Infinity Ward has quite a challenge in its hands now, to meet the benchmark set by Kz2:rofl
Exactly. Modern Warfare 2 will sell millions just like the first did as long as IW makes the online multiplayer on par or better than their last game.Infinity Ward has quite a challenge in its hands now, to meet the benchmark set by Kz2:rofl
just why do you think IW gives a shit?
the only thing nice graphically about CoD4 and WaW is the frame rate. The games don't really look great past the smoothness of it all.Disagree. I much prefer what they did with Killzone 2. If they had been able to maintain a rock solid 60 fps on consoles, that would have been great, but they didn't. There were tons of drops. KZ2, on the other hand, combined a very solid 30 fps with fantastic motion blur to create a much more appealing look in motion. 60 fps is only good if you can hold it 95% of the time.
Game was clunky as a motherfucker.ya. what a painful 45 seconds that demo was :-\
How it combines the lightning and special effects with the destruction, to bring the whole war feel is really awesome. Infinity Ward has quite a challenge in its hands now, to meet the benchmark set by Kz2, the weakest element are definitely the character models.
However, for a game that spent 4 years in development, the scripting, story, set pieces, and overall creativity of the challenge is strikingly average.
I wish this engine could be licensed, looks better than Cryshit on consoles.
the only thing nice graphically about CoD4 and WaW is the frame rate. The games don't really look great past the smoothness of it all.Disagree. I much prefer what they did with Killzone 2. If they had been able to maintain a rock solid 60 fps on consoles, that would have been great, but they didn't. There were tons of drops. KZ2, on the other hand, combined a very solid 30 fps with fantastic motion blur to create a much more appealing look in motion. 60 fps is only good if you can hold it 95% of the time.
COD4 looks really great on the PC. It looks like butt on consoles though.
my mistake. Though, I never really noticed the drops in multiplayer.me either
From what I've played of the 360 version, the game looks weird. There's a lot of bloom, and the framerate seems to be all over the place. Although I'm not sure if the latter is because of the weird bloom.
The post processing effects use a quarter res sample of the framebuffer which is transferred to the SPUs.
So motion blurring and depth of field blurring use a lower res source.
COD4 looks really great on the PC. It looks like butt on consoles though.Err, no. I can play CoD4 and 5 on my PC at 1080p with a rock solid 60 fps and, while it does look better, the difference is actually pretty minimal. The framerate is a nice improvement, but everything else looks and feels roughly the same.
I played CoD4 on 360 and PC and it isn't a huge leap. If you want a big difference in graphical quality, play Far Cry 2.FC2 definitely benefits much more from high resolutions. 1080p FC2 with AA and AF cranked is a sight to behold on the PC in that the image quality is flawless. They were even kind enough to include a framerate limiter so that I can maintain a rock solid 30 fps with the highest settings and really high AA and AF (it's tough to hold 60 fps at that resolution with max details).
I only hit a few drops in single player at times that didn't matter.You may have only noticed that, but the framerate drops constantly. The trick? It mostly drops once the action picks up and, as a result, the average gamer doesn't notice it. It really stands out to me, though. It doesn't ruin the playability, but it does damage the presentation.
From what I've played of the 360 version, the game looks weird. There's a lot of bloom, and the framerate seems to be all over the place. Although I'm not sure if the latter is because of the weird bloom.
cod4?
i don't remember much bloom in that.
FC2 definitely benefits much more from high resolutions. 1080p FC2 with AA and AF cranked is a sight to behold on the PC in that the image quality is flawless. They were even kind enough to include a framerate limiter so that I can maintain a rock solid 30 fps with the highest settings and really high AA and AF (it's tough to hold 60 fps at that resolution with max details).
QuoteGame sucks dick. Playing on hard mode, there's this thing in level 2 or 3, where i have to defend this position, and they have dudes coming in by trucks, and aircraft, and i kill like 30 guys, but they keep coming, and then the dudes in my team are dip shits and they are all down, i mean, what?
just so we are clear, we are talking about COD or KZ2 here?spoiler (click to show/hide):-* :-* :-*[close]
Game sucks dick. Playing on hard mode, there's this thing in level 2 or 3, where i have to defend this position, and they have dudes coming in by trucks, and aircraft, and i kill like 30 guys, but they keep coming, and then the dudes in my team are dip shits and they are all down, i mean, what?
F this game. I'll get back to it next month.
So keep them alive, then. It takes a second to revive them. I absolutely agree that it's a dodgy sequence, but it's not that hard. For one, keeping your team mates alive gives the Helghast someone else to shoot at while you dispose of the heavies and stray grunts. You can use the MG, but that's borderline cheating.
I'd have to go back and see COD4 again, i remember it looking pretty good (?)
What were the glaring flaws , Duck?
Wait, people are really saying CoD4 looks like crap? It's not a looker in the MP, but most of the single player levels looked really good for a game in 2007. It's not Crysis or Uncharted or Gears, but it looked great. This (http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/796/796052/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare-20070613003856277.jpg) runs at a solid 60fps, and keep in mind this was released in June '07. Of course its flaws are more apparent two years later, but it doesn't look mediocre at all or anything.
The framerate only dropped a few times in the SP, too, and it's literally rock solid in the MP. If you're having framerate problems in multiplayer (at least on 360), your system is messed up.
It's not like KZ2 is perfect either, it has some framerate dips even at 30fps.
QuoteEven when it came out it wasn't really impressive or anything
huh? i think i'm going nuts, i seem to remember people going crazy for Cod4 looks wise.
Especially the opening sequence when it was first shown.
QuoteEven when it came out it wasn't really impressive or anything
huh? i think i'm going nuts, i seem to remember people going crazy for Cod4 looks wise.
Especially the opening sequence when it was first shown.QuoteAnd in the time since CoD4 came out, there are even more games that look much better
same for every game though, thus is the advancement of time. KZ2 sat on the top of the perch for consoles for , what? , 2 weeks?
And i'm sure RE5 will be replaced soon enough.
Also, not sure if everyone has tried it, but the "Behind the bullet" demo thing for KZ2 is worth looking at.
It's just a shame that sequence has been in every one of their COD games
same for every game though, thus is the advancement of time. KZ2 sat on the top of the perch for consoles for , what? , 2 weeks?
And i'm sure RE5 will be replaced soon enough.
I hope you realize that such outbursts are responsible for much of the negativity surrounding this game. I'm positive that people are being harder on the game simply to counter posts like yours. That sort of attitude immediately results in a defensive response. Do you really think you can convince someone to change their opinions by insulting them? Of course not. It simply ends up escalating on both sides and certain titles get unfairly drug through the mud.same for every game though, thus is the advancement of time. KZ2 sat on the top of the perch for consoles for , what? , 2 weeks?
And i'm sure RE5 will be replaced soon enough.
You are one sad motherfucker... the subtlety of your trolling knows no bounds. I'm playing through RE5 as we speak and there's no way any objective-minded individual could think this game tops Killzone 2 graphically. Not gonna respond to your reply if you make one...just not worth the time.
same for every game though, thus is the advancement of time. KZ2 sat on the top of the perch for consoles for , what? , 2 weeks?
And i'm sure RE5 will be replaced soon enough.
You are one sad motherfucker... the subtlety of your trolling knows no bounds. I'm playing through RE5 as we speak and there's no way any objective-minded individual could think this game tops Killzone 2 graphically. Not gonna respond to your reply if you make one...just not worth the time.
Nope. The last time there was a car chase was in COD1. GG.
Its a great and very awesome engine, graphically unmatched by any console game.
However when I was playing it I always felt like a dwarf. I mean if you stand next to a friend of yours, your face is around the height of his shoulderrs! Wtf is that about
re5 looks so much more impressive than killzone 2, seriously
depth of field and motion blur were cool back when they were 3dfx demos
Man, why can't we all just get along :(
KZ2 is really at its best when you're engaged in CQB in fairly dark areas and it gets to show off it's lighting and shadow savvy. Some things just plain look good, like the incredible weapon models, but those are the situations where it really shines. Add some sweet explosions to the mix, and it's just hot. But then I'm just as impressed by Banjo, so hey. Gears feels much too flat, although it's definitely not without its own strengths and very impressive moments.
For what it's worth, I don't think the initial level looked all that great.
Prole, have you actually played a significant amount of KZ2? I don't know how it measures up to RE5 beyond the demo of that game, but I have a very hard time believing that the game could compare to something like the train, Suljeva or the refinery on a "much more impressive" level. The multiplayer map set in the desert is fucking impressive, too. I'm not buying it, dude.
POOR PERFORMANCE INDEED!:lol
I thought KZ2 looked very meh at first and made those exact comments your friends did when I played the demo. Hell, I made them in the demo thread here on EB bashing the graphics. The textures looked weak like most PS3 games and the IQ was blurry.
