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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Will God of War III push the PS3 past Uncharted 2's Graphical Success?!

 

Will God of War III push the PS3 past Uncharted 2's Graphical Success?!

Dang Skippy! Yes. 158 63.20%
 
In your dreams CGI! No. 91 36.40%
 
Total:249

From what we've seen of GoW3 so far, I highly doubt it



"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

Around the Network

The Demo was old code, I have played it , and its amazing, this game with all new code and tricks that have been learned does have the posability to surpass Uncharted 2. I have heard people that have seen the game with new code say looks like a first gen PS4 game. I don't know if that is true, but I know it will be great. Can't wait.



Not based on the demo but the graphics probably changed since then. I still think it won't.



selnor said:
DaBuddahN said:
selnor said:
DaBuddahN said:
CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
From what Ive seen, GOW3 dioesnt surpass alot of games already out. GOW3 wont even be in my top 10 when it's treleased based on the gameplay footage. I have never viewed GOW3 as a graphical contender, but a good series. Thats my 2 cents anyway.

You haven't played the demo I presume? There aren't many games that can compete with it graphically at this point, and the final build hasn't even been unveiled yet.

Selnor, you have the most laughable comment in this thread... oh, wait, I forgot, you still think MW2 is a graphics king. =/

I have a strong stance on graphics. And think that it is far more important for how it looks onscreen than how many people go on about a game being technically better. Alot of art is technically better than other art. But that doesn't mean it looks better. See my point? No I havent played the demo, but GOW 3 has never shown as a graphics powerhouse to me. I have watched alot of footage. For example Bad Company 2 has me more excited graphics wise. It looks and feels so gritty at what it represents.

No "art" is technically better because art is not objective in nature! Hence why it is art... go to a museum or something, and have one of the guides explain this to you. Graphics is about textures, polygon count mixed with some good physics. I played the demo, twice, and I must say this game is at least in my top 5 for graphics (not sure about the order yet). Videos take away a lot of detail to games, especially Youtube ones. I suggest you download the demo yourself. I actually have a code, when I get to my apartment sometime next week, I can give it to you so you can have a first hand experience, maybe then your opinion will have a it more of weight to it.

Graphics is art. It's a form of art. It's expessing. If you said to a game developer it isn't art they would walk away from you and never talk to you again. LOL.

About the code. Yeah I'll get it from you soon.

Ummm Mr. Selnor, Hideo Kojima disagrees with you and he wouldn't walk away http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/23/1449231



Selnor, you obviously hate realism.



Around the Network
selnor said:
DaBuddahN said:
selnor said:
DaBuddahN said:
selnor said:
DaBuddahN said:
CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
From what Ive seen, GOW3 dioesnt surpass alot of games already out. GOW3 wont even be in my top 10 when it's treleased based on the gameplay footage. I have never viewed GOW3 as a graphical contender, but a good series. Thats my 2 cents anyway.

You haven't played the demo I presume? There aren't many games that can compete with it graphically at this point, and the final build hasn't even been unveiled yet.

Selnor, you have the most laughable comment in this thread... oh, wait, I forgot, you still think MW2 is a graphics king. =/

I have a strong stance on graphics. And think that it is far more important for how it looks onscreen than how many people go on about a game being technically better. Alot of art is technically better than other art. But that doesn't mean it looks better. See my point? No I havent played the demo, but GOW 3 has never shown as a graphics powerhouse to me. I have watched alot of footage. For example Bad Company 2 has me more excited graphics wise. It looks and feels so gritty at what it represents.

No "art" is technically better because art is not objective in nature! Hence why it is art... go to a museum or something, and have one of the guides explain this to you. Graphics is about textures, polygon count mixed with some good physics. I played the demo, twice, and I must say this game is at least in my top 5 for graphics (not sure about the order yet). Videos take away a lot of detail to games, especially Youtube ones. I suggest you download the demo yourself. I actually have a code, when I get to my apartment sometime next week, I can give it to you so you can have a first hand experience, maybe then your opinion will have a it more of weight to it.

Graphics is art. It's a form of art. It's expessing. If you said to a game developer it isn't art they would walk away from you and never talk to you again. LOL.

About the code. Yeah I'll get it from you soon.

What? Can you READ properly? I said "art" is not objective! You can create art through CGI, but CGI is not art. My point still stands; art is not objective, therefor art is not technical in nature! You said and I quote "Alot of art is technically better than other art", which is complete bs. =/


Yes graphics ARE art. and yes art IS technical in nature. It depends how that art is achieved. So what we have is 2 different methods of the way people view art.

1. Art ( graphics ) on a scale of best to worst are determined by how it is achieved ( eg. 640p, 720p, specular lighting etc. )

2. Art ( graphics ) on a scale of best to worst are determined by exactly what you see and how it pleases the individuals eyes. Regardless of resolution, methods of lighting etc.

