Support NeoGAF

[WhyMe6]

My first experience in being blown away graphically by this gen was looking up at the trees on a stormy night in Oblivion. Then, it was Mass Effect, which for me was a combination of the technology and the artistic beauty of the game ~

RIP Mako. My fondest memories from ME1 are from my times on those beautiful planets

I have a habit of taking photos of scenes in games that blow me away. While most of the game wasn't massively impressive - though the lighting was good - I really, really loved this part ~

Also, it's not an Xbox 360 game, but this scene in Metroid: Other M had me drooling ~

Muramasa is still the best looking game this gen, though

Also posting this again because it's just that amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQO6JHZl-Cs

Jeez, GT5 is inconsistent. When I borrowed the game briefly and gave it a play on my PS3, I wasn't too impressed by the game graphically.

But the lighting in that video is just unlike anything I've seen in a game. The transition into dusk/dawn, the use of darkness - especially the pitch-black parts - and the way the trees hide the sun. Absolutely mindblowing; where's my 1080p version of that?

 

[RSTEIN]

For me, there are only two God tier games: Uncharted 2 and Gears of War 3.

Below these I'd put God of War, Forza 4/GT5, Skyrim, Killzone 2, Mass Effect series, Halo Reach, etc.

 

[Pistolero]

Uncharted 3 is better than both...
And the first hour of GOWIII trumps everything else on consoles...

 

[kingkaiser]

Yeah.... this is what we don't want to see.
Game looked fine. But not like this in gameplay. I hope you can tell the difference. Actually, i hope you can't cause that would mean you are blessed beyond imagination.

Even so these are only screens from photomode and it doesn't look this good during gameplay, the game still was the best looking racer back in 2007 and 2008.

 

[dark10x]

Gears 3 is god damned amazing looking, but I do have to agree that the 360 really doesn't have a whole lot of games with that level of quality. As others have noted this is likely due to the lack of heavy first party support these days.

The best looking PS3 stuff was all developed specifically for the platform and takes full advantage of its strengths while working around the weaknesses. There aren't a lot of teams really out there trying to exploit the 360, it seems, not that there aren't some really amazing looking exclusive games out there.

At least 360 typically offers the superior multiplatform experience.

guys x360/consoles still can produce top-tier graphics!!

It really can, though, if you view the games on the right display. PC games are typically viewed on monitors with users sitting much closer to the screen. With a console, the lower resolution is generally offset by viewing distance. The difference between 1080p and 720p on a 27" monitor from 2ft away is massive...but that difference fades a bit when you view a 50" screen from 8ft away. On my Kuro plasma a 720p console game can still hang pretty nicely with even the best looking PC games. PC, at this point, is undoubtedly superior but consoles can still produce dazzling results provided you don't look too closely.

I mean, a good CRT can transform many a Wii game from a pixelated mess into something surprisingly sharp and attractive. It's all about the display and viewing distance. Viewing console screenshots on a PC monitor is always going to prove unflattering.

 

[Pistolero]

Every game that comes on the 360 exploits its strenghts and circumvents its weaknesses...the thought that it's PS3 specific is ridiculous. There is no hidden potential here, especially after 7 years of usage...the same holds true for the PS3. Let's burry this myth...

 

[Overdoziz]

Wow, the lighting difference is like two different worlds.

I agree that the model itself is ok, but the game just fails to show it off properly. Just look how flat the gun appears. I really hope we'll be able to properly aim down the sights in the next Halo. This should help to show off the gun as well. The zoom function was a bit letdown for me in Reach, but it seems to be the accepted standard in Halo.

You really want to make the game play entirely different just so you can look at the weapons up close?

 

[OldJadedGamer]

I was under the impression that Nintendo sold the most amount of hardware and has had a significant amount of exclusives during the time where they were leading (not so much recently).

And outside of a few quarters, PS3 has outsold the 360 since 2008.

I never said exclusives were not important at all, I said they weren't important later in the generation because everyone has their systems. Exclusives aren't going to sway a customer one way or another now. That is why the 360 dominates in sales (outside of Japan).

btw, sales source for your numbers please.

Duke Nukem Forever (well it does!), Brink, LA Noire, Portal 2, Dirt 1 (although it is effectively Dirt 1.5 and was released months later), Battlefield 3, there are others, just can't think right now. And most of these are substantially better on PS3, DNF, Brink and Portal 2 in particular.

Burnout Paradise is another.

