By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mazty on 22 January 2010
Lord Flashheart said:
Conspiracy? Where did that come from?
Bact to the topic it's hard finding ingame that looks as good as the pre-prepared official shots.
I don't get what you mean about the angles for a replay? I'm not talking about where the camera is. I would expect them to be in the same place and the angles to be the same. It's a replay of your actions.
Do you expect a replay to have different driving angles? Wouldn't be a replay it would be a simulation. Of course they are the same I'm talking about the graphics what are you talking about.
Please explain and how it relates to the GT5 pic and i'll answer.

Less Mad Dog 20/20.
I am going to state this again. You are saying the replies are pimped out to make them look better than in game graphics. In the replays there are multiple camera posistions which you can choose. Several of those posistions are the same angles that you control there car from e.g. behind the wheel, or above the car. From these angles in the replay, the graphics look identical to ingame graphics.
With your idea that the replay graphics are improved to make the game look better, you are then saying that any extra 'finish' on replay grahics are then only applied to certain camera angles.

If graphics are improved in replays, why is this 'improvement' then only visible from certain angles, most noticeably NOT the in-game camera angles?

To simply cut to the chase, your idea is wrong as the above shows this.



Around the Network
Lord Flashheart on 22 January 2010

I have never said it only applied to certain camera angles. I never said they are improved then said they weren't you are reading things that aren't there or making them up.
i would say and this is the first time i've said anything like this that the improvements are more noticable on certain angles. Motion blur on outside angles.
You have been stiring and spreading fallacies about the 360 the whole time you have been in this thread. If you want to continue claiming I said this or that or retracted this statement or claiming conspiracy here then quote me from now on so I know what it is in reference to and you know just what i did say.
If you can't quote me then stop talking to me now where are those shots?



Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Mazty on 22 January 2010
Lord Flashheart said:
I have never said it only applied to certain camera angles. I never said they are improved then said they weren't you are reading things that aren't there or making them up.
i would say and this is the first time i've said anything like this that the improvements are more noticable on certain angles. Motion blur on outside angles.
You have been stiring and spreading fallacies about the 360 the whole time you have been in this thread. If you want to continue claiming I said this or that or retracted this statement or claiming conspiracy here then quote me from now on so I know what it is in reference to and you know just what i did say.
If you can't quote me then stop talking to me now where are those shots?

What lies about the 360? What are you on about? I haven't bashed any console but been saying that you can't expect outstanding graphics from a non exclusive title due to the nature of the programming. Jees, chill out, I'm not attacking your purchasing choice of console which you seem fairly eager to defend for some reason....
Sso you are saying that any changes made in the replays are unoticable from certain angles....Right, any proof of that because it means one of  two things:
1)If these changes are unoticable from certain angles, then surely that means the game must have outstanding graphics already to look like what it does.
2)You have insider info telling you about the changes made.

Yeah, stop making things up & play the game. You have no evidence that the replays are improved, nor is there any evidence to suggest so, as certain angles suggest that there are no alterations to the graphics whatsoever in replay mode.
I'll get you some screen shots as soon as the game is released. Until then, be pateint, and try to play the game before you start making things up.



Lord Flashheart on 22 January 2010

To stop this becoming a quote war i've condensed your messages but have posted links to them for you

Mazty said:

 Dated tech is really showing it's limitations and this is being reflected in gameplay. Plus, Arc's due in Fall, whereas Natal just seems to be the eyetoy

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?post=3073537&page=11&postnum=14

Mazty said:

Alan Wake, Splinter Cell, Mass Effect 2 & KUF 2 are on PC,.  Devs have admitted to reaching the limit of the 360's CPU, which will then bottleneck graphics, whilst DVD causes lower res textures to be used as less DVDs is cheaper for the publishers and therefore better to use.

You forget to say why Natal will boost sales. It's just an eyetoy. Got to remeber the 360 had dated tech in it when it was made, and it can't keep on churning out market-winning titles because of that technical limit.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?post=3073839&page=11&postnum=16

For the record as it stands A. Wake isn't coming out on the PC. Those devs (I would like quotes but I know you don't like that) are in the minority or 'lazy devs' due to others saying the 360 isn't maxed out. DVD doesn't mean the 360 can only do low res textures. That is simply silly. The 360's far superior GPU means the 360 can do high res textures as well as the PS3 in fact better. Compare marcus Fenix to Solid Snake. The 360 wasn't released with dated tech or you need to expand on what you mean because you can say the same for the PS3 (tacked on gpu) the wii and PC's. Natal is an eyetoy? You haven't read up on Natal have you? or eyetoy for that matter. FUD and stirring.

Mazty said:

Most average gamers know it's cheaper to play multiplatform games on PC than it is to pay for a 360. You should realise the idea that someone who is wanting to purchase a PS3 of 360 most likely already owns a PC, and therefore may not be swayed by mulitplatform titles, which have dated specs making them easily playable on PCs from the last three years, not to mention PC games are much cheaper than console games.  How do you expect Mass Effect 2 to be the best graphics on consoles when it isn't exclusive meaning it won't get the most out of the 360s hardware? Considering the 360's GPU is only slightly better than the PS3's, yet the CPU is far worse, unless all 48 pipelines are used (which apparently isn't feasible so I've heard), the 360 can't hope to out match the PS3's GPU & CPU, while having access to higher res textures on bluray disc. The issue with textures has already been seen in Dragons Age: Origins, and for the Devs benefit, they keep game size to a minimal if going over more than one DVD.

From what I can see from the first 12 mins of gameplay on youtube in HD, on the 360 there is still little to none AA, flat textures, 'simple' lighting (in todays standards) and low poly models, but plenty of bloom. The close up at 11:27 shows that a lot of the nice lighting is nothing more than good texturing & bump mapping, which dissappears close up. The required PC specs say an 8800GT GPU and from what I can see, that's the kind of graphics the game is producing.

Don't get me wrong, it looks like a hell of a game, but considering it's not an exclusive, I doubt it will be able to blow audiences away with an unseen level of graphics. I'd place more hope with exclusives such as GT5 on the PS3 (if it's ever released) and Halo: Reach on the 360.

 

The 360's GPU was custom built around the 360 hardware and the CPU (which was co-funded by Sony) is using cell tech in it and was designed for gaming first. Not a multimedia cpu, it was designed to work with and compliment the hardware. It is a gaming CPU that you can't buy of the shelf. The GPU wasn't an off the shelf thrown in at the last minute weaker GPU so your comment shows how little you know.

If you havent seen AA on a youtube video, really youtube? then I am not surprised. Despite everyone says it looks stunning you have to be different. Even if it doesn't have AA it might not need it. But stick to youtube vids for graphics. I'll use the game itself. I could post some youtube vids of GT5 for you? It wont be pretty. stop making things up & play the game. You have no evidence that there is no AA or the textures are flat and the lighting is poor other than youtube. Everyone else can see the ME2 pics and everyone disagrees with you.

As for GT5. You don't want to post gameplay shots until the games released but you will use official bullshots from Sony? Why not post shots from Prologue? Why use specially released pics not in game but dismiss the use of ingame shots from the released content?

You want to wait until the game is released before judging it but wont allow the same for ME2? How about you try to be patient play the game (unlikely) before making things up. It's laughable that you can make statements like that for me regarding GT5 but won't follow you're own advice for ME2.



Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Mazty on 22 January 2010
Lord Flashheart said:

To stop this becoming a quote war i've condensed your messages but have posted links to them for you

Mazty said:

 Dated tech is really showing it's limitations and this is being reflected in gameplay. Plus, Arc's due in Fall, whereas Natal just seems to be the eyetoy

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?post=3073537&page=11&postnum=14

Mazty said:

Alan Wake, Splinter Cell, Mass Effect 2 & KUF 2 are on PC,.  Devs have admitted to reaching the limit of the 360's CPU, which will then bottleneck graphics, whilst DVD causes lower res textures to be used as less DVDs is cheaper for the publishers and therefore better to use.

You forget to say why Natal will boost sales. It's just an eyetoy. Got to remeber the 360 had dated tech in it when it was made, and it can't keep on churning out market-winning titles because of that technical limit.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?post=3073839&page=11&postnum=16

For the record as it stands A. Wake isn't coming out on the PC. Those devs (I would like quotes but I know you don't like that) are in the minority or 'lazy devs' due to others saying the 360 isn't maxed out. DVD doesn't mean the 360 can only do low res textures. That is simply silly. The 360's far superior GPU means the 360 can do high res textures as well as the PS3 in fact better. Compare marcus Fenix to Solid Snake. The 360 wasn't released with dated tech or you need to expand on what you mean because you can say the same for the PS3 (tacked on gpu) the wii and PC's. Natal is an eyetoy? You haven't read up on Natal have you? or eyetoy for that matter. FUD and stirring.

Mazty said:

Most average gamers know it's cheaper to play multiplatform games on PC than it is to pay for a 360. You should realise the idea that someone who is wanting to purchase a PS3 of 360 most likely already owns a PC, and therefore may not be swayed by mulitplatform titles, which have dated specs making them easily playable on PCs from the last three years, not to mention PC games are much cheaper than console games.  How do you expect Mass Effect 2 to be the best graphics on consoles when it isn't exclusive meaning it won't get the most out of the 360s hardware? Considering the 360's GPU is only slightly better than the PS3's, yet the CPU is far worse, unless all 48 pipelines are used (which apparently isn't feasible so I've heard), the 360 can't hope to out match the PS3's GPU & CPU, while having access to higher res textures on bluray disc. The issue with textures has already been seen in Dragons Age: Origins, and for the Devs benefit, they keep game size to a minimal if going over more than one DVD.

