Print

[miggidy]

QUOTE(MightyZim @ Jul 30 2005, 12:07 AM)

I'm happy for you that you seem to have some sort of incredible video that the rest of the world does not know about. I have already posted screenshots as well as a link to the actual ballroom demo which plainly show that, for the most part, the ballroom demo graphics were inferior to those of FFX. But if you don't think so, that's your problem.

[Deftech]

well I hated all older RE's except for Veronica. I heard 4 was good, so they had better not change too much.

[Foe-hammer]

A couple points i would like to make:

1) Most the ps2 game shots you view on your computer monitor are at a higher resolutions; both textures and overall picture.  Just take a look at any gt4 screen shots, if they looked nearly that good on the ps2, i wouldn't even worry about next gen games.  Also, just by simply viewing them on a computer monitor you are already upscaling the res to whatever you have your monitor set at; i.e., no scan lines like there is in 480p.  This goes for xbox screen shots as well.

2) Halo 2's first announced trailer looks much better then what halo 2 really looks like.  In the trailer there was amazing shadows; shelf shading, lighting; bloom effect and reflective light mapping, better animation, and real-time environment reflection in MC's visor.  None of which was in the final build of halo 2.  I'll be stoked if halo 3's graphics are that good.

3) E3's halo 2 playable demo was pretty much exactly what we got graphical with halo 2, minus a few negligible things; the shading/shadows still were not quite as good.

4)  God of War is the best looking ps2 game i have ever seen/played.  I love this game; so damn fun.  That being said, the overall graphics are no where near as good as a handful of xbox games.  Namely:

- Ninja Gaiden
- Halo 1
- Halo 2
- Riddick
- Thief
- Chaos theory

Ninja Gaiden is the most like GoW in terms of genre, skills, and both are damn hard; as long as you play GoW on the hard difficulty setting.  NG blows GoW away in environment and character detail.  The higher res textures in environment and characters make a huge difference.

The biggest problems i have with GoW is:

1) Low texture quality
2) Environments are unimpressive; all the systems horse power is going into the characters and the environments a pretty bland.

5) I too agree the ball room dance demo looks better then ffx.  The characters in ffx look great, but the texture detail and facial animations is horrible; looks like puppets when talking.  The other thing that bothers me with ffx's characters faces is how fake/perfect they are.  There is no shading or depth in their faces like there is in a game like chaos theory, where bump/normal mapping is used.  I'm referring to the in-game graphics and not the cgi/fmw.

Can the ps2 even do bump/normal mapping?  I'm just curious, because i have not played/seen one yet.

6) I've never liked RE much either, because of the clunky, tank-like controls.

EDIT: I play my consoles on a PC monitor via a true vga transcoder.  I get a better picture with my sony 19" flat screen crt then i do with my 36" sony HDTV.  Just to let you know i'm not baising my opinions on a pos TV.

[Deftech]

even PGR 2 is sexy.

[Foe-hammer]

[Deftech]

QUOTE(Mojiba @ Jul 30 2005, 05:31 PM)

Dude, maybe people are a little pissed up because you're basing most of your argumentation on something that you believe it's an uncorrupted fact, in this case this bunch of beauty pictures, but these pictures are not true to what we see in the ps2, this is the problem. They do not represent what the console can do, they have attributes that is not even possible to happen in the ps2, I think that if you really want to continue to support what you believe based on screenshots, you have to take your own screens or find a place that have them, wich is something very, very hard to find since most screens came from developers (like the ones you're using) or the ones that not are strangely blurry.

[thinkbox]

OMG this game is going to be frickin sweet!

[deftonesmx17]

MightyZim-While I agree with you, just let it go. You are not going to persuade an xbox fan otherwise.

Miggidy-You also need to let it go as you will not persuade a $ony fan otherwise.

Deftech-You don't count. We know you are an xbox fanboy because you admit it and well, maybe thats why you and I get along so well.  

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Jul 31 2005, 01:52 AM)

MightyZim-While I agree with you, just let it go. You are not going to persuade an xbox fan otherwise.

[Deftech]

QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Jul 30 2005, 10:18 PM)

i'll be surprised even if the next gen consoles can surpass pc games.  Here's to hopen otherwise.

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Jul 30 2005, 08:18 PM)

You seem to be a level headed guy, deftones, but do you seriously believe that ffx overall graphics were as good as the ball room demo?  I've stated reasons why i believe they are not above, and i couldn't give a rats ass which system it was on.  Whether this was a ms or sony game, my judgment would still stand the same.

Well the truth about any console is the size of the screen you are playing on. On a 13 inch TV the 640x480 resolution is crisp and you will see minimal jaggies. Now, if you take it to a big screen, like us with widescreen HDTV's, we see jaggies galore. I would say us FFX fans might be biased based on the fact that we loved the game and it looked beautiful to us none the less.  

QUOTE(Deftech)

I wont be surprised. PC's wont see the R520 core till after the 360 is launched, and even then, they arent getting the edram set up till mid 2006 supposedly. So until then, pc games will still take some sort of performance hit when running FSAA and other features. Just my opinion though, wtf do I know 

Well, if you are running at 1280x1024 or especially 1600x1200 on a 19 inch or below monitor AA is not needed. And Deftech, you know I was just fuckin with ya about the fanboyism.  

[KAGE360]

this argument will go on forever and ive tried to stay out of it but what the hell.....

mightyzim your right.  your right that the xbox tech demos werent running on actual xbox hardware.  they were running off of one of the first gforce 3 cards that was about to be out at the time, a card slower then whats actually in the xbox.  the same cant be said about the ps2 however.  

you are mistaken about what people are saying about the way MS and sony start their hype.  you dont seem to understand that it is one thing to show pre-rendered footage (ps2 and ps3) and dodge the question of it being real time but MS was open to their demos being real time.  in fact the raven demo ran with only 800,000 polys per second, im trying to find an old article to prove it because i know how you like people to back up their claims.    

as for the first halo2 trailer, your friend should be too stupid to be playing games if he actually believed that the entire game would look that good.  that was not a demo of the game at all but instead a technology demo of the different effects and technology that they were planning on using in the game.  a controlled scene with no AI, enemies, physics, etc. will always look better then the actual game anyone who has been playing games and has a brain would know that.  all those effect could still be in the game just dumbed down, that doesnt make them liers.  

as for the screens of SH3, your a fool to believe that they are from the ps2 version of the game.  most ways of advertisement use any other source other then the ps2 unless specifically noted.  do you think that the screens and commercials of games are running off of a ps2??? no they are running on a xbox or pc because they look better.  the same method has been used for years and years from even the last generation.  i learned quick when i picked up a copy of tomb raider for saturn.  i loved the game to death and thought it was beautiful
(for a saturn game), but look at the back of the box and you would see screens from the pc version.  its wise advertisement from a business perspective to not use the ugliest version of the game to show the public.

call me a fanboy, zombie, or whatever you want.  i have stated facts that you would know if you have been playing games for a while now.  i do like MS, i like their more honest aproach to the next gen and i like it how my expectations are braught up to a real level.  i do however read about the competition and take all the facts into account, something a fanboy would not do.

and deftech, i think that if applied right the gamecube could do normal mapping.  as far as i know it is capable of doing bump-mapping and normal mapping is a form of bump mapping so it seems possible.  i could be wrong however, maybe the gpu/cpu isnt powerful enough to support such an effect like the xbox.  we'll never know as the gamecube is usually held back because of the ps2 when it comes to ports.  

fact is that sony showed unreal and dodged any questions while microsft showed SOME unimpressive footage (anyone that says gears of war isnt next gen should be smacked) but admitted it was running on weak hardware.  better to be suprised then dissapointed i always say.

[Andy51]

QUOTE(Deftech @ Jul 31 2005, 03:57 AM)

I wont be surprised. PC's wont see the R520 core till after the 360 is launched, and even then, they arent getting the edram set up till mid 2006 supposedly. So until then, pc games will still take some sort of performance hit when running FSAA and other features. Just my opinion though, wtf do I know 

[Deftech]

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE(portarock @ Jul 31 2005, 10:14 AM)

One thing I must correct though is that the ps2 can do normal mapping or more  accurately will (if they live up to what they say).