why so few graphically outstanding games on 360?
- Thread starter Shadow of the BEAST
- Start date
Yeah, but it all looks a bit instanced up close. Really beautiful from afar, though.
Agreed on both accounts. I've been very happy with how ME3 looks, and it's a multiplat game. And yeah, console should be cheaper and I expect pricecuts at E3.
Hitting it out of the ballpark, guys.
Reminds me of when people were losing their shit over Infinity Blade on iOS. Great looking game, but there's not much going on in it.MS was so smart to put a scaling chip in the 360, that's why it's games look sharper on 1080P screens.
The thread is arguing that the 360 has too many very good looking games, so that you don't get the same feeling as on the Wii where there are a lot of graphically unimpressive games. This isn't a console war. Except for people who didn't read the OP.
I think we may be misunderstanding each other here =p
You're correct that art is subjective, and because of this the art direction of Reach will appeal some while turning others off.
I'm just not entirely convinced that people wouldn't be impressed with a different art direction.
That's a bit of a stretch IMO.
Besides many multi-plat titles are at or near parity.
You really like to talk out of your ass.
I agree that we should be able to discuss the topic without even bringing up the PS3, but that obvious wasn't going to happen. A thread like this is just asking for ignorance and trolling.
As for your question, plenty of games have been listed in this thread that fits that description IMO. There just aren't a bunch of loony fans posted gifs at every opportunity to beat it over everyone's head.
I included Gears 3 when talking about linear games, there's a reason why that game has been mentioned so many times. =p
I agree that Infamous 2 looks great and is probably only equaled by RDR.
Oh god you're one of those.
Because the one thing we need in the shooter market now is more aim down sights gameplay.
Uno Venova
Banned
But few of them, that was the point.
ss_lemonade
Member
I remember the original Just Cause on the 360 looking really really good. Its weird that the PC version never received its graphical upgrades.
So does every platform. Otherwise they wouldn't be outstanding.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
The PC version was based on the original Xbox port.
Uno Venova
Banned
Few comparative to the competition.
Just like how most people listed a GoW3, UC, and KZ, which would be a few games.
edit:
Sure...
"Yet i cant think of a single game on 360 that really stands out graphically"
Thread title is just a stealth troll.
Uno Venova
Banned
People listed the series of Uncharted and KZ.
I don't know maybe, but a lot of people in the thread share a similar opinion.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
I'd recommend going back and taking a look at it. Tomb Raider Legend came with both the 360 and PS2 assets on PC and the PS2 stuff actually ended up looking quite a bit better as the 360 assets suffered from that shader abuse/misuse that was common at the start of the generation.
So 5 games instead of 3. Woooo what a big difference.
Stealth?
Haunted
Member
You do not have any more authority on the subject matter and don't really have the right to say that credibly.
Besides, Digital Foundry's verdict > You.
Digital Foundry said:
How do you feel ADS will improve Halos gameplay?
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Oh man, I love when DF states their opinions and it starts getting used as fact.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
Crysis 2's fully realtime lighting and shadows > Uncharted's semibaked lighting. IBL FTW.
Not to mention much better tone mapping (U2's on par, U3's was downgraded sadly). Don't know about geometry (if you have numbers, post them) but shaders are definately top quality. SSS, anisotropic specular in a deferred renderer, screen-space soft shadows, etc.. There's also the bokeh DOF, consistent object based motion blur, etc...
You're crazy.
Yeah I know. I thought it was a funny explanation for the mentality of some people here
Listing the series? Sorry but UC1 did not age well IMO. Listing a series is silly since the older games usually don't stack up quite as well. Odd thing is I think UC2 looks better than UC3 =p
Also half of these people with clear bias or agenda don't count IMO.
lol you completely missed the context of that bolded part.
Also you know it's sad when you need other people to speak for your opinion. I may not have much "authority" but I know your last post was full of bullshit.
Uno Venova
Banned
I don't think UC1 was outstanding either, great textures and still looks good especially from early in the gen but not with UC2 or 3, and it will be tough to figure out who's opinions don't count.
Personally I just find Gears 3 to be outstanding.
IMO no, it's not hard at all. Those that can explain their perspective or opinion are easy to pick from those who are here just to push an agenda.
Yeah, I mean, calling Gears 3 outstanding, he can't even hide his Sony fanboyism, it disgusts me.
Yes we most definitely are ;P
Some people probably would be impressed and some wouldn't, just like now.
But my point is that "Bungie's accomplishments" that you mentioned(and I think you were talking about all things under the hood) would go unnoticed by majority of players even with different art; sure maybe with more appealing art more people would enjoy the "Halo look" but they wouldn't suddenly start paying attention to HBAO, HDR lighting or alien architecture polycounts.
Killzone is also technically impressive game and people like it because "it looks soft"
shinobi602
Member
I still can't believe there are people who think UC2 looks better than 3. HOW!?
Uno Venova
Banned
I don't think UC3 looks worse, but man if it had the same AA as UC2 it could have looked even better.
Shit is palpable yo.
He may have a preference towards the PS3 but I don't think it's fair to call it bias. He has his reasons for his preference just like you and I do. Nothing wrong with that.
Yes we most definitely are ;P
Some people probably would be impressed and some wouldn't, just like now.
But my point is that "Bungie's accomplishments" that you mentioned(and I think you were talking about all things under the hood) would go unnoticed by majority of players even with different art; sure maybe with more appealing art more people would enjoy the "Halo look" but they wouldn't suddenly start paying attention to HBAO, HDR lighting or alien architecture polycounts.
Killzone is also technically impressive game and people like it because "it looks soft"
I disagree that more people wouldn't be more impressed with different art. The changes from halo Reach to Halo 4 is mostly comprised of art changes and people have generally been very impressed by it so far. Sure there are differences between the engines as well, but we'll likely see a bigger difference in art than tech between the two games.
I can see why people think KZ looks good or is technically impressive, I'm in the same boat as these people. They hide the flaws and limitations rather well, and that's what every good looking game does essentially.
Easy, I prefer the art and locations in UC2 over those in UC3 (that shipyard area was so bleh IMO). I prefer broken 2xMSAA to a PPAA that makes mince meat of the background. I don't recall seeing nearly as much pop in in UC2 as I saw in UC3, same with the minor frame drops. There's more but that should sum it up.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
3D came as a cost. The chateau level in particular shows how bad they screwed their HDR implementation. Overblown whites all over the place.
Phonomezer
Banned
I thought I was the only one that noticed this judging by the "I don't see anything wrong" reaction I got when mentioning it way back when in the OT. Looks terrible.
I also think UC2 looks better than UC3.
shinobi602
Member
Damn guess it's in the eye of the beholder.
Not that it bothers me, but there is definitely a....pattern there.
May have to do with UC2 having the "WOW"-factor going for it back in 2009, almost catching the industry by surprise. Whereas for UC3, it was expected to be graphically amazing, and people were just expecting a bit more than the game produced. Personally, I thought UC3 looked, I dunno, slightly better.
What I'm trying to say is that even with new approach to art, the technical intricacies of any game are lost on majority of people. They like the game because "it looks soft" or because "the colors are nice". Not necessarily a bad thing, not everyone can be "an expert" but that's just how it is.
I'ts like we're in 2006 lol.
Crysis 2 console does not use Global Illumination.
Uncharted also has all those, but runs at full 720p close to 30 fps, vs. 15-25 fps at 1152x720 for the 360 version of Crysis 2.
And I know this post of yours is full of bullshit. Where does that get us?
Unlike you, at least I can have credible people backing me up on my points.
Oh it doesn't bother me at all either. I think its quite amusing actually.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
Only missing the dynamic GI. IBL is a form of GI. Static, but pretty good looking. Also, it's all realtime. The only offline step is the generation of the HDR cubemaps. After that, it's all applied in realtime, both diffuse and specular components. Every single light source and shadow are calculated in realtime.
In comparatively confined spaces, with few interactive physical props.
Not taking shots at U3, just showing how Crysis 2 is also a top tier graphical showcase.
Gritty realism duh.
Halo is for unrealistic nerd babies.
Gotta play a mans shooter like CoD or Killzone.
Easy to make a top tier graphical showcase when you have twice the time to draw a frame.
Portugeezer
Member
Microsoft don't have to live up to overhyped expectations of TEH CELL!! I guess is why.
That said many fantastic looking games on the 360, Red Dead Redemption, Gears of War 3 being my stand out games.
That said many fantastic looking games on the 360, Red Dead Redemption, Gears of War 3 being my stand out games.
Portugeezer
Member
Easy to run at a steady 30fps when your levels are tiny. Crysis 2 is no Crysis 1 in scale, but it still does more than Uncharted 3.
It's not that his opinion is invalid, it's that he voices the same opinion constantly in every related thread. Same snarky remark, but in a different jacket. At one point you gotta wonder why all that effort is put.
If I dislike a game, I will voice it and discuss it. Usually I have made my point, no harm no foul. If I keep repeating it in related thread though, I am wasting my time and the other people's time in the thread by just shitting it up.
Uno Venova
Banned
Of all the subjects to get sensitive over this is not the one. Taking opinions on forums way to seriously.
Warm Machine
Member
Technically Crysis 2 is of a bigger scale than Crysis 1 by a long shot but I understand what you mean.
The MP levels of Crysis 2 and UC3 are comparable in size, yet UC3 runs at a higher resolution with better framerate compared to C2 console version.
Windom Earle
Member
Ok, as this thread is still going I might as well post my list:
1. Red Dead Redemption - Far ahead of the PS3 version and the best looking open world game there is. Rockstar really managed to iron out the graphical problems they had on the 360 in GTA4 and created a true beauty.
2. Resident Evil 5 - Again far better than the PS3 version. The game is super polished, super smooth and has some very nice effects and cutscenes. MT Framework at its best.
3. Forza 4 - Another very polished all around experience with only minor issues (I remember some problems with reflections, etc.) GT5 looks and plays better though.
Honorable mentions:
- Gears of War. I can't consider UE3 games pretty anymore, too burned out on the look.
- Alan Wake. Amazing light effects at times, but the game falls apart with sub hd and constant tearing. Also lol @ the animations. Basically the game only looked good in the dark, the day scenes were pretty horrible.
It probably wouldn't. Reach was the first Halo game I played from start to finish, and the lack of ADS just stood out to me. The zoom function felt a bit crippling to me, not very immersive.
1. Red Dead Redemption - Far ahead of the PS3 version and the best looking open world game there is. Rockstar really managed to iron out the graphical problems they had on the 360 in GTA4 and created a true beauty.
2. Resident Evil 5 - Again far better than the PS3 version. The game is super polished, super smooth and has some very nice effects and cutscenes. MT Framework at its best.
3. Forza 4 - Another very polished all around experience with only minor issues (I remember some problems with reflections, etc.) GT5 looks and plays better though.
Honorable mentions:
- Gears of War. I can't consider UE3 games pretty anymore, too burned out on the look.
- Alan Wake. Amazing light effects at times, but the game falls apart with sub hd and constant tearing. Also lol @ the animations. Basically the game only looked good in the dark, the day scenes were pretty horrible.
It probably wouldn't. Reach was the first Halo game I played from start to finish, and the lack of ADS just stood out to me. The zoom function felt a bit crippling to me, not very immersive.