It is the usual Sony PR. It relys on them coercing the uninformed. For instance, when god of war 3 had a poor reception to it's visuals (no thanks to hype meister David Jaffe) Sony were quick to point out god of war 3 has:

* god of war has 4x the texture resolution of its predecessor

* Kratos character model takes up as much as the PS2's total ram (32MB)

Which any semi-learned schoolboy would know:

* is a fairly typical resolution for even the earliest next-gen games

* is a fairly typical amount of memory for such models, heh even the PS360 respective Guide/XMB take up more than this

Your god of war thing is wrong. 32 megabyte ram ? lol you can't compare it like that.

He was 5000 polygons in the ps2 games and he is 20.000 polygons in the ps3 game. That's what they said.

Why? Damage control? Convey something unremarkable into enough buzzwords and you can make something seem more impressive than it actually is.

Interesting thought though, I see the Uncharted 2 fans using the 300 animations lark at least twice in this thread and surely many more times over the vastness of the internet, but how come I don't see any Assassins Creed 1/2 fanboys talking up the 11,000 number?

they don't run and overlap on the same char. Also haven't you just increased the number ? lol

The reviews?

Graphics
There's no doubt the game looks great and that the use of in-game assets for the movies is seamless transition, but there's still a fair amount of screen tearing and texture pop in.

Horrible might be too strong a word and I apologise for that, but it does seem to me, for a title that has no split-screen and less effects, the presence of more screen tearing is unforgiveable.

No it's not. I didn't have any problems during the game.

Perhaps in your views, having compared a few pretty titles at IGN, they gave the following games these ratings in graphics.

Gears of War 1 = 10

Gears of War 2 = 9.5

Uncharted = 9.0

Killzone 2 = 9.5

Resident Evil 5 = 9.5

So if Doom 2 got a 10 in graphics, does that mean it looks as good as gears of war 1 and better than gears of war 2, killzone 2, resident evil 5 and uncharted ?

It does? What's the texture resolution on an Uncharted character? 

Polygons I give you easily, Epics all about the normal maps and makes it up in the 400+ characters on screen in Gears 2, but RE5 character models are even more detailed than Uncharted 2, which shouldn't really be the case, but its real.

Unreal engine in general is all about maps and skipping over where you can.

Well first time round they skimped on the multiplayer, had less effects than Gears, "captured" all their cutscenes to video, no split-screen and had a pretty poor case of screen-tearing.

This time around they aren't doing real co-op, just some special mode, no split-screen again - Gears of War 1& 2 & RE5 managed to do it all. It's amazing that hardcoe PS3 fans complain about third parties being lazy when some of the first party is even worse!

It's a singleplayer action adventure game. Why every game suddenly has to have multiplayer to be complete, i don't know. Cause it's bullshit and untrue.. Also Co-Op Again, Is Co-Operative. In other words as soon as you're multiple people against the pc it's Co-Op. Your definiton is flawed.

Gears was the first retail release of UE3, alternately you could say third parties license the "Gears Engine" because that's always been the first mover for UE3, Gears 2 UE3.5 and presumebly Gears 3 for the next iteration. It was no less made from scratch then Uncharteds engine. Only difference being that UE3 isn't 360 specific, in fact it was shown on PS3 first (probably the biggest practical joke of this gen) whereas Uncharted Engine is PS3 specific.

Actually it's the Unreal engine. They've worked on the engine since the 90s and unreal 1. (with unreal engine 1. It's the same engine, they just upgrade it.. So fail again)

It is the usual Sony PR. It relys on them coercing the uninformed. For instance, when god of war 3 had a poor reception to it's visuals (no thanks to hype meister David Jaffe) Sony were quick to point out god of war 3 has:

* god of war has 4x the texture resolution of its predecessor

* Kratos character model takes up as much as the PS2's total ram (32MB)

Which any semi-learned schoolboy would know:

* is a fairly typical resolution for even the earliest next-gen games

* is a fairly typical amount of memory for such models, heh even the PS360 respective Guide/XMB take up more than this

Why? Damage control? Convey something unremarkable into enough buzzwords and you can make something seem more impressive than it actually is.

Interesting thought though, I see the Uncharted 2 fans using the 300 animations lark at least twice in this thread and surely many more times over the vastness of the internet, but how come I don't see any Assassins Creed 1/2 fanboys talking up the 11,000 number?

I don't know about your statsitics to be honest. While it seems to have come from a reputable source, uncharted 1 being beaten by a first generation ps2 game on animation by over twice the number seems a bit far fetched. I suspect the ac numbers are talking about something different.

The reviews?

Graphics
There's no doubt the game looks great and that the use of in-game assets for the movies is seamless transition, but there's still a fair amount of screen tearing and texture pop in.

Horrible might be too strong a word and I apologise for that, but it does seem to me, for a title that has no split-screen and less effects, the presence of more screen tearing is unforgiveable.

Uncharted has at least as much environmental fidelity as gow. along with 2xaa and a proper water and lighting engine (much better than gears of war 1), a slight bit of screen tearing doesnt worry me.

Perhaps in your views, having compared a few pretty titles at IGN, they gave the following games these ratings in graphics.

Gears of War 1 = 10

Gears of War 2 = 9.5

Uncharted = 9.0

Killzone 2 = 9.5

Resident Evil 5 = 9.5

This doesn't mean much. It's one website, and their opinion is of course that, just opinion, furthermore gears of war was released in 06, while uncharted was released in 07, so there not really good references. plus as i said earlier, gametrailers and eurogamer and gamer chronicles have all said that uncharted is the best looking game  on any console.

It does? What's the texture resolution on an Uncharted character? I don't know, but i believe textures in general are better on uncharted than gears 1.

Polygons I give you easily, Epics all about the normal maps and makes it up in the 400+ characters on screen in Gears 2, but RE5 character models are even more detailed than Uncharted 2, which shouldn't really be the case, but its real.

gears 2 was releasedin 08, 3 years after the xbox released, uncharted  was released in 07, after 1 year (or less) of the ps3 being on sale. The uncharted 2 characters will have even higher resolutions than no.1 . gears 1 had 18000+ main chcaracters polygon count- uncharted 1 has 30000+ polygon count characters.

Well first time round they skimped on the multiplayer, had less effects than Gears, "captured" all their cutscenes to video, no split-screen and had a pretty poor case of screen-tearing."captured all their cutscenes to video?", what you mean mo-capping? A more expensive and better version of hand drawn animation? uncharted is an action adventure singleplayer and no.2. has multiplayer elemts. If they didn't want to do multiplayer because they wanted to concentrate on a good story etc, whats wrong with that? Their technology is amazing also, not just water that has prerequisite blue shader, but a program that means the colour is based on the depth of the water and ripples etc. it was in development and pre devlopment for over 2 years, so i dont think they skimped on anything. Finally, gametrailers for example said that its "the attention to detail" that makes uncharted believable, you dont see gears protagainsts grimacing or stumbling in gears often do you?

This time around they aren't doing real co-op, just some special mode, no split-screen again - Gears of War 1& 2 & RE5 managed to do it all. It's amazing that hardcoe PS3 fans complain about third parties being lazy when some of the first party is even worse!

Gears was the first retail release of UE3, alternately you could say third parties license the "Gears Engine" because that's always been the first mover for UE3, Gears 2 UE3.5 and presumebly Gears 3 for the next iteration. It was no less made from scratch then Uncharteds engine. Only difference being that UE3 isn't 360 specific, in fact it was shown on PS3 first (probably the biggest practical joke of this gen) whereas Uncharted Engine is PS3 specific.

un real engine 3 was not made specifically for gears, its just a multi platform engine for ut3 among other games. Uncharted engine was amde specificaly for uncharted  and the ps3.

Could you explain that more fully as I'm not sure what you mean?

Read above.

Furthermore it's not a first party game either. It's funny you nitpick that specific small exclusive game with that developed by the biggest company in the history over 5 years and counting.

Do you develop games ?

If you knew anything about this this conversation would look a lot different. Instead it's just me repeating my self to your faulty arguments. You must know nothing about these kind of things orelse you wouldn't be saying what you do.

I believe you're simply arguing for the sake of argument. Because you don't wanna admit you're wrong. Or because you refuse to look into it because you're afread you might be.

It's funny you refere to something i didn't say. I said they had 30 running on drake at once. And assassins creed has 1.

...

While Uncharted has 30 for drake. Pwnd.

Theres a reason the ps3 is the one used by scientists and in the worlds strongest super computer. If the 360 had anywhere near the same juice, don't you think they would use that ? concidering it's half the price ofcourse.

All your arguments are based on opinon while some of mine are, others are not. Such as the animation system.

I think someone else already explained this for me if you think about it:

So because he lies and twists ps3 is a brag platform ? that makes sense.

I'll explain this to you as i hope you'll actually bother to read what i write.

1. You can't designate ram to a model. What they said was that their ps2 model had 5000 polygons while their ps3 one has 20.000.

In comparison a fps on a pc with same specs as the ps2 has char models of around 1000 polygons or less. A reason i was pretty impressed when they said that. A normal model today probably has around 10 k polygons. .. Or maybe 20 k is the standard i'm not sure. I haven't worked on one of the newest engines yet.