 

[EGM1966]

Every game that comes on the 360 exploits its strenghts and circumvents its weaknesses...the thought that it's PS3 specific is ridiculous. There is no hidden potential here, especially after 7 years of usage...the same holds true for the PS3. Let's burry this myth...

It's not about hidden potential it's about being console specific. The PS3 has had more games released with engines built from the ground up just for the PS3. That's not hidden potential that's just the advantage of platform specific. So you have the engine under Uncharted, Killzone, God of War, etc. which are designed only to run on PS3. Then you have the fact because Sony has no interest outside the HW developers don't have to use middleware - if they want they can code in assembly language right to the hardware. Uncharted 2 does this for example for sure.

By contrast most titles on 360 are multi-platform engines, even when tuned to 360 like Gears. Only Forza and Halo and a few others are based on engines designed specifically for 360.

This means, generally, that the custom engine will deliver a better performance. Not miles better - but certainly a bit better. And the PS3 has simply seen more custom engines because Sony has the 1st party to do so.

Technically the consoles are fairly similar in terms of what they can deliver from a games perspective, although the PS3 for sure is better at crunching numbers, so the real difference is going to come down to custom engines vs general platform engines and the PS3 has the advantage there.

Not that there aren't plenty of nice 360 games - just that the cream of the PS3 crop pip them (just).

 

[nib95]

I think it's the gritty look to the KZ gun that makes it look better. Not sure what aspect of the game makes it look like that though.

I think it's just a combination of things. The realism of lighting, shaders, post processing effects and detail gives KZ that more impressive movie like look and feel, even in the weapon models, which unlike a lot of games, really do look like they belong in the scene. I mean, seriously...

[/IMG]

 

[Biggzy]

Well The Witcher 2 should be on this list come April 17th

 

[LosDaddie]

It almost comes to down to preference with these type of debates. The more I learned about computers, programming, and developing games, the more I started to appreciate the industry. It's one reason I consider GTA IV to be the most impressive game this gen. RDR is up there, too, but doesn't have as much going on as GTA IV did.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

Pretty unfair to compare those games directly without taking into consideration the differences in scale. They do matter.

yeah, I definitely realize that, but I was simple acknowledging the visual differences. While I mostly play the 360, I have no issues saying that UC2 is not only one of the best looking games I have played, but also best playing. Sony has MS beat when it comes to the wow factor.

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/111/1119644/halo-reach-20100910094947158.jpg

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_killzone_3-14723-2035_0003.jpg

The metal shader is better on the Killzone gun, but poly-wise, you'd be hard pressed to say one is better than the other.

Yeah, while technically the Halo weapons have a lot going on via poly count and have decent textures, the way they are displayed in-game is always underwhelming. I agree with others that they tend to fall flat, and sometimes look more plastic then metal. Plus, the overall lack of effects in that reach shot makes the game appear kinda lacking.

That said, the beginning of the level The Package really has a lot going on and looks pretty good.

Wow, the lighting difference is like two different worlds.

I agree that the model itself is ok, but the game just fails to show it off properly. Just look how flat the gun appears. I really hope we'll be able to properly aim down the sights in the next Halo. This should help to show off the gun as well. The zoom function was a bit letdown for me in Reach, but it seems to be the accepted standard in Halo.

Yup, this. Well, not the zoom complaint, but everything else. Halo games tend to have good Poly counts, good textures, etc, but fail at delivering an overall stunning looking picture. The games look good, great sometimes, but rarely do they have the wow factor that other games sometimes pull off. Now, I'm not discrediting Reach's visuals, but it fell flat in a few places, and ultimately Bungie always seemed to struggle with visuals that really pop.

 

[shinobi602]

For me, there are only two God tier games: Uncharted 2 and Gears of War 3.

Below these I'd put God of War, Forza 4/GT5, Skyrim, Killzone 2, Mass Effect series, Halo Reach, etc.

Out of your mind.

God of War 3 outshines anything else on consoles, easily.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

But i think Killzone general appeal has been the jumpy light as i like to cool it.
All those lensflares and stuff make the game feel really artsy. While that Halo reach shot looks more down to earth more flat.

Artsy, no, flashy, yes. I like it, too, except for when they go overboard with it, and it does happen, but Halo has always (and will continue to do so, I hope) put visibility before flashiness. It's very important in a game with big open levels/maps and such a huge multiplayer component.

 

[AgentP]

Artsy, no, flashy, yes. I like it, too, except for when they go overboard with it, and it does happen, but Halo has always (and will continue to do so, I hope) put visibility before flashiness. It's very important in a game with big open levels/maps and such a huge multiplayer component.

