No doubt, but it's still impressive anyway you slice it. I really didn't think they would be able to pull it off without major sacrifices in level size but they did it.
why so few graphically outstanding games on 360?
- Thread starter Shadow of the BEAST
- Start date
There is no way to fairly compare games Uncharted, GoW and Killzone to other great looking games like Gears, Batman, Halo and Red Dead. For one, those PS3 exclusives are strictly linear single player only campaigns. Trying to compare those to open world games or games that have 4 player online campaign co-op is downright silly. They are all doing different things and is virtually impossible to try and figure out with ones have the best graphics.
KaiserBecks
Member
OP has a solid point: What we're missing is a game that makes you think that it just as well could've been a next gen title.
I still remember watching the first "Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory" trailer. If anyone would've told me that this was coming to Xbox I wouldn't have believed him. Dat lighthouse.
youtube.com/watch?v=Gh4ZGzYS5Tg
I don't know how this turned into a system war, you could easily say the same about the PS3 line up. There are some great looking games, but they all use the same cheap tricks to achieve those graphics. None of them has this next gen feel, which Splinter Cell gave me back then.
I still remember watching the first "Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory" trailer. If anyone would've told me that this was coming to Xbox I wouldn't have believed him. Dat lighthouse.
youtube.com/watch?v=Gh4ZGzYS5Tg
I don't know how this turned into a system war, you could easily say the same about the PS3 line up. There are some great looking games, but they all use the same cheap tricks to achieve those graphics. None of them has this next gen feel, which Splinter Cell gave me back then.
AltogetherAndrews
Banned
Well... it was actually a compliment. I don't give a shit about accomplishments. If a game is visually pleasing, that's what matters, and Halo Reach fit that bill. While the fan defense force that always assembles when Halo is (often rightfully) given a bit of shit for their visual shortcomings (whatever the technical feats, what matters is the end result on the screen) are good for a chuckle, I actually think the Halo games will always have a leg up on others because of the unique look.
Not really. If one looks better than the other it looks better than the other. There may be good reasons as to why some games don't match up to others, but the end result is what it is.
Another weird argument is the one about shortcuts and compromises. Every game uses smoke and mirrors, success is dependent on how well they are used, and why they are used. Like KZ2, it's a showcase of compromises, and they aren't even hard to spot. But the end result, the overarching look and the impression it gives while in the scene, makes it a stunner. Anyone who can say with a straight face that the initial reveal was anything short of mindblowing should go into acting.
Sony has some of the best graphics artists in their first party studios. And they really go the extra mile, doing assembly level optimizations and everything to get every bit of performance out of the system. There are no developers that push the 360 that hard and I think the MS API doesn't allow this either.
AltogetherAndrews
Banned
Artists, and their directors, make quite the difference, which is really why games like God of War and Uncharted 2 look so astounding. Tech is obviously important, but without that direction, and the creative artists fueling the tech, it would be worth nothing. It's why I can play BF3 on a blazing fast PC and still be left impressed after a session in God of War.
BannedEpisode
Member
Really?
phosphor112
Banned
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
I'm sure massively dropping the draw distance helped with the level size.
Well you're talking about art direction if tech isn't the problem, and art is subjective.
Maybe you just don't know what to look for =p
Yeah for some reason they added that ugly blur filter, making the IQ worse than their previous 360 games.
Sorry but this post doesn't make sense to me. Even with different art, bungie's accomplishments would go unnoticed because people are impressed by the art and not the tech?......wat? 0_o
I can go on and on why someone may be impressed with KZ, just like I can do the same for someone who may be impressed with Gears 3 or Reach. None of it has to do with "more busy" anything, it has to do with many different things. This is something I tried to touch on earlier and it seems like it's largely been ignored.
I'm sorry I wasn't implying you meant anything negative. I was just using your post as an example how the Reach engine does many of the same things as other high end engines, but this may be translated in their goal to make it look like halo.
Assembly is used on the 360 as well as the PS3. Both systems have a think layered API.
KaiserBecks
Member
Yep, doesn't make any sense to me. Unless someone was just looking for an excuse to start one anyway. At this point, neither PS3 nor Xbox 360 have any games with a certain level of detail that would pleasantly surprise me. This generation should have ended a year ago. Doesn't matter who won, because right now they both suck.
Uno Venova
Banned
Yes, this thread has a lot of opinions, not sure what your point is.
I know people want cutting edge, but 360/ps3 are still putting out pretty impressive looking games. My only complaint is that prices should have dropped huge a year ago. We should be at 199 for the most expensive console.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
That's just nonsense. Such oversimplification ignores the technical limitations of the machines. Rendering just a corridor is not the same than rendering a city.
If we ignore that might as well declare the COD games as the best since 60fps > 30fps.
I guess I'm just kind of confused as to what type of metric people are using when measuring said graphics.
People are quick to label games that do or do not have good graphics, but I'm curious as to why they feel this way.