From what I can see from the first 12 mins of gameplay on youtube in HD, on the 360 there is still little to none AA, flat textures, 'simple' lighting (in todays standards) and low poly models, but plenty of bloom. The close up at 11:27 shows that a lot of the nice lighting is nothing more than good texturing & bump mapping, which dissappears close up. The required PC specs say an 8800GT GPU and from what I can see, that's the kind of graphics the game is producing.

Don't get me wrong, it looks like a hell of a game, but considering it's not an exclusive, I doubt it will be able to blow audiences away with an unseen level of graphics. I'd place more hope with exclusives such as GT5 on the PS3 (if it's ever released) and Halo: Reach on the 360.

 

The 360's GPU was custom built around the 360 hardware and the CPU (which was co-funded by Sony) is using cell tech in it and was designed for gaming first. Not a multimedia cpu, it was designed to work with and compliment the hardware. It is a gaming CPU that you can't buy of the shelf. The GPU wasn't an off the shelf thrown in at the last minute weaker GPU so your comment shows how little you know.

If you havent seen AA on a youtube video, really youtube? then I am not surprised. Despite everyone says it looks stunning you have to be different. Even if it doesn't have AA it might not need it. But stick to youtube vids for graphics. I'll use the game itself. I could post some youtube vids of GT5 for you? It wont be pretty. stop making things up & play the game. You have no evidence that there is no AA or the textures are flat and the lighting is poor other than youtube. Everyone else can see the ME2 pics and everyone disagrees with you.

As for GT5. You don't want to post gameplay shots until the games released but you will use official bullshots from Sony? Why not post shots from Prologue? Why use specially released pics not in game but dismiss the use of ingame shots from the released content?

You want to wait until the game is released before judging it but wont allow the same for ME2? How about you try to be patient play the game (unlikely) before making things up. It's laughable that you can make statements like that for me regarding GT5 but won't follow you're own advice for ME2.

Well what does Natal offer that the eyetoy doesn't? Both have depth detection etc.
Yeah I made a mistake that Alan Wake is going to be on PC  as I missed the news that it wasn't. Doesn't change much of that list.
EA say the 360 CPU is maxed out: http://www.edge-online.com/news/we%E2%80%99ve-%E2%80%9Cmaxed-out%E2%80%9D-xbox-360-says-ea-games-vp
DVDs are causing problems:
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169963
And note that the reason devs don't do as many DVDs are required is because of the production cost. Same game price of £39.99, yet more discs, so less profit.

The CPU is using essentially an off spin of the PPE of the Cell. That is it. It is missing the important part of the Cell - the SPUs. I actually said the GPU in the 360 is stronger - because it is, as its has 48 unified pipelines, whereas the PS3 only has 32 designated pipelines. However, the Cell acts as a GPU as well and has been used by both Naughty Dog and the GoW3 devs to apply effects such as field of depth, motion blur, MSAA etc. The GPU in the 360 can hardly be called 'far' superior - the figures just aren't there, nor are the results.

What game doesn't need AA?!?! That's like saying a game doesn't need lighting. Or colour.

No AA? I said it looks too low as someone on this thread said it's only 2x, and 2x may as well be none. Got any figures?Bullshots...uhuh. Sure. Why no shots from prologue? Generally because of the 3 year gap that's widening between Prologue and the actual game. If you think the graphics haven't been improved in over three years, oh dear.

What in game shots?!?!?!?!?! The game hasn't been released! Duh, stop asking for something which cant happen.
I've seen high quality youtube vids of ME2 (Gamespot HD) and the game looks good, but the graphics don't look outstanding. And again, if you expect "best grafics EVOR" on a non-exclusive title, you need to learn how consoles work.



Around the Network
selnor on 22 January 2010
Mazty said:
Lord Flashheart said:
Conspiracy? Where did that come from?
Bact to the topic it's hard finding ingame that looks as good as the pre-prepared official shots.
I don't get what you mean about the angles for a replay? I'm not talking about where the camera is. I would expect them to be in the same place and the angles to be the same. It's a replay of your actions.
Do you expect a replay to have different driving angles? Wouldn't be a replay it would be a simulation. Of course they are the same I'm talking about the graphics what are you talking about.
Please explain and how it relates to the GT5 pic and i'll answer.

Less Mad Dog 20/20.
I am going to state this again. You are saying the replies are pimped out to make them look better than in game graphics. In the replays there are multiple camera posistions which you can choose. Several of those posistions are the same angles that you control there car from e.g. behind the wheel, or above the car. From these angles in the replay, the graphics look identical to ingame graphics.
With your idea that the replay graphics are improved to make the game look better, you are then saying that any extra 'finish' on replay grahics are then only applied to certain camera angles.