2. The part about the uncharted animations is that hes saying the whole game as a whole has 11.000 animations. That's fine. But each char has 1 animation running at all times.

This while Uncharted has 30 animations running on 1 char because they used the spus to overlap their rendering and animations sequences making some of the most realistic movements you've ever seen in a video game. It's a very big difference. One that he ignored the last 3 times i explained it to him.

And again. The ps3 is used by scientists and the processor is used in the worlds fastest computer. Don't you think they would opt for the much cheaper 360 if it had the same level of processing power ?

1. Tell me why that would concern any gamer? Do you hear Microsoft saying Halo 3 models have 50.000k polygons and halo 2 only 1.000? Those numbers are made up btw, so don't quote me on that, it's just an example. When game graphics are a let down, Sony tends to say why it is so superior, and convince players that it actually shows how good the PS3 is.

2. This is the same thing again. Bragging bragging bragging. Do people actually see the difference if there's one or 30 animations running at once? And one of the games that still has the best animations is.... Dead or Alive 4. I don't care if it has one or one million animations running at once.

3. (the scientists part) That's because the PS3 Cell can be assigned to specific tasks while the X360 CPU is more based on general purpose processing. Has nothing to do with the PS3 being so much stronger. And yet again I ask myself, why is scientists using the PS3 relevant to gaming?

I guess this reply you gave me only proves my point about the bragging part.....

1. You can't designate ram to a model.

The part about the uncharted animations is that hes saying the whole game as a whole has 11.000 animations. That's fine.

But each char has 1 animation running at all times.

And again. The ps3 is used by scientists and the processor is used in the worlds fastest computer. Don't you think they would opt for the much cheaper 360 if it had the same level of processing power ?

Re-iterating a broken argument does not magically fix it.

Read it and learn i'm right and you are wrong.

OK, use CoD: W@W instead and you have real campaign co-op in 4 player split-screen, Resistance 2 doesn't have either.

Yes it does. It's two player split screen.. oh and it's still co-op. And you can play splitscreen in r2 online.

All the games I mentioned above do this as well, sometimes in sandbox and sometimes in splitscreen and sometimes in both, but Uncharted 2 doesn't. Is Naughty Dog giving up? That seems lazy.

No they don't. And before you say they do.. They really don't.

1 game that's multiplatform is all you need, it's very interesting Sony isn't able to brings it's exclusives up to the minimum bar.

Besides I can use Assassins Creed, Assassins Creed 2, the inevitable AC3, Prince of Persia (hopefully thats a trilogy too) and apparently the LAST GENERATION Prince of Persia trilogy as well. Also all sports games as well.

Ouch, Uncharted behind last gen games too? Ouch.

No it's not. You are misinformed and i feel slightly sorry for your complete ignorance on display here.

TBH i don't think Uncharted should really count, we've already confirmed it doesn't have the animations of last gen games, so it's not going to match other current generation games. Another instance of multiplatform games going further, doing more.

No we haven't you made a comment that was wrong and said it was right. That's what happened. Just like all of your other arguments.

lol, TBH you're one of the least intelligent folks i've debated with and i've spoken to some real zoomz. You claim you know what you're talking about, then bring up maps FOR NO REASON and can't even spell "ridiculous" correctly, if you're a games coder, that would definitely explain Big Rigs.

Maps as in specular maps, normal maps, bump maps etc.

You might claim i'm one of the least intelligent people you've debated with, and I am sorry if my grammer isn't perfect. But that still makes me much more intelligent.. and informed than you.

I did indeed, but did you know CE3 destroys the outdoor levels of KZ2 and Rage destroys KZ2 in every way.

How so ? If by outdoor you mean forrests. I'd like to see the forrests in killzone 2. I must have missed them. But i agree that if there were. Cry Engine 3 would be able to perform better. On a proper pc rig ofcourse.

I am very much looking forward to it's release. I'm interested to see how Sony will manage to get every single exclusive to look that good, at 60FPS, especially as it would seem the PS3 has peaked.

oh rage ? orly ?

Ps3 hasn't peaked. If you haven't payed attention they've only squeezed about half of the processors power out yet.

Well since RE5 & Gears 2 look better than Uncharted 2 and have split-screen, this would make the winners wouldn't it. After all, thy're technically superior.

Gears 2 uses normal maps to achieve it looks And neither of the games still manage to look even close to as good as uncharted 2. So they aren't winners, they're also technically inferior. That doesn't make them bad games. But you are once again. Wrong. Also it's statements like this that really tells me of your lack of knowledge.

Well there are pictures and places where the pictures move and they show you what the pictures look like when moving. It's going to be big.

