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.
But that's not what they said. They said Uncharted 2 was not only the best looking game on any console, but that it had no equal (the best of the best these days).
Seeing as they also gave Uncharted 2 a 10/10 for graphics, and Mass Effect a 9.5, I think they're telling you which they think looks better. Not only that, but Uncharted 2 has a 4-page review and a second opinion review. Like I said before selnor, it doesn't matter either way, but you have been claiming what they meant without anything solid and without knowing for sure..
I'm not claiming anything. I'm reading the words and taking it a face value. Anything else is speculation ( which is what everyone else is doing ). So far Ive heard they only mean 360, or they only mean RPG's. It's quite rediculous. All because it doesnt fall within the PS3 better than 360 arguement. As for the 10/10 and 9.5 out of 10 arguement. Gears 2 got 10 for graphics, are you telling me they think Gears 2 is better? Times change. Which brings me to what they said about Uncharted 2. That review was before ME2 came out. Again times have moved on.
No, it has nothing to do with PS3>360, at least not from me. It's just that, like you said, it's speculation. Difference is, you're running with it like it's absolute, but then when other people run with their theory as an absolute, you peg them as wrong/ridiculous.
Either side could be right or wrong. Bottomline is, those who are disagreeing with you raise one good point IMO, if they meant what you say they meant, why wouldn't they have just said 'best looking game on consoles'? And remember, I'm not personally said you're wrong for sure, you may not be. I'm just telling you to consider the other side, you COULD be.
I understand. But I find it hard to believe they would be that vague without meaning competition as all other games. If they were being precise, surely they would have stated 360 precisely? Competition includes all consoles does it not? They said best visual experience to date about Gears 2 for example. So would that mean on 360? Or everything? Whereas with Forza 3 they said best on 360. So I cant see it being anything other than all games competition.
Got to remember the review was a joint PC 360 review, plus the PC will have better graphics, and the 360 had tech issues. Also, you are only kidding yourself if you think it's better than games like Crysis. Either way IGN has gone down in my estimation as they use vague terms like that to hype a game up. As far as I can see the graphics are okay but lacking the important parts such as soft shadows and field of depth.
Well Mass Effect 2 playthrough is on Youtube now. Definately has soft shadows and ' depth of field '. And the review was the 360 one. As they said if you play on PC everything is a bit better everywhere. Also found a great 360 HD video.
The effects, particle, fire explosions are stunning.
Really clean video. ( You said the other I posted was crap quality. ) I think it's the best Ive seen for consoles.
Change the quality from 320p to 720p with the contoller.
Well Mass Effect 2 playthrough is on Youtube now. Definately has soft shadows and ' depth of field '. And the review was the 360 one. As they said if you play on PC everything is a bit better everywhere. Also found a great 360 HD video.
The effects, particle, fire explosions are stunning.
Really clean video. ( You said the other I posted was crap quality. ) I think it's the best Ive seen for consoles.
Change the quality from 320p to 720p with the contoller.
EDIT: SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn the game looks great, as well as the fire. But it stops there. The graphics are Eh. C'mon, this game runs great on an 8800GT and during the space walk (0:26) you can see the seriously poor soft shadows. The textures look okay, and the poly models are low (1:29).
The game looks liek a great game, but the graphics hardly will take anyone's breath away who is used to modern graphics that are beyond ports.
The quote in the IGN review says what it says, now is all this analysis of what the word "competition" means coming from objectivity or just that people think there's no way it can look better than a game like Uncharted 2? It seems pretty clear to me that the graphics score was knocked down because the game crashes and characters occasionally get stuck in the environment. I don't think that it would make sense for it being in any other category from the descriptions of the scores they gave.
themanwithnoname's law: As an America's sales or NPD thread grows longer, the probabilty of the comment "America = World" [sarcasticly] being made approaches 1.
themanwithnoname said: The quote in the IGN review says what it says, now is all this analysis of what the word "competition" means coming from objectivity or just that people think there's no way it can look better than a game like Uncharted 2? It seems pretty clear to me that the graphics score was knocked down because the game crashes and characters occasionally get stuck in the environment. I don't think that it would make sense for it being in any other category from the descriptions of the scores they gave.
I think the physics part in UC2 had something to do with it, the game looks really, really good in motion( really good backdrops too,) I was impressed and I'm mainly a PC gamer, that just shows how well that game was made. I do think ME2 on PC will look sweet ass for sure, it's already pre-loaded on steam for me =D.
Well Mass Effect 2 playthrough is on Youtube now. Definately has soft shadows and ' depth of field '. And the review was the 360 one. As they said if you play on PC everything is a bit better everywhere. Also found a great 360 HD video.
The effects, particle, fire explosions are stunning.
Really clean video. ( You said the other I posted was crap quality. ) I think it's the best Ive seen for consoles.
Change the quality from 320p to 720p with the contoller.
