When people say Crysis has bad graphics....

[ShadowX8001]

MY GOD won't that be a weird time in life!

[Steakslim]

MY GOD won't that be a weird time in life!

Everytime someone says Crysis has bad graphics, God kills a kitten...that would inadvertently save that persons life in a future time, thus ending their chances to survive a life ending tragedy.

[PuertoRecon]

Well, whoever says that is out of their mind. It also shows that they are truly uneducated since everybody who is a Crysis fan knows most of the screens don't have Anti