Exactly, it's the talent. Square Enix is more talented at graphics then Level 5, so their multiplatform games look better than their exclusives. Just like Infinity Ward is more talented than Insomniac, Dice is more talented than Zipper, Capcom more talented then Naughty Dog and Epic.

lol no. Once again you are wrong. And you can't prove otherwise cause it's subjective. I'll agree that the guys at infinity ward are pretty talented. But not that they are moreso than Naughty Dog. They can't even make prevent their AI from respawning... Something that should pretty basic if you build your tools right.

Also the fighter comment with the animations earlier once again leads me to believe you have a fairly big lack of knowledge on this whole subject.

Again, this could have been very different if the PS3 was lead platform for everything, but thankfully it's resulted in better looking games in general.

I do not develop games, but I know a fair bit about developing them. I also know that you don't know much at all - including your spelling, which is poor to say the least.I suspect you may be just repeating yourself because you are backed into a corner and don't know enough about game development to create a coherant response.

This explains why you brought up Uncharted 2 animation cycles like they were actually impressive, I of course knew better, but then I don't mind third party games looking better than exclusives, it's a good thing...unless you're a ardent PS3 fan, in which case that's another notch on the redundo-meter.

You didn't know better. You misunderstood more lol. I develop graphics and games.. Sure it's a total conversion modification but i've spent 4 years working on it. Another note is the reason I keep repeating myself is because you ignore what I write and keep beating around the bush. I do know a fair bit on the subject and it'd be nice if you weren't so reluctant to listen. Because i'm right.

What is a "vecation"? Research?

Bit of a poor argument? "Because I said so" doesn't help you in absence of cold hard facts. But again, backed into a corner. Is there someone else familiar with games design I could speak to?

I think they've already read this thread and figured they wouldn't waste time arguing with you. I don't know why i keep doing it :p Probably just to keep the thread alive.

Assassins Creed has over 1,200 at any one time. I don't know where you got that "1" from.

30? So that's 1/40th of the animation cycle of a near 2 year old game? Ouch.

lol Link me to your proof so i can disprove it and explain what exacly you misunderstood that they said. And i'm again not talking about the whole enviroment but one character. It shouldn't be so hard to understand.

Probably because the Cell was designed to process congrual blocks of data which is fine for graphics and processing video or audio and SETI work units, this also means that unlike the Xenon that powers the Xbox 360, the Cell wasn't designed strictly for games. The Xenon is, it will never appear in any other non-gaming hardware. This is why Cell can't handle multiplatform games very well.

The xenon is a standard x86 processor. The cell is not. The reason the cell has trouble in multiplatform games, as i've said already.. Is because the developers dumps everything on the ppu and don't use any of the additional processors.

No, no, no. All of yours are based on fanboyism. At least I can recognise that multiplatform games can look better than exclusives and that flows both ways y'know, i'm not just talking about PS3.

It's not just about looking better in one aspect. It's about the whole technical build up. You should look into it.

You believe that a multiplatform game can never look better than an exclusive, despite dozens and dozens of titles proving otherwise.

I don't feel multiplatform games can't look better than exclusives. I've just yet to see any that does.

This is ofcourse games releasing in the same time period. The issue with multiplatform games is that they can't use the advantages of the consoles. So they'll have trouble pushing them. They need to make a more generalised version of their game to make it fit on both platforms because they're so radically different.

Perhaps you would feel differently if the PS3 had the best version of multi-platform games, but that's looking unlikely, so you cling...eversotightly.

Don't you know most have since mid 2008 ?

Tell it to Asmussen then

lol from your link:

"In fact, Asmussen mentioned that his character model wouldn't even fit in the PS2's memory. Compared to the 5,000-polygon count on the PS2, Kratos is now running around 20,000 polygons on the PS3 alone." N1

Perhaps I have higher standards.

I think you just have no clue about technical aspects of game since you keep beating around the bush.

Except GoW2, RE5 and KZ2 all came out after Uncharted, yet despite supposedly "setting a bar" an exclusive to each system and a MULTIPLATFORM GAME still came out of it better than Uncharted. The consoles didn't change, but the talent does.

Yep and the talent is working at naughty dog.

Because it's the bare minimum, Naughty Dog doesn't even do that. Makes you wonder if it's the system being maxed out.

It's not the bare minimum. Half Life and Half Life 2 doesn't have multiplayer lol. Only as seperate games. Does that mean the pc platform is maxed out ?

The current generation UE3 has as much to do with UE1 or UE2 as the Uncharted Engine has to do with the Jak engines, so whatever you decide it couldn't be leveraged for your sake either way.

.. No it doesn't It has the same core. It's the same engine at it's core quite simply.

It's especially aparent with ut3s horrible netcode.