EDIT: SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn the game looks great, as well as the fire. But it stops there. The graphics are Eh. C'mon, this game runs great on an 8800GT and during the space walk (0:26) you can see the seriously poor soft shadows. The textures look okay, and the poly models are low (1:29).
The game looks liek a great game, but the graphics hardly will take anyone's breath away who is used to modern graphics that are beyond ports.
We are gonna have to agree to disagree. It's not like I haven't played U2. I think the textures are fantastic in ME2, and the soft shadows are great ( not like PC, admitedly. But definately on if not better than other console games ). And stop saying it's a port. ME1 was built from the ground up on 360 and ported to PC ( hence the release schedule of the first game ). The 2nd game is just using Unreal Engine 3's latest upgrades. Which are as follows. Oh and Epic said UE3 is fully optimized for 360 hardware first. That was said at GDC. So ME2 aint no port. It's an engine designed for the 360 hardware.Ambient occlusion.Global World Class LightingFluid dynamicsLight with colour bleeding ( very impressive )Advanced texture mapping ( improved since Gears Of War 2, which was amazing textures. )Emissive Lighting source.
selnor said: We are gonna have to agree to disagree. It's not like I haven't played U2. I think the textures are fantastic in ME2, and the soft shadows are great ( not like PC, admitedly. But definately on if not better than other console games ). And stop saying it's a port. ME1 was built from the ground up on 360 and ported to PC ( hence the release schedule of the first game ). The 2nd game is just using Unreal Engine 3's latest upgrades. Which are as follows. Oh and Epic said UE3 is fully optimized for 360 hardware first. That was said at GDC. So ME2 aint no port. It's an engine designed for the 360 hardware.Ambient occlusion.Global World Class LightingFluid dynamicsLight with colour bleeding ( very impressive )Advanced texture mapping ( improved since Gears Of War 2, which was amazing textures. )Emissive Lighting source.
How are the soft shadows good? You can see the thatching! My 8600GT gives me that problem & last I checked shadows in reality don't have clear cut lines to soften them. Basically, poor jitter sampling. I'm not going on about it being a port, I'm saying it runs great on an ancient GPU, which means the game can hardly be graphically demanding. Because of this, the game isn't going to look spectacular. It's all good saying ambeint occulsion etc, but it's to what quality they are executed, which doesn't look anything mind blowing and frankly benchmarks back me up whereas you are claiming best console graphics ever (or there about) and yet it's still running great on a card that can't even run Call of Juarez at 60fps. Look at the screenshot a few pages back of Maranda - the hair is awful and the AA seems non existant. Plus the facial texture only looks slightly etter than modded out Sims 2 sims as the magic is in the texture and not the actual model with real world lighting.
selnor said: We are gonna have to agree to disagree. It's not like I haven't played U2. I think the textures are fantastic in ME2, and the soft shadows are great ( not like PC, admitedly. But definately on if not better than other console games ). And stop saying it's a port. ME1 was built from the ground up on 360 and ported to PC ( hence the release schedule of the first game ). The 2nd game is just using Unreal Engine 3's latest upgrades. Which are as follows. Oh and Epic said UE3 is fully optimized for 360 hardware first. That was said at GDC. So ME2 aint no port. It's an engine designed for the 360 hardware.Ambient occlusion.Global World Class LightingFluid dynamicsLight with colour bleeding ( very impressive )Advanced texture mapping ( improved since Gears Of War 2, which was amazing textures. )Emissive Lighting source.
How are the soft shadows good? You can see the thatching! My 8600GT gives me that problem & last I checked shadows in reality don't have clear cut lines to soften them. Basically, poor jitter sampling. I'm not going on about it being a port, I'm saying it runs great on an ancient GPU, which means the game can hardly be graphically demanding. Because of this, the game isn't going to look spectacular. It's all good saying ambeint occulsion etc, but it's to what quality they are executed, which doesn't look anything mind blowing and frankly benchmarks back me up whereas you are claiming best console graphics ever (or there about) and yet it's still running great on a card that can't even run Call of Juarez at 60fps. Look at the screenshot a few pages back of Maranda - the hair is awful and the AA seems non existant. Plus the facial texture only looks slightly etter than modded out Sims 2 sims as the magic is in the texture and not the actual model with real world lighting.
I give up. ME1 was considered awesome textures. Gears 2 was when it released by many considered the best textures on any console game. Even in arguements over KZ2 versus GeoW 2, Often everyone agreed that Gears 2 had the better textures but KZ2 looked better in motion ( thanks to great animation and brilliant use of Post Processing affects. ) UE3 is fantastic at textures. If ME1 is considered great textures, ME2 beats it in every way. Textures are gonna be a very strong point. Especially considering UE3 is fantastic at textures. It always has been. As far as this so called jittering, we are clearly watching a different video. We really are.