But when I played the full game it looked a lot more impressive. I'm not sure if it's just because the first level is the worst looking area, or it just takes a little while to adjust to the visual style of the game. But by the middle of the game when you are out in the sandy wasteland straight out of Dune it looked great.
i ain't sayin' killzone 2 has no chops, because it does. the physics are used precisely the way i want to see physics used -- not for global behaviors, but in very narrow contexts used to create a strong cinematic sense. a lot of stupid-hard dev work went into those indivdual behaviors in killzone 2, and maybe? they played to the ps3's strengths. but a technical masterpiece? nah. there's nothing that couldn't be done on the 360 given the same manpower and manhours, although they'd have a different set of limitations to fudge (stipple gradients on shadows, again, for example).
depth of field and motion blur were cool back when they were 3dfx demosThe type of motion blur and depth of field used in modern games is a completely different beast from what 3DFX was doing with the T-buffer. Motion blur and depth of field have always impressed me as far back as the PS2. It wasn't until the PS2 that we started seeing a lot of cool work with blur and depth of field. Back in 2001, even the PC could not handle such effects in a game environment (it took another two years or so before depth of field or motion blur became used in PC titles).
take that against far cry 2, which, while having less of an impact in any given instance, had an amazing global lighting and lod model in a large open streaming world that really struck me as a technical accomplishment on consoles.It should be noted that, unlike Gears of War 2, the shadows and lighting in Killzone 2 are actually completely dynamic. If the scene lighting were adjusted, the shadows would change accordingly.
I'm surprised that anyone would think that it looks like dog shit. Although they've obviously had some pretty serious issues getting to where they are, the realtime media has looked really nice.QuoteAnd FFXIII will end up looking like dog shit on the 360 i bet.
so we all agree it'll be a perfect 100% port of the Ps3 version then? :-[
Quotethe realtime media has looked really nice.
wowzers, the LAST person on earth i'd have thought that would think the realtime media looks nice, i would have put my money on, would have been you.
More dropped frames than an art gallery in Italy.
Of course, it's an RPG so it doesn't really matter, but the realtime media has looked insanely janky to date.
Err, DC, Blue Dragon was one of the best looking RPGs this gen (one of the only good looking ones, if you ask me) and its framerate was MUCH worse than the FFXIII footage. I agree that the framerate isn't great at this point, but I still think it LOOKS really nice. I thought the realtime cutscenes were particularly nice looking.Quotethe realtime media has looked really nice.
wowzers, the LAST person on earth i'd have thought that would think the realtime media looks nice, i would have put my money on, would have been you.
More dropped frames than an art gallery in Italy.
Of course, it's an RPG so it doesn't really matter, but the realtime media has looked insanely janky to date.
It wasn't until the PS2 that we started seeing a lot of cool work with blur and depth of field. Back in 2001, even the PC could not handle such effects in a game environment (it took another two years or so before depth of field or motion blur became used in PC titles).
I suppose the problem with Killzone 2 is simply that it goes for a more cohesive and subtle look to the point where the average person won't appreciate what they are doing with the visuals. I think that's part of its success. The technology was used to enhance its art direction rather than define it. I also think the textures get a lot more shit than they deserve. They look really good, for the most part. If you analyze any of the surface textures in Gears 2, for instance, you'd find that they really are not any more detailed. It's simply that using a 3rd person POV keeps the camera away from such surfaces. Killzone 2 aims for texture variety rather than small, repeating patterns. FEAR 2, for instance, displays sharper detail when textures are viewed up close, but they mostly rely on highly concentrated patterns (such as tiles or bricks) which makes this a piece of cake.
I haven't played it myself, but from what I've seen of it, Tales of Vesperia looked sort of pretty.As I said, it's probably the most consistent looking JRPG this generation. It's main issue lies in the fact that it animates poorly outside of battle. They use the same type of animation you saw back in Tales of Symphonia and Abyss. It feels out of place when the characters themselves look so incredible. The image quality was perfect and it really had the look of an animated title, but the animation was very much last generation.
Not really. The PC could already handle such effects in 2001 since the Geforce 3 was already released. The Geforce 3 was at least equal to the Xbox's GPU which easily handled DOF and MB effects.That may be so, but no games used it (perhaps for the reason stated above).
Infinite Undiscovery looked alright too outside of the frame rate.