Edit:
Yup, pretty much this.
I would bet that the majority of graphically impressive games are more narrow in their level progression than other, less graphically intensive, games. There's a reason for this.
Uno Venova
Banned
It does have good graphics, but nothing outstanding, nothing I can say about it really that puts it far ahead of the competition, besides the skyboxes (I can't believe I have to repeat this so much). Only level that stood out was New Alexandria, and that's because it took place in the skybox. The metric is just everything coming together and what you see on screen.
I don't know why you feel the need to repeat the skyboxes, I was mostly discussing games in general, not just Reach. I was only using Reach as an example.
Also, at this point of the generation, nothing is going to be far ahead of the competition. If anyone thinks a game is, there's probably a good chance that game is taking short cuts that other games are not.
I have no issue with your opinion BTW and I'm not directing my comments towards you when I say that people rarely explain their views on the matter. You can not be impressed with Reach, and that's fine, but I can find plenty to be impressed by it, just like with KZ2, UC2, Gears, etc.
Quite frankly, not with you specifically, but some of the other posts I've responded to were quite asinine IMO.
Must have not played GOW3 then...
Yes both are linear games, but GOW3 + UC3 shame anything on the 360 for me...
Still, as I said, going to assembly has more benefits on the PS3 than the 360 due to the fact that you can control each bit that's being loaded into the local store (can't do that in a traditional CPU cache) and you can precisely guide the data traffic going in and out of the SPU's. Yes it's a lot of work and only some Sony first parties do it, but it looks amazing when they do.
AltogetherAndrews
Banned
No, it makes perfect sense. When talking about "graphics" then that is what counts, and no excuses for less visually impressive games based on necessary compromises for scale and openness will fly. On the same note, I wouldn't give a visually impressive but narrow game a pass when discussing impressive accomplishments in openness and scale. Save that for straight up tech discussions.
About scale, though... why is this still used to describe Halo? I don't recall participating in all that many large scale battles in Reach. The game does a good job in making it feel large, but I honestly don't remember a moment where it was all out war.
Right. But that still makes them more graphically impressive.
Uno Venova
Banned
Agree.
TUROK
Member
This is where the argument gets muddled. People who don't know how the underlying tech of games works have a different definition of "graphics" than people who do.
There's plenty of moments of in Reach like that. One of the most prominent that comes to mind is when you're under Sword Base, defending the door where Dr. Halsey is copying data. It's a massive battle with a crapload of onscreen enemies.
AltogetherAndrews
Banned
Is there really? Honest question, I really don't remember. I've played that one a lot more in Firefight.
As for the muddled argument, it's only muddled because people are desperately pushing for it to be muddled. It's pretty damned clear cut.
Apologies but this is the wrong way to look at it because it's all relative. Sure if you want to segment what's "pretty" and what has huge scale, you could over-simplify how to look at things, but then you're only getting half of the picture there.
You can't look at the quality of something being rendered while ignoring how much needs to be rendered. By doing that, you only lose perspective and start ignoring important elements of a game's graphical makeup.
Basically by your definition, a game taking place in a single room with a single character model can be the most graphically impressive game, even though there isn't anything really impressive going on.
Also, yes, Reach had the biggest battles in a Halo game. They were quite huge really.
No...........no it doesn't, which is what many people don't understand.
TUROK
Member
It's not even close to being clear-cut. "Visually impressive" is subjective.
If this is what you think of my point, then you're way off base. I'm not desperate to push anything, it is the way it is. Otherwise, what the hell, let's all just make linear action games chock full of scripted events because everyone thinks those are the prettiest games.
Warm Machine
Member
I put Reach into the 360 last night and played the first level again. That game is amazing looking. The textures and shaders on the squad and enemies are gorgeous, the overcast lighting beautiful, and the hazy misty rain pouring down is really moody. So much beautiful work and restrained image processing.
The terrain in Halo games isn't the height map tech of most games. It is all hand modeled. That makes it slower for the GPU to render as well but more flexible on the art end.
The terrain in Halo games isn't the height map tech of most games. It is all hand modeled. That makes it slower for the GPU to render as well but more flexible on the art end.
Synless
Member
The Killzone series and GoW3 are easily better looking than anything on 360, Gears 3 and Red Dead excluded.
Oh, and Crysis!!
Psy-Phi
Member
Sine More is pretty damn impressive. More than Gears of War IMO, but that's because Gears hasn't changed much over the years, it's actually been a bit of a disappointment. In previous generations games got progressively better looking over the system's lifetime. With the 360, it feels like they tapped out early. The lack of unique engines pushing pretty graphics doesn't help.
I agree with Reach though. Halo 3 looked like crap on a stick compared to other offerings on the same platform (like Gears), but Reach was an upgrade finally, instead of looking liked a souped up xbox game.