If graphics are improved in replays, why is this 'improvement' then only visible from certain angles, most noticeably NOT the in-game camera angles?

To simply cut to the chase, your idea is wrong as the above shows this.


Firstly you posted a screenshot of GT5. It's taken from photomode which takes it at a resolution of 5760x3240. 9x the resolution of 1080p.

Now as far as GT5 itself, well Digital Foundry confirm that the actual Resolution in game is native 720p.

"First things first, there has been some talk about this sampler not actually being a GT5 demo. This is true in the sense that it is a one-circuit, lap-time-driven time trial: an extremely small, very limited and ultra cut-down version of what promises to be one of the most content-rich games seen on console. However, the wording on the splash screen itself confirms that - in the eyes of Polyphony Digital at least - this is indeed a "GT5 demo", representative of the driving experience of the full game."

"In terms of actual rendering spec, not much has changed at all from the GT5 Prologue code. Limit your PS3 to 720p mode and you get native resolution with 4x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA). Invoke the might of 1080p, and the framebuffer is set at 1280x1080. That's a 50 per cent resolution increase over 720p mode, with AA dropped to 2x. The RSX scaler then presumably kicks in with its horizontal bilinear resize to 1920x1080, and the HUD elements are overlaid on top of that. While GT5P ran its menu screens at full 1080p, it appears that the new demo's intro screens stick with the same resolution as gameplay"

"Around five per cent of the total 60Hz output consisted of torn frames, with a minimum frame-rate of 52FPS. It's interesting to note that the combination of rendering the fence and the ghost car simultaneously appears to have the most impact on frame-rate, but it is a touch concerning that such a basic-looking track with just one other car in view should affect performance at all. Switching to 1080p, the same test was re-run."

"As you would expect from a Polyphony Digital game, overall image quality is outstanding, although it is rather odd that the low-quality shadow filtering should look quite as jaggy as it does considering that (certainly in 720p mode), GT has plenty of MSAA to make things look smoother."
http://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry/



Mazty on 22 January 2010
selnor said: snip

Fair enough but still it looks good. Plus it's not the only title out there - take Uncharted 2, God of War III, Heavy Rain etc. There are games that already look like they'll beat the quite frankly unimpressive graphics of ME2. I can't see how or why you are placing so much weight on a non-exclusive title. As with all multiplatform titles, they never use any console to their full potential/get dumbed down for consoles as it's easier/quicker, so ME2 may look nice, but it'll hardly be the best looking game on xbox or PC for that matter.



selnor on 22 January 2010
Mazty said:
selnor said: snip

 

 

Fair enough but still it looks good. Plus it's not the only title out there - take Uncharted 2, God of War III, Heavy Rain etc. There are games that already look like they'll beat the quite frankly unimpressive graphics of ME2. I can't see how or why you are placing so much weight on a non-exclusive title. As with all multiplatform titles, they never use any console to their full potential/get dumbed down for consoles as it's easier/quicker, so ME2 may look nice, but it'll hardly be the best looking game on xbox or PC for that matter.


Well IGN disagree with you.

This is taken straight from there review.

"It's incredibly personal while still retaining a sense of epic sweeping scale. The combat and mission design are outstanding. The visuals, voice acting, soundtrack, and direction are miles ahead of the competition. Perhaps most impressively, Mass Effect 2 manages to fulfill its incredible ambition while only suffering from very few technical hiccups.



MasterHien on 22 January 2010

Lool!

IGN are not developers, No way in hell does ME2 have better voice acting than Uncharted 2 Nor does its Graphical level beat Uncharted 2.

According to Battlefield 2 Developers, they Stated that Uncharted 2 have the best graphics they'av ever seen and no game have been able to surpassed it and the same goes for ME2.

IGN are reviewers, they loved the game so they love to hype it up so that consumers can anticipate it.

While ME2 character model and textures are incrediby top notch, from what i'av seen i don't see it beating Uncharted 2.

And Killzone 2 has the best lightning effects i ever seen



PSN: HienTran2691

XBL: IVietCong

selnor on 22 January 2010
MasterHien said:

Lool!

IGN are not developers, No way in hell does ME2 have better voice acting than Uncharted 2 Nor does its Graphical level beat Uncharted 2.

According to Battlefield 2 Developers, they Stated that Uncharted 2 have the best graphics they'av ever seen and no game have been able to surpassed it and the same goes for ME2.

IGN are reviewers, they loved the game so they love to hype it up so that consumers can anticipate it.


So when they said Uncharted2 was better than the competition for graphics, I guess they knew nothing then. LOL.

Do you know Mass Effect 2 has some of the worlds renowned actors doing VA? Bioware are tremendously good at all these things. Best devs in the world for cinematic gaming.