Many people around the review world base their graphics scores nearly whole sole on option number 1. as do many sites that say x exclusive is better than y exclusive.

But I prefer method 2. I couldnt care less how something was achieved. Hence why Banjo Kazooie is high on my list. As is Tales Of Vesperia.

Art is not technical in nature. Get this through your head. Art is abstract and not objective in nature, thus it cannot be technical! CGI is simply used to create art. Just because YOU think Tales of Vesperia and Banjo have a good art style does not mean they have good graphics. Their polygon count is way below that of other games. I agree that they have a great art style, but not good graphics. Selnor, you are trying to turn a subjective opinion into a objective fact.



Never !



Who's the best Pac, Nas, and Big. Just leave it to that.

PLAYSTATION®3 is the future.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

Slaughterhouse Is The Sh*t  .... NOW ........ B_E_L_I_E_V_E

lol he will be proved wrong again as he always is, i feel sorry for him



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

DaBuddahN said:
selnor said:
DaBuddahN said:
selnor said:
DaBuddahN said:
selnor said:
DaBuddahN said:
CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
From what Ive seen, GOW3 dioesnt surpass alot of games already out. GOW3 wont even be in my top 10 when it's treleased based on the gameplay footage. I have never viewed GOW3 as a graphical contender, but a good series. Thats my 2 cents anyway.

You haven't played the demo I presume? There aren't many games that can compete with it graphically at this point, and the final build hasn't even been unveiled yet.

Selnor, you have the most laughable comment in this thread... oh, wait, I forgot, you still think MW2 is a graphics king. =/

I have a strong stance on graphics. And think that it is far more important for how it looks onscreen than how many people go on about a game being technically better. Alot of art is technically better than other art. But that doesn't mean it looks better. See my point? No I havent played the demo, but GOW 3 has never shown as a graphics powerhouse to me. I have watched alot of footage. For example Bad Company 2 has me more excited graphics wise. It looks and feels so gritty at what it represents.

No "art" is technically better because art is not objective in nature! Hence why it is art... go to a museum or something, and have one of the guides explain this to you. Graphics is about textures, polygon count mixed with some good physics. I played the demo, twice, and I must say this game is at least in my top 5 for graphics (not sure about the order yet). Videos take away a lot of detail to games, especially Youtube ones. I suggest you download the demo yourself. I actually have a code, when I get to my apartment sometime next week, I can give it to you so you can have a first hand experience, maybe then your opinion will have a it more of weight to it.

Graphics is art. It's a form of art. It's expessing. If you said to a game developer it isn't art they would walk away from you and never talk to you again. LOL.

About the code. Yeah I'll get it from you soon.

What? Can you READ properly? I said "art" is not objective! You can create art through CGI, but CGI is not art. My point still stands; art is not objective, therefor art is not technical in nature! You said and I quote "Alot of art is technically better than other art", which is complete bs. =/


Yes graphics ARE art. and yes art IS technical in nature. It depends how that art is achieved. So what we have is 2 different methods of the way people view art.

1. Art ( graphics ) on a scale of best to worst are determined by how it is achieved ( eg. 640p, 720p, specular lighting etc. )

2. Art ( graphics ) on a scale of best to worst are determined by exactly what you see and how it pleases the individuals eyes. Regardless of resolution, methods of lighting etc.

Many people around the review world base their graphics scores nearly whole sole on option number 1. as do many sites that say x exclusive is better than y exclusive.

But I prefer method 2. I couldnt care less how something was achieved. Hence why Banjo Kazooie is high on my list. As is Tales Of Vesperia.

Art is not technical in nature. Get this through your head. Art is abstract and not objective in nature, thus it cannot be technical! CGI is simply used to create art. Just because YOU think Tales of Vesperia and Banjo have a good art style does not mean they have good graphics. Their polygon count is way below that of other games. I agree that they have a great art style, but not good graphics. Selnor, you are trying to turn a subjective opinion into a objective fact.

No I am not. The technicalities of a watercolour painting for example. An artist may have used several very hard to do techniques. Something another artist may not be able to pull off with the same brush and same set of paints. Yet the 2nd artist can still produce a better piece of art with those tools even though his painting is not as technically impressive.

You see. Graphics are art. Graphics are what you see. That makes up the picture. Art style is not art. It's the style used. The graphics is the art. It's the method of displaying the art inside the designers head.



Short answer no. But then again there will be a lot more on screen action going on with GoW III than Uncharted. I played the GoW III demo and while it looked great it defiantly is no Uncharted 2. It would be very hard to make it look better than Uncharted just because of the amount of sheer action going on at any given point in GoW.

On another note GoW III was the best and worst 10 min tease I've ever witnessed. (Dante's Inferno's Cut-scenes we pretty fantastic though imo)



FootballFan - "GT has never been bigger than Halo. Now do a comparison between the two attach ratios and watch GT get stomped by Halo. Reach will sell 5 million more than GT5. Quote me on it."