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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony setting the graphics bar this generation

arsenicazure on 02 February 2010

I concur. Its still has to do a lot with programming skills than the core hardware... Alan wake looks pretty damn good though..



Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

owner of : atari 2600, commodore 64, NES,gameboy,atari lynx, genesis, saturn,neogeo,DC,PS2,GC,X360, Wii

5 THINGS I'd like to see before i knock out:

a. a AAA 3D sonic title

b. a nintendo developed game that has a "M rating"

c. redesgined PS controller

d. SEGA back in the console business

e. M$ out of the OS business

Around the Network
Cypher1980 on 02 February 2010
Avarice28 said:
Cypher1980 said:
Avarice28 said:
Cypher1980 said:
Avarice28 said:
Cypher1980 said:
Having just played and finished Mass Effect 2 on the 360 and having played Killzone 2 on the PS3 I have to say with some certainty that there is no graphical difference between the two consoles.

IMHO

My brother has mass effect 2 and I ofcourse have Killzone 2, so I have seen both of them. While mass effect 2 is a lot better optimized than the first game and has nicer texture work, it is not even in the same league as killzone 2 graphic-wise (shader and lighting wise is no competition).

Hmmmm statement of opinion as fact !

Whoop Whoop FANBOY ALERT.......Whoop Whoop etc

Reading is fundamental, if you read the bold orange writing you can see I am talking about technical specs.  This is not opinion this is fact, unless you have an sd tv, then you would not see all the graphical techniques that abound in killzone 2.  Notice the purple writing, it does not say that the game (Mass effect 2) is an "ugly" game, it just seems alot further behind in the graphical benchmark category than Killzone2 (possibly because it is an wrpg imo).

Totally irrelevant. You still stated opinion as fact.

I only call you out on this as you are still young enough not to fall into the internet "opinion is fact" trap.

Debating is an artform that few master. Refraining from wild unsubstantiated statements is paramount.

Wow! So no "tort" to my fully fleshed out arguments then?  Obviously debating is not your strong suit.

Oh dear.....I tried my best people. Another lost to the void.



Siosal on 02 February 2010

Agreed. Having Far Cry/Crysis struggle on most mid range pc's is less a show of the power of the engine and more a tell tale sign of shoddy coding.

Consoles should teach dev's to refine their code and squeeze more out of it.

But that may just be me.



Vetron on 02 February 2010

360 vs PS3: Graphics Resolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MakQpMSKP7I





Get your Portable ID!

Xoj on 02 February 2010
Dallinor said:
fighter said:

?


On a few exclusives perhaps, but only with over-expensive costs.

If you take third party gamles into account the conclusion is in favour of 360

Naughty Dog mentioned that Uncharted 2 had a budget similar to the first game, of $20 million. That doesn't seem to be over-expensive in comparison to the other game budgets floating about this gen for the HD consoles.

It's not just that those few exclusives look better then MS's first party, they're among the best (if not the best) looking games on the console market.

 

the thing is naughty dog, santa monica and polyphony are god like developers, they are among the best.

and all under sony.

 

 



Around the Network
joshin69 on 02 February 2010
Cypher1980 said:
Avarice28 said:
Cypher1980 said:
Avarice28 said:
Cypher1980 said:
Avarice28 said:
Cypher1980 said:
Having just played and finished Mass Effect 2 on the 360 and having played Killzone 2 on the PS3 I have to say with some certainty that there is no graphical difference between the two consoles.

IMHO

My brother has mass effect 2 and I ofcourse have Killzone 2, so I have seen both of them. While mass effect 2 is a lot better optimized than the first game and has nicer texture work, it is not even in the same league as killzone 2 graphic-wise (shader and lighting wise is no competition).

Hmmmm statement of opinion as fact !

Whoop Whoop FANBOY ALERT.......Whoop Whoop etc

Reading is fundamental, if you read the bold orange writing you can see I am talking about technical specs.  This is not opinion this is fact, unless you have an sd tv, then you would not see all the graphical techniques that abound in killzone 2.  Notice the purple writing, it does not say that the game (Mass effect 2) is an "ugly" game, it just seems alot further behind in the graphical benchmark category than Killzone2 (possibly because it is an wrpg imo).

Totally irrelevant. You still stated opinion as fact.

I only call you out on this as you are still young enough not to fall into the internet "opinion is fact" trap.

Debating is an artform that few master. Refraining from wild unsubstantiated statements is paramount.

Wow! So no "tort" to my fully fleshed out arguments then?  Obviously debating is not your strong suit.

Oh dear.....I tried my best people. Another lost to the void.

Im not sure ether of you have found much glory in that one.



 

 assumption is the mother of all f**k ups 

Twistedpixel on 02 February 2010
Mazty said:
Twistedpixel said:
Crysis set the bar, Crysis 2 will reset the bar higher. Between Crysis 1 and Crysis 2 the bar will have been essentially unchanged.

Only if it uses DX11. Having played the first 2 of the weekend on enthuasist, the explosions are amazing, but the textures and the models are getting somewhat dated, especially considering the detail in the environments in Uncharted 2.

I found the aliasing artifacts on Uncharted 2 to be distracting. It definately took a lot away from the overall look of the game. As for textures and models, well there are mods for that.



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

dirkd2323 on 02 February 2010

As far as Graphics go, yes I think Sony has it all the way, Sony exclusives are a cut above the rest, When It comes to 3rd party titles, If they continue to port over 360 code the PS3 versions will not be near as good as they could be, but I have seen many developers saying they are going to start developing on PS3 and port them over to 360, We will see if this lasts , we all seen the problems they had with FF when they did it this way. Being a gamer, and a gamer that owns both PS3 and 360 I believe Sony will continue with the Graphics Lead. Also they have a year and a half of more experience developing on 360, PS3 is newer and there are still many more tricks to use and learn graphicly for PS3. This info comes straight from a developer at Lucas Arts that developed Force Unleashed, and is currently working on Force Unleashed 2 . He says the PS3 is a Monster compared to the others.



CommonMan on 02 February 2010

I must be the only person in the world who was blown away ONCE this gen, by Bioshock which was the first current-gen game I played. After that, it's just been variations on very, very similar things. This gen is way more about art direction as the technical differences are so friggin' miniscule that they may as well be equal. For my money, Mass Effect 2 is the best looking game this gen, followed by Uncharted 2. I also like colors and lush environments, so this makes sense. I will forever think that Killzone 2 is the most bland, uninspired looking game ever, and I could give 2 shits about how technically awesome it is because it doesn't appeal to me.



No one in the world ever gets what they want, and that is beautiful.

eliasg on 02 February 2010

90% of multiplatform games look and play better on XBOX360, so i cant say that PS3 is a more powerfull console...



 XBOX360

Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad