Post by: proger on August 23, 2006, 11:23:00 AM
This post has been edited by proger: Aug 23 2006, 06:25 PM
Post by: KAGE360 on August 23, 2006, 11:30:00 AM
QUOTE(proger @ Aug 23 2006, 12:54 PM) 
Do you think it looked impressive? I didn't perosnally think it was a huge step from 360.. probally pre-rendered too.
it was nice looking but FAR from the quality of the original TGS trailer. its should be obvious to even the fanboys that they are toning down the graphics immensely. they look good still but its very clear now that the 360 can render graphics just as good.
in fact IMHO, i believe GoW looks far better.....
newest MGS4 pic:
newest GoW pic:
i know the games are entirely different but many consider them to be the graphical premier title for either platform. in terms of texture detail and such i believe that GoW is the more impressive of the two IMHO.
Post by: proger on August 23, 2006, 12:17:00 PM
Post by: KAGE360 on August 23, 2006, 11:42:00 AM
QUOTE(proger @ Aug 23 2006, 01:48 PM)
That GoW image is probally pure prerendered itself. (Saying that with an open mind..)
No, CliffyB and company have stated many times that everything they show running on the U3E is real time. this is real time
Post by: proger on August 23, 2006, 12:23:00 PM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Aug 23 2006, 01:49 PM) 
No, CliffyB and company have stated many times that everything they show running on the U3E is real time. this is real time
And sony said thier stuff was realtime...
But M$ is more respectable, so I will believe them before sony ANYDAY!
Looking closer I see jaggies on the GoW.. hm.... probally is realtime.
This post has been edited by proger: Aug 23 2006, 07:25 PM
Post by: DragoNs on August 23, 2006, 12:25:00 PM
Post by: KAGE360 on August 23, 2006, 11:51:00 AM
QUOTE(proger @ Aug 23 2006, 01:54 PM)
And sony said thier stuff was realtime...
But M$ is more respectable, so I will believe them before sony ANYDAY!
well this isnt sony or MS making this claim its cliffyb and mark rein. these two i highly respect and see no reason why they would lie because they were speaking on U3E games in general not just GoW. this statement basically means their two U3E games (GoW and UT2k7) have been presented only in real time
QUOTE(DragoNs @ Aug 23 2006, 01:56 PM)
regardless of the differance in graphics, you gotta remember the gameplay, and all the other MGS' are amazing games.
i guess, the gameplay has grown a little bit old especially since splinter cell came in the scene reinventing how stealth games are played.
but this topic is about the graphics.
Post by: proger on August 23, 2006, 12:27:00 PM
QUOTE(DragoNs @ Aug 23 2006, 01:56 PM)
regardless of the differance in graphics, you gotta remember the gameplay, and all the other MGS' are amazing games.
I always found MGS extreamly boring. I don't like stealth tho, so that's probally why.
Post by: Mr Invader on August 23, 2006, 03:02:00 PM
QUOTE(proger @ Aug 23 2006, 12:58 PM)
I always found MGS extreamly boring. I don't like stealth tho, so that's probally why.
I always thought that MGS was an alright game. It was nothing compared to Splinter Cell. But what really turned me down was the camera angles which i hope they fix. The crappy camera angles made the gameplay worse.
and in my opinion i think they definetely toned down the current graphics of MGS4 compared to the announcement trailer (which they stated was not pre-rendered)
Post by: Kira Yamoto on August 23, 2006, 03:43:00 PM
Post by: Mr Invader on August 23, 2006, 03:13:00 PM
QUOTE(Kira Yamoto @ Aug 23 2006, 04:14 PM)
well that screenshot up there wasnt a good representative. how about a screenshot that has a good amount of detail in it. it seems to me the screenshot the OP provided was one from desert-like camo, and desert-type background which inherently doesnt feature a lot of detail anyways.
yes i agree about that screenshot being terrible compared to some other ones. But i still think thegraphics have gotten worse. Just look at the MGS4 video that came out around E3 '05 compared to the video they had at E3 '06. Definetely not the same as far as visuals go
Post by: KAGE360 on August 23, 2006, 04:40:00 PM
(IMG:http://www.gamersreports.com/grimages/1154/1156340602/3/1/gr.image.jpg)
(IMG:http://www.gamersreports.com/grimages/1154/1156340587/3/1/gr.image.jpg)
(IMG:http://www.gamersreports.com/grimages/1154/1156340578/3/1/gr.image.jpg)
it doesnt matter, while the game looks good it still does not have the intricate details that the original trailer had or other games have. the game has taken a decline in graphics, that is not something to be denied. i was hoping jaggies would be gone on the ps3, but there are a lot of games that show otherwise.
good or bad, these screens should speak most accurate towards the graphics because they are the more resent.
This post has been edited by KAGE360: Aug 23 2006, 11:54 PM
Post by: hamwbone on August 23, 2006, 05:36:00 PM
Post by: DragoNs on August 23, 2006, 06:41:00 PM
QUOTE(proger @ Aug 23 2006, 01:58 PM)
I always found MGS extreamly boring. I don't like stealth tho, so that's probally why.
Have you ever played MGS2: Sons of Liberty? that game has some of the most funny things you will ever see in a video game. right near the end of the game when things start messing up the people say the most funniest things. The games worth to play just for the end.
Post by: Reaper527 on August 23, 2006, 06:53:00 PM
QUOTE(hamwbone @ Aug 23 2006, 07:07 PM)
could they at least make the ropes not have angles!! =) last picture
its ok though, because the angles will be rendered in 1080p because sony said so
who wants smooth graphics in 1080i when we can have angles in 1080p 
Post by: lex_luther23 on August 23, 2006, 07:55:00 PM
This post has been edited by lex_luther23: Aug 24 2006, 02:56 AM
Post by: Kira Yamoto on August 23, 2006, 09:59:00 PM
QUOTE(lex_luther23 @ Aug 24 2006, 02:26 AM)
Ps2 lie all over again you know the one were ps2 was post to have toy story 2 like graphic's. They claimed ps2 was so much better then dreamcast graphics and that was not the case. Ps3 is not going to have any thing on 360 when its said and done.
#1. PS2 beat out Dreamcast, and rightfully so, as the games and it's graphics beat out Dreamcast by a long shot. I can prove through graphics screenshots AND technical specs. Dreamcast just is not able to produce the same kind of enviornments on PS2. Shadow of the Colossus would be 3dfx all over again. That's how bad SotC would look on DC if it ever RAN at all.
http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/736/736896/img_3169267.html
http://media.dreamcast.ign.com/media/010/0...mg_1213338.html
#2. That's what Xbox-ers said about PS2 and they lost. Lol, its always about games in the end, and PS brand has always won because they have titles that people have grown to love and enjoy over the years. There isn't anything to indicate that 360 has already won, that's just fanboyism at talk here.
This post has been edited by Kira Yamoto: Aug 24 2006, 05:02 AM
Post by: Foe-hammer on August 24, 2006, 02:49:00 AM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Aug 23 2006, 11:37 AM)
its should be obvious to even the fanboys that they are toning down the graphics immensely.
You'd logically think so, but you'd be surprised of how loyal the sheep are to their shepard (just take a gander at ps3forums.com).
QUOTE(Kira Yamoto @ Aug 23 2006, 09:30 PM)
#1. PS2 beat out Dreamcast, and rightfully so, as the games and it's graphics beat out Dreamcast by a long shot. I can prove through graphics screenshots AND technical specs. Dreamcast just is not able to produce the same kind of enviornments on PS2. Shadow of the Colossus would be 3dfx all over again. That's how bad SotC would look on DC if it ever RAN at all.
That is an unfair comparison. The DC was only around for a little over a year, and did not have the luxury of developers to get familiar with the hardware to make it sing, like devs did with the ps3.
The first gen DC games kept pace easily with 1st gen ps2 games. Now that is a better comparison.
Post by: KAGE360 on August 24, 2006, 03:32:00 AM
QUOTE(Kira Yamoto @ Aug 23 2006, 11:30 PM)
#1. PS2 beat out Dreamcast, and rightfully so, as the games and it's graphics beat out Dreamcast by a long shot. I can prove through graphics screenshots AND technical specs. Dreamcast just is not able to produce the same kind of enviornments on PS2. Shadow of the Colossus would be 3dfx all over again. That's how bad SotC would look on DC if it ever RAN at all.
http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/736/736896/img_3169267.html
http://media.dreamcast.ign.com/media/010/0...mg_1213338.html
#2. That's what Xbox-ers said about PS2 and they lost. Lol, its always about games in the end, and PS brand has always won because they have titles that people have grown to love and enjoy over the years. There isn't anything to indicate that 360 has already won, that's just fanboyism at talk here.
though pointless i will try to shed some light on to you little lost one....
the only fanboyism talk around here is you sir. yet again you show how little you know about game development.
first you talk about us "wanna be PC know it alls" judging a system based soley on specs alone when you are doing the same but with far less the level of comprehention and understanding.
you also compare a launch game on the DC to a game on the ps2 after developers have 6 years of learning and fine tuning with the ps2 hardware. its a sad fact that the DC was not around long enough reach even close to its full potential.
you are comparing two different standards for each system as well: all DC games ran at 480p with full scene AA which is a HUGE tax on the system while ps2 games run at 480i with no AA what-so-ever. <- believe it or not but that makes a big difference alone. while sony was cocky and deceiving when announcing the ps2's specs, sega was conservative and realistic when announcing the DC's specs. sony claimed the ps2 would render around 66 million poly's per second while sega announced that the DC would do 3 million poly's per second, both are way wrong. games like Test Drive Le Mans has been confirmed to push around 5 million polys on the DC and games like Soul Reaver 2 (which was cancelled on the DC near completion) looked just as good as the ps2 version. games like shenmue have been rumored (but never confirmed) to push well beyond the 5 million poly mark of the DC. it is also known that the true poly peak performance of the ps2 (in real world settings) is hovering around 10-12 million polys a second, again under settings less taxing then what the DC handled (lower resolution and no AA for example). for a better understand on the DC's true power just read this, and dont worry ill post a link that you will dismiss anyways.
QUOTE
The CPU was clearly an important part of the Dreamcast specification, and selection of the device was a lengthy and carefully considered process. Factors considered included performance, cost, power requirements, and delivery schedule. There wasn't an off-the-shelf processor that could meet all requirements, but Hitachi's SH-4 processor, which was still in development, could adapt to deliver the 3D geometry calculation performance necessary. The final form has an internal floating-point unit of 1.4 Gflops, which can calculate the geometry and lighting of more than 10 million polygons per second. Among the features of the SH-4 CPU is the store queue mechanism that helps send polygon data to the rendering engine at close to maximum bus bandwidth.1 The final device is implemented using a 0.25-micron, five-layer-metal process.
The system ASIC combines a PowerVR rendering core with a system bus controller, implemented using a 0.25-micron, five-layer-metal process. Imagination Technologies (formerly VideoLogic) provided the core logical design and Sega supplied the system bus. NEC provided the ASIC design technologies and chip layout, including qualification for 100-MHz operation. Fill rates are a maximum of 3.2 Gpixels per second for scenes comprising purely opaque polygons, falling to 100 million pixels per second when transparent polygons are used at the maximum hardware sort depth of 60. Overall rendering engine throughput is 7 million polygons per second, but in Dreamcast, geometry data storage becomes the limiting factor before pixel engine throughput.
The system ASIC combines a PowerVR rendering core with a system bus controller, implemented using a 0.25-micron, five-layer-metal process. Imagination Technologies (formerly VideoLogic) provided the core logical design and Sega supplied the system bus. NEC provided the ASIC design technologies and chip layout, including qualification for 100-MHz operation. Fill rates are a maximum of 3.2 Gpixels per second for scenes comprising purely opaque polygons, falling to 100 million pixels per second when transparent polygons are used at the maximum hardware sort depth of 60. Overall rendering engine throughput is 7 million polygons per second, but in Dreamcast, geometry data storage becomes the limiting factor before pixel engine throughput.
http://www.segatech.com/technical/polygons/index.html
and also the age old question when comparing the two systems: if the DC was underpowered, then did every DC game look worse on the ps2??...
DC:
(IMG:http://dcmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/crazy/bg61.jpg)
ps2:
(IMG:http://ps2media.ign.com/media/previews/image/crazy/crazy_3.jpg)
DC:
(IMG:http://dcmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/doa2j/d21.jpg)
ps2:
(IMG:http://ps2media.ign.com/media/previews/image/doa2hardcore/doa2hardcore_2.jpg)
DC:
(IMG:http://dcmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/grandia2/final/bg38.jpg)
ps2:
(IMG:http://ps2media.ign.com/media/previews/image/grandia2/grandia_12.jpg)
all pics were from the same site and i tried to get similar shots of both versions for better comparison.
yes the ps2 was a little bit more powerful but then again the DC was able to pull off effects (AA, bump mapping, etc.) that the ps2 could not do.
so please, do research, learn about what you speak of before you rant on while claiming other pull their points out of their ass.
This post has been edited by KAGE360: Aug 24 2006, 10:34 AM
Post by: Foe-hammer on August 24, 2006, 04:01:00 AM
You do bring up a good point, all DC games supported 480p and AA. The ps2, on the other hand, still struggles to this day to support 480p (FFXII is only 480i 4:3).
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Aug 24 2006, 03:03 AM)
.... it is also known that the true poly peak performance of the ps2 (in real world settings) is hovering around 10-12 million polys a second....
Actually, the ps2's 'real world' (with all effects added) poly/sec is 6-9 mill
DC: 3-5 mill
GC: 10-12 mill
xbox: 18-20 mill
Nintendo was the only honest one with their figures.
This post has been edited by Foe-hammer: Aug 24 2006, 11:01 AM
Post by: Mojiba on August 24, 2006, 04:05:00 AM
Post by: KAGE360 on August 24, 2006, 06:36:00 AM
QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Aug 24 2006, 05:32 AM)
kage, i think you have the last image comparison backwards because the ps2 image looks better then the DC's, or maybe that is how it's supposed to be.
You do bring up a good point, all DC games supported 480p and AA. The ps2, on the other hand, still struggles to this day to support 480p (FFXII is only 480i 4:3).
Actually, the ps2's 'real world' (with all effects added) poly/sec is 6-9 mill
DC: 3-5 mill
GC: 10-12 mill
xbox: 18-20 mill
Nintendo was the only honest one with their figures.
well it would seem that it is hard to take a good DC pic because of the AA as i noticed it as well. i was tempted to provide a quote from the review where even the ps2 reviewer states that the graphics have been downgraded from the DC version but figured that someone with as much commen sense as Kira
would understand that its the pic making the game look blurry. i still question your figure for the DC poly pushing performance though. like i said before it was reported that shemnue 1 and most certaintly 2 push more polys then any other DC game out there as it looks as good as most ps2 games. plus the quote i posted shows that the CPU/GPU are capable of more then 5 million polys. the point i was trying to make of it all is that if a game was programmed for both the ps2 and DC on even playing field (lets say 480i and AA turned off on the DC) then they would be about even with maybe the ps2 having better/faster framerates. the figures are already close with the DC running AA which we both know taxes a system greatly.
Post by: incognegro on August 24, 2006, 07:41:00 AM
I rent movies I dont buy them (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)
anyways kira, the thing that I cant understand about u is that you claim that you have interests in all the systems yet the only one that your really educated on is the sony products. Now im not saying ur fanboy but if u keep saying stupid stuff like the dvd9 thing and the dreamcast vs. ps3 thing that you just said then ur credibility is just gonna get lower and lower. I knew Kage was gonna murder u for that one so I didnt say anything but common, comparing DC games to ps2, u shouldve known u were gonna get served. The DC has no jaggies (a first) and the resolution of the games are higher than most ps2 games. The DC was a great piece of hardware. Any game that was on the DC and ported to any other system (yes, including xbox) almost always look better on DC. Just look at capcom fighting games.
Oh dont forget, Soul calibur looked way better Tekken tag. They are both launch titles and from the same company.
This post has been edited by incognegro: Aug 24 2006, 02:46 PM
Post by: Deftech on August 24, 2006, 07:15:00 AM
Post by: incognegro on August 24, 2006, 07:31:00 AM
QUOTE(Deftech @ Aug 24 2006, 02:22 PM)
I see there is a new bug to squash. If you fellas dont have it handled by the time I return full-time in November, I'll take over
LMAO
Post by: DragoNs on August 24, 2006, 07:57:00 AM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Aug 24 2006, 05:03 AM)
and also the age old question when comparing the two systems: if the DC was underpowered, then did every DC game look worse on the ps2??...
Actually your last picture you posted is quite false if you had actually played the real game, the PS2 version of Grandia 2 looks better when playing the game, ive played both, own both, PS2 version looks better IRL.
Post by: KAGE360 on August 24, 2006, 08:25:00 AM
QUOTE(Deftech @ Aug 24 2006, 09:22 AM)
I see there is a new bug to squash. If you fellas dont have it handled by the time I return full-time in November, I'll take over
your help is greatly missed. its not the same fending off the sony zombies without you around
QUOTE(DragoNs @ Aug 24 2006, 10:04 AM)
Actually your last picture you posted is quite false if you had actually played the real game, the PS2 version of Grandia 2 looks better when playing the game, ive played both, own both, PS2 version looks better IRL.
well then your more blind/biased then i thought. i own the DC version while my brother owns the ps2 version and it is clearly a degration in graphics. like i said each pic is from the right platform and i tried the best to make the closest comparison. the DC version did not have jaggies, washed out colors, or ugly meshed textures like the ps2 version does. maybe its the TV your playing on or the cables your using but i will bet you that you wont find one review that agrees with you on that opinion. for good reason because its not true, its not an opinion that it looks better on the DC its a fact. its hard to argue with texture details and such
Post by: DragoNs on August 24, 2006, 09:06:00 AM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Aug 24 2006, 10:32 AM)
well then your more blind/biased then i thought. i own the DC version while my brother owns the ps2 version and it is clearly a degration in graphics. like i said each pic is from the right platform and i tried the best to make the closest comparison. the DC version did not have jaggies, washed out colors, or ugly meshed textures like the ps2 version does. maybe its the TV your playing on or the cables your using but i will bet you that you wont find one review that agrees with you on that opinion. for good reason because its not true, its not an opinion that it looks better on the DC its a fact. its hard to argue with texture details and such
Considering its a direct copy of the game its not like they are downgrading the graphics to play on a system with more capabilities. I personally think it looks better on the PS2, but hey, what can i get you to think, you agenst anything that says Sony on it, why would i bother arguing with you, oh and lets all remember which system got the kick-ass Grandia 3.
This post has been edited by DragoNs: Aug 24 2006, 04:06 PM
Post by: KAGE360 on August 24, 2006, 10:28:00 AM
QUOTE(DragoNs @ Aug 24 2006, 10:37 AM)
Considering its a direct copy of the game its not like they are downgrading the graphics to play on a system with more capabilities. I personally think it looks better on the PS2, but hey, what can i get you to think, you agenst anything that says Sony on it, why would i bother arguing with you, oh and lets all remember which system got the kick-ass Grandia 3.
i may not care for sony as a company but that does not mean i am biased to deny or ignore any merits the consoles have. what i am saying is that its not just my opinion, its a fact, that the graphics were toned down for the ps2 version. yes they did not intend on downgrading the graphics to play on a different system it was just the result of inherent design. the biggest hit, and you will see this repeated with every article/review, is the texture detail. with half of the video memory, its to be expected and this is what makes it fact and not just my opinion because grandia 2 used the DC's texture power to great effect.
the point of me comparing the DC and ps2 was to prove that the ps2 does not in fact have more "capabilities". it does however have more speed, but capabilities it does not. like i stated before, the DC can do many things that the ps2 just cant (AA and bump mapping for example) would lead most to think that the DC had a wider range of capabitlities then the ps2.
of course grandia 3 was on the ps2, that point is meaningless as the DC was long dead when that game was launched. to also go along with that though, the horrible grandia extreme also appeared on the ps2 as well.
Post by: Reaper527 on August 24, 2006, 10:35:00 AM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Aug 24 2006, 10:32 AM)
your help is greatly missed. its not the same fending off the sony zombies without you around
we definately could use a zombie slayer, theres an undead army
Post by: STICKY_BUD on August 24, 2006, 11:15:00 AM
has sony released a list for "what's included" with each *configuration* yet?
topical link...
IGN review of Grandia II(found it on gamefly.com)
"...
Graphics
It's a little depressing to observe that the same thing has happened, visually speaking, to two Grandias in a row now. First, the Saturn original was introduced to an American audience through a substantially inferior PlayStation version. Now we have the PlayStation 2 version of the sequel, and it can't hang with its Dreamcast counterpart. It's not as bad as what happened to the original Grandia, which lost great wodges of sprite detail and every beautiful Mode 7 effect, but maybe all those Sega-loving pit-fiends had a point after all...
I kid, but the fact remains that Grandia II looked better in its original form. The PS2 port takes a mild hit in terms of texture quality, especially in less conspicuous background areas, and it's a good deal rougher around the edges, with a bit more aliasing and a lot more interlace flicker in certain areas. It's still a pretty game to look at, though, with the excellent character designs and vivid colors that have become a series trademark by now.
The battle graphics are a trade-off between great monster designs and character animations, shown off by a constantly-moving cinematic camera, and the shortcut Game Arts took for rendering many of the special attack and spell effects. Spells are split between realtime animations, some of which come with excellent lighting effects in tow, and pre-rendered MPEG videos superimposed over the battlefield. The former leave no room for complaint, but the latter feel like they were implemented to overcome weaknesses in the 3D engine. The compression artifacting in most of the videos is terrible, akin to what you get if you stretch a low-res MPEG out to full screen on your computer, which makes for a very disconcerting contrast to the sharp realtime effects. I didn't mind this technique when it was put to use in Valkyrie Profile, but in that instance it was used much more sparingly, and with better compression as a consequence.
What's most unfortunate about Grandia II's graphical issues is that there's so much excellent visual raw material here. The character designs, Yushi Kanoe's first effort after popping up in a Game Arts talent search, include a few personal favorites (Roan's a gimp, but Elena and Millenia have plenty going for them), and the world around them has the same blend of freshness and traditionalism as the first Grandia and the Lunar series. It manages to be familiar without being cliched. The glitches, however, mar the artwork that went into creating the game, especially since the DC version did it better justice.
..."
This post has been edited by STICKY_BUD: Aug 24 2006, 06:24 PM
Post by: DragoNs on August 24, 2006, 11:36:00 AM
Post by: twistedsymphony on August 24, 2006, 11:28:00 AM
QUOTE(DragoNs @ Aug 24 2006, 10:37 AM)
...oh and lets all remember which system got the kick-ass Grandia 3.
That's true, really that's what most consoles come down to though... THE GAMES... all the horsepower and good graphics in the world don't matter if the console doesn't offer the games you want to play.
Of course looking at this MGS game it the posted screen shots look to me like an early build of GRAW before they added FSAA and cleaned up the textures.
I don't think MGS was ever reveared for it's gameplay though, Script and storyline yes... gameplay I'm not so sure.
I played through MGS2 and I really enjoyed it... down the road I played through Splinter Cell and LOVED it, After playing through Splinter Cell, going back to an MGS game is next to impossible the gameplay flaws all stick out like beacons in the night the most notable being the fixed camera positions. Splinter Cell (and some other games) play like you'd expect a Spy Action game to play, if the MGS series is the only spy game you've ever really sat down and played through the gameplay seems fine but after playing something like Splinter Cell and going back to MGS you'll quickly see how clumsy and difficult the MGS gameplay really is.
Even still I thing the MGS series has a more entertaining script, Splinter Cell, while well written can be dry at times... random political figure was kidnapped... take out the terrorist leader... etc. it's more realistic but I think MGS is more entertaining, comedic in some ways and the story really unfolds as you play it, sure it's a whole lot of anime style post-apocoliptic fantasy but just because something is real doesn't make it better.
Given that the latest build of MGS4 looks similar to GRAW and SCDA will probably be better looking then GRAW considering it's also made by Ubi and they've had some time with the console now I'd say SCDA on the 360 and MGS4 on the PS3 will be about even graphically. The premise of the new Splinter Cell (Doube Agent) sounds like it might be the best SC script yet. We know MGS has good scripts, we wont know how the two will compaire until they're released but I think there's still a big question mark over the head of MGS4's gameplay. I've seen HK quoted in the past saying that he locks the camera down because a free moving camera gives him headaches. IMO they have a lot of areas they can hopefull improve on gamplay wise, and I really hope they do.
Good graphics and a good script are important factors in making a good game but both are wasted if the gameplay isn't there as well. People always argue graphics vs gamplay, but really IMO it's about the whole package not just one or two elements.
Post by: ikecomp on August 24, 2006, 12:40:00 PM
Post by: Foe-hammer on August 25, 2006, 03:55:00 AM
Post by: nickthegreat on August 27, 2006, 06:05:00 PM
QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Aug 24 2006, 06:35 PM)
Of course looking at this MGS game it the posted screen shots look to me like an early build of GRAW before they added FSAA and cleaned up the textures.
You bastard - I just read 3 pages of this thread with the intention of making that comment, and right near the end you beat me to it.
It does look pretty good to be fair, but it also looks almost identical in standard to the GRAW video (the one with the plane flying over the squad of men, and that opens looking over the slums of mexico. - kind of this one ) If someone could find good quality versions of each it would be a good comparison i reckon.