Uh uh. Because nothing says visibility like 640P no AA. They lost fidelity by throwing away all their eDRAM space to go with a flashy HDR.

 

[dragonelite]

Uh uh. Because nothing says visibility like 640P no AA. They lost fidelity by throwing away all their eDRAM space to go with a flashy HDR.

Ever played BF3 a perfect example where Lens flare makes no sense and kills visibility for like 2~4 secs.

And reach was 1152*720 the horizontal scaling wasn't that bad.
And they had TAA it helps but is not perfect hence the ghosting.

 

[Gaspode_T]

How are threads like this not locked? Not even valid to say this about Wii

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

Uh uh. Because nothing says visibility like 640P no AA. They lost fidelity by throwing away all their eDRAM space to go with a flashy HDR.

Reach is not Halo 3.

But what he said is still valid, games like Killzone use a ton of effects that kill visibility. Now thats fine sometimes, but I do agree they can go overboard, where Halo is on the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

[zlatko]

This doesn't look good to you?

I don't know if this picture was pre rendered or not but this almost looks to good to be true...

Halo 4 makes me erect.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

^ The lighting on that second gif is amazing, I really hope the weapons end up looking more like that.. It actually looks like metal! Now they just need to get the armor to show off and reflect light a little better (like the e3 Halo 3 announcement) and they will really address one of my larger issues.

But yeah, Halo 4 looks like it will impress, and that makes me a happy person.

 

[LosDaddie]

yeah, I definitely realize that, but I was simple acknowledging the visual differences. While I mostly play the 360, I have no issues saying that UC2 is not only one of the best looking games I have played, but also best playing. Sony has MS beat when it comes to the wow factor..

True, but Metroid does have a fine point there. Scale does matter in these comparison. For example, KZ3 looks better than Halo Reach, but Reach also has 4 player online co-op and Theater Mode recording all the time. So it's not a direct 1:1 comparison.

Same kinda goes for UC3 vs Gears 3. UC3 has a slight edge there, but GEars3 has 4 player online co-op taking up resources.

Out of your mind.

God of War 3 outshines anything else on consoles, easily.

It definitely has the highest "highs" on consoles, but I thought the later parts of the game were nothing special. The Caverns and Labyrinth levels were "meh" looking. Still, GoW3 is one of the finest action games ever, even if it did make me dislike Kratos.

 

[Not a Jellyfish]

I came to this thread for the pics and kill zone gifs. Never understood why they dubbed the franchise a Halo killer, they can coexist. Completely different play styles, love them both. Kill Zone 2 and 3 looked stupid good to me.

 

[twobear]

you guys call them 'killzone style' weapons models, i call them 'half-life 2 style weapon models'

 

[delta25]

guys x360/consoles still can produce top-tier graphics!!

*posts pr/renders/photo-mode screenshots*

Post like this reek of insecurity on so many levels.

 

[nib95]

you guys call them 'killzone style' weapons models, i call them 'half-life 2 style weapon models'

When Valve move out of the dark ages when it comes to graphics tech and new engines, then they can have that back. But right now they've been left behind and then some.


*Yes I'm bitter about no HL3 and no new Source engine!*

 

[Pranay]

guys x360/consoles still can produce top-tier graphics!!

*posts pr/renders/photo-mode screenshots*

Yes it can.

Read darkx10x post

 

[KageMaru]

But still, what I'm seeing on screen doesn't stand out greatly from other games or really wow me, besides the aforementioned skyboxes.

Just because it doesn't stand out to you doesn't mean it's not impressive. Halo's problem is it's art, not tech.

I actually think the art looks good and in general I like the Halo universe, but the technical aspects are pretty unimpressive. The lighting in particular is generally flat, the textures aren't anything special, and the world geometry looks a bit low poly compared to other games. For instance I think Gears 3 and Banjo have better technical aspects in practically every single area.

And this is where you show you don't know what you're talking about.

Reach handles many of the same effects we see in other "high end" console games such as KZ3 and Crysis 2.

Just your comment about geometry is laughable when you consider all the curved surfaces on not only the covenant architecture, but also the covenant themselves. Having 20-30 high quality characters (with nice resolution textures AND detail maps) running around on the screen at once is anything but low geometry.

I thought Reach looked very pleasant, but probably not because it did anything spectacular. But it looked like Halo

Reach actually did some great things technically, but as you said it looked like Halo which IMO works against the accomplishments they make.

Duke Nukem Forever (well it does!), Brink, LA Noire, Portal 2, Dirt 1 (although it is effectively Dirt 1.5 and was released months later), Battlefield 3, there are others, just can't think right now. And most of these are substantially better on PS3, DNF, Brink and Portal 2 in particular.

BF3, I would consider on par, the others I can agree with. Half of those games though are down to poor port jobs (Portal 2 and DNF) while LA Noire started off as a PS3 exclusive.

There's usually a logical reason why things turn out the way they do.

 

[Uno Venova]

Just because it doesn't stand out to you doesn't mean it's not impressive. Halo's problem is it's art, not tech.

It's tech is not my problem, I'm talking graphically, there is not much about Reach that is outstanding.

 

[dragonelite]

BF3, I would consider on par, the others I can agree with. Half of those games though are down to poor port jobs (Portal 2 and DNF) while LA Noire started off as a PS3 exclusive.

There's usually a logical reason why things turn out the way they do.

They kinda fucked up portal 2 i am certain without the AAfilter it looks way better then with the poorly implemented one on the 360.

It's tech is not my problem, I'm talking graphically, there is not much about Reach that is outstanding.

But i believe this whole topic is about tech == graphics. And i think you are talking about design and looks?

 

[dark10x]

BF3, I would consider on par, the others I can agree with. Half of those games though are down to poor port jobs (Portal 2 and DNF) while LA Noire started off as a PS3 exclusive.

There's usually a logical reason why things turn out the way they do.

The other side of the coin is that UE3 games typically turn out better on 360 simply because that engine has always seemingly been at odds with the hardware in PS3. Logically, when a title is announced as using UE3 we can almost always assume that 360 will take the lead.

This holds true even in cases where a companies previous game was designed specifically for PS3. Take Ninja Theory. Despite their PS3 experience, the UE3 based Enslaved ran much smoother on 360.

 

[Windom Earle]

You really want to make the game play entirely different just so you can look at the weapons up close?

I don't like the antiquated feel of the gunplay in Halo very much and would welcome a change, yes.

 

[Uno Venova]

They kinda fucked up portal 2 i am certain without the AAfilter it looks way better then with the poorly implemented one on the 360.


But i believe this whole topic is about tech == graphics. And i think you are talking about design and looks?

The OP was talking about looks and how they stand out.

 

[Risk Breaker]

So the fact that that certain aspects of GT's graphical make up surpass Forza disqualifies Forza as a "very good looking" game? You seem to suggest that the mere fact that GT exists means that Forza can't be classified as such. Just a curious justification, especially given GT's decidedly uneven presentation.

Surely you must agree that Forza has the more consistent cohesive aesthetic? And it actually runs properly? Neither of which can be said for GT5's wildly uneven graphics, fluctuating frame rate and pervasive tearing. Forza, while not displaying GT's aptitude for lighting and car models, is nigh on rock solid, from pretty much any angle. And the tracks are far prettier too.

Yes, the bar for visuals changes through the generation depending on what games come out, it's pretty obvious (and this thread is actually about visuals only and the evolution of the HD consoles through the generation). But I see you haven't even bothered checking the three videos I posted and keep repeating the old, wrong and tired "framerate sucks lolol uneven presentation" mantra so *shrug*. Tracks were prettier and more detailed back in the PS2-Xbox era, but not anymore, btw. And the cockpit and car materials, textures and modeling, the lighting system, the self-shadowing of the cars and on the cockpit view (that F4 lacks on anything that isn't the player car), the higher resolution, the MASSIVELY better smoke, dust (shadowed by the environment!) and (existing) water effects are not uneven, they are always there. It may go from awesome or great graphics to OMG WTF AMAZING graphics but that's all.

 

[SCHUEY F1]

Now I really want to replay RDR. Thanks, jerk!

Yeah, me too. Great vid. I want RDR2 on next gen systems.

 

[IOnEI Falcon]

 

[dark10x]

Yeah, if only this had been more common.

It's a shame PD0 had a poor framerate, lots of tearing, and a low resolution. It was a strange mix of some very impressive effects and a lot of technical mishaps.

 

[Mizzou Gaming]

Gears of War 3 impresses me more than any other console game this generation because of its co-op capabilities and overall gorgeous visuals. Gears 3 gets love for it being a great looking game but I think it actually deserves a lot more.

I also think Halo Reach looks amazing. A lot of that probably has to do with the art style but I just like seeing colors. Reach is another game I think deserves a lot more credit for how good it looks considering what all it brings to the table from an overall gameplay perspective.

Forza 4 is just flatout sexy, end of story.

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

I do think that with games like Uncharted 2, Uncharted 3, and Killzone 3 that the PS3 might be starting to outpace the 360 a little bit in visual fidelity. Gears 3 looks good, no joke, but I think some of the PS3 stuff has just a slight edge.

But none of that really matters because honestly I am totally okay with the way videogames look right now in general. Graphics tech could stop advancing right here and I would not mind one bit.

We've come a long way from games like Star Fox on the SNES. The "Oven mitts for hands" syndrome you got on the PS1 and some PS2 games is all but gone. We have individual fingers, characters with flowing hair. Effects like clothes being saturated with water are now possible. Cars leave real tire tracks in soft mud. We have games with hundreds of characters on screen at the same time.

It's not the best it could ever be, but it's good enough that I am content with where we are.

 

[OrangeOak]

Reach actually did some great things technically, but as you said it looked like Halo which IMO works against the accomplishments they make.

Even with different ,"more busy" or more "in your face" art direction people wouldn't pay attention to the tech.
Just like in Killzone,you think people like this game look because of tech ? Look at this or some other threads about graphics,most people dont really know why they like Killzone look.
So even with different art bungies accomplishment would go unnoticed because people would be impressed by the game because of art not the tech.

 

[The_Hitcher89]

^ The lighting on that second gif is amazing, I really hope the weapons end up looking more like that.. It actually looks like metal! Now they just need to get the armor to show off and reflect light a little better (like the e3 Halo 3 announcement) and they will really address one of my larger issues.

But yeah, Halo 4 looks like it will impress, and that makes me a happy person.

Looks like plastic covered in metallic paint to me tbh

 

[nordique]

I dunno about the OP.


Don't agree either.

360 may not be as powerful as PS3 overall, but it has the best GPU in a console currently on the market, and the GPU makes the graphics.

I find multi-plats looks sharper on the 360 than PS3, richer in colours, and generally handle better framerates, popups, etc...

WHen games are optimized for the system itself, they can look absolutely stellar - case in point, Gears of War 3.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Crysis 1 on 360 is a great looking game too. Huge levels, destructible vegetation, fully realtime lighting, etc..

Better than the KZ games, at least.

 

[dark10x]

Crysis 1 on 360 is a great looking game too. Huge levels, destructible vegetation, fully realtime lighting, etc..

Better than the KZ games, at least.

Eh, I dunno about that. Crysis on 360 does look great, but it's a bit uneven and lacks the polish of Killzone. The framerate just doesn't hold up throughout while KZ2 and 3 generally keep a solid 30 fps (at least in single player).

The PS3 version of Crysis looks basically the same as the 360 version as well but it does run at a generally lower framerate.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Eh, I dunno about that. Crysis on 360 does look great, but it's a bit uneven and lacks the polish of Killzone. The framerate just doesn't hold up throughout while KZ2 and 3 generally keep a solid 30 fps (at least in single player).

The PS3 version of Crysis looks basically the same as the 360 version as well but it does run at a generally lower framerate.

It's because consoles just don't have the power to handle it

 

[dark10x]

It's because consoles just don't have the power to handle it

Clearly not, but I must admit they do an admirable job.

Crysis on 360 runs much smoother than Crysis did back when it was released on a Quad Core + 8800GT so that has to count for something. I'm pretty amazed that they were able to deliver the game with so few compromises.

I do think Crysis 2 (on PC) looks better than Crysis 1 (also on PC) overall, though. It may be smaller in scope, but what's there is still absolutely wonderful looking.

 

[DarkChild]

If Crytek got full 720p and less frame rate issues on 360, than I would argue thats best consoles can do. But since they didnt...

You can't blame them though, thats quite an accomplishment already.

 

[metareferential]

No love for Metro on xbox?

It may not be the most consistent game on the platform, but it sure looks really good at times.

 

[Stallion Free]

Crysis on 360 runs much smoother than Crysis did back when it was released on a Quad Core + 8800GT so that has to count for something. I'm pretty amazed that they were able to deliver the game with so few compromises.

That's because Cryengine 3 is a million times more efficient than CE2. The CE3 revision of Crysis would run better on a Quad Core + 8800GT than the CE2 variant too.

 

[Endo Punk]

3rd party devs pick up the slack. Games like RDR, RE5, Crysis 2 look spectacular on 360 graphically while shit-tastic on PS3.