 March 2009

I wonder how Heavy Rain compares to Alan Wake. Those two seem to be the rivals of each other in terms of graphics. Alan Wake has been in development for quite some time too. I think they started in 2005 (not sure). Heavy Rain was actually multi-platform at first too by the way, but then got canceled for the X360 (don't remember why exactly).

I still believe KZ2 and GeOW2 are too different in art style to actually tell which one looks better. Engine wise, KZ2 can do some stuff that is not implemented in GeOW2, true, like the advanced blur, lighting and particle effects, but on the other side, the chaotic look (especially texture wise) on GeOW2 surpasses KZ2 by a long shot, and imo GeOW2 looks sharper (probably because of less blur to hide stuff) and the surroundings are simply more "crowded" instead of lots of grey square textureless walls and boxes. Even though KZ2 might give a much better experience with its art style (and especially alpha blending with smoke, dust etc), one should be able to recognize that KZ2 is not THAT far above GeOW2 in graphical power.

Maybe the PS3 is more powerful overall, especially since they can use the cell to calculate graphics, physics, audio and a lot more. But the PS3 has a very big problem, and that's the split memory..



Truth does not fear investigation

alephnull on 09 March 2009
Squilliam said:
Kantor said:

Unannounced. I'll believe it when I see it. Wasn't Resistance 2 supposed to look better than Gears 2?

His logic doesn't make much sense, but neither does your logic, because we have no proof of these unnannounced games looking better than KZ2. Of course, there are no more games being made for the GameCube, while plenty more are being made for 360.

He does have a point, though, in that despite the year advantage for MS, the best looking game so far this gen is on PS3. Partly because of four years of development, but still.

They had pre-production kits based on the Cell processor since at least early 2005, and the actually Cell since at least early 2004, and remember the PS3 was delayed so its quite likely that the Sony 1st party/2nd party devs have had access to the hardware for close to the time the Microsoft devs have with the Xbox 360 hardware. The year advantage is for sales, not for development.

There are many graphically impressive multi-plat games which perform better on the Xbox 360 than the PS3 in spite of an extensive PS3 development effort. Cue GTA IV, COD IV and RE V etc. So comparing identical games across systems gives the Xbox 360 an edge and therefore theres no definative way to call the PS3 as a whole a better/more powerful architecture because it introduces some considerable doubt into that assertion.

Lastly, Microsoft simply hasn't expended the time, money and development talent (Sony has that in spades) to make games like how Sony has. Also there simply aren't any comparable efforts that can easily be compared across platforms. Is there an open world game like Fable 2 with similar artistry on the PS3? Is there a first person shooter which has has an equivelent development effort? Is there a third person action adventure game with a similar development style to uncharted?

The actual comparable data points to Xbox 360 > PS3, the exclusives on the PS3 imply PS3 > Xbox 360 but the reality of the matter is it probably comes down to the developers with the talent and money to pull off something amazing rather than any significant overall performance differences.

 

 

Hah! The compiler didn't become non-buggy until 2007 and the initial games were almost entirely done on simulators. The Linux on cell group at IBM in 2007 couldn't get a hold of any of the chips directly and were reduced to buying PS3s.

 



Squilliam on 09 March 2009

@Alephnul: MGS4 was shown demoed in E3 2005 on the Cell hardware, just PC based rather than using the PS3 architecture. So they had to have been working on it for a while.



Tease.

alephnull on 09 March 2009
Squilliam said:
@Alephnul: MGS4 was shown demoed in E3 2005 on the Cell hardware, just PC based rather than using the PS3 architecture. So they had to have been working on it for a while.

 

Maybe they actually had an experimental sample of the chip for E3 (and maybe it was BS like almost any tech demo), but I guarantee you that most of the devs behind that demo were working on a simulator. While IBM was theoretically selling Q-series blades, for the first few years you couldn't actually get one. Even groups working on cell software development at IBM -- when I was working there -- had to pretty much do all their development on simulators. This is a fact that I'm sure you can corroborate if you ask anyone else who was there at the time. You can google the compiler's unreliability.