I agree with Reach though. Halo 3 looked like crap on a stick compared to other offerings on the same platform (like Gears), but Reach was an upgrade finally, instead of looking liked a souped up xbox game.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
Also, I think these 2 games alone show that the 360 has some good looking games:
Also, it really is unfair to discredit Reach's visuals (although they are not as consistent):
Also, it really is unfair to discredit Reach's visuals (although they are not as consistent):
Cuban Legend
Member
HIGH FIVE RIGHT HERE SON
Good Looking 360 titles.
PGR4
Alan Wake? maybe?
Splinter Cell Conviction
Gears of War 3.
Please tell me why do you think that art is a Reachs problem.Maybe I just don't understand your point of view.
IMO art can't be a "problem" because it's totally subjective,you like it or not and if people can't figure out that Reach is technically impressive with current art they also won't with different.
And yes most people on forums are impressed and are talking about art and "look" of a game because they don't really know too much about tech.
Gears hasn't changed ?
Gap between Gears 1 and Gears 3 is IMO pretty huge in many areas.
I guess the OP really did frame his question wrong or at least the thread title. This is not about PS3 games vs 360 games. It's about 360 games vs other 360 games.
He's talking about Uncharted and Killzone because they look like they are in a league apart from most other PS3 games. Every platform in history has a few games that are like this. How they compare to 360 games doesn't factor into it at all. What the OP is asking is why are there almost no 360 games that look like they are in another ballpark compared to other 360 games?
Demoncarnotaur
Member
I would still say Gears 3, Banjo, Viva Pinata and Halo Reach (sort of) fit the category, but it is a good point, and I suppose it has to do with MS's (lack of) first party exclusives and who makes them.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
How convenient. In your definition, only extremely linear and designer-controlled games can be graphically impressive.
Like I said, nonsense.
Heh, when you consider that most multiplatform games on PS3 look inferior than their 360 counterparts, it's easy to see that comparing to first party titles, the gap will be big. Since multiplatform releases look and run great on the 360 the gap isn't that big compared to exclusives, hence no perceived standouts.
c'mon son
Lion Heart
Banned
Reach really reminds me of Starhawk...
And I'd say Gears 3 and Crysis are two examples
They really are not. Crysis 2 on consoles runs at 15-25 fps and does not look better than Uncharted on the console in terms of lighting, shaders, geometry.
Gears 3 looks on par with Uncharted 2 in terms of textures, polygons, shaders, lighting, and effects, but runs at 25-30 fps with no AA wheres UC2 has 2x MSAA and runs a rock solid 30 fps. UC3 has much more geometry/shader complexity than either title, and runs a solid 30 fps with MLAA.
This is just comparing the technical aspects of the titles. As far as art is concerned, Sony employs some of the world's best artists, so that even the PC version of Crysis 2 with everything maxed out does not have the same quality of art and animations as Uncharted or God of War. That's a whole separate issue. You can't get that with brute power, you need to have talented people creating your art assets.
Hardcore optimization + assembly language enables Sony first party to push more polygons and shader effects while still keeping the frame rate solid. No other studio bothers with this process much, so we don't see any games.
I don't think this thread is supposed to measure X360 against PS3. It's simply saying why isn't there those 2 or 3 graphically impressive and defining game on x360 while there are on most of the other console even Wii has Zelda or Smash Bros, these games obviously aren't better looking than X360 games but are defining and towering over all the other Wii games.
Also people who are saying PS3 has only good looking games that are linear, I would suggest you guys look at Infamous 2. That game, in my opinion, looks better than SR the Third or Sleeping Dogs, both games coming out after I2 release and both in the same genre.
Also people who are saying PS3 has only good looking games that are linear, I would suggest you guys look at Infamous 2. That game, in my opinion, looks better than SR the Third or Sleeping Dogs, both games coming out after I2 release and both in the same genre.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
I'm sorry but that is completely wrong. It uses some sort of custom AA solution that ND came up with that does nothing to the jaggies and it drops below 30 fps quite a bit during some of the setpieces.
Yeah, it does unfortunately. The AA isn't too bad, but there are definitely framerate dips. Nothing too severe, of course, but it's nowhere near as consistent as UC2 (which virtually never dips from 30).
UC3 and Gears 3 both operate at similar levels of performance, I'd say.
inFamous 2 really is pretty impressive for an open world game. Lots of detail, great lighting, and a smooth framerate. Saints Row 3 is fucking awful looking and runs like garbage in comparison as do most other open world games. Red Dead on 360 is one of the few exceptions but its environment is much less complex (though super beautiful).
ResidentDante
Member
It gets to little credit, it looks very good indeed. The only nuisance is the stupid black and white filter they use when you are actually playing well.
I had both a 360 and PS3 at launch. Sold my 360 after a while and have only recently bought another. There is something 'crispy' about the graphical output of the 360. I don't think its that the PS3 is muddy or anything, but the 360 is very sharp. Even something fairly basic like EDF 2017 looks really sharp.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Just Cause 2 is another. Well, the first game can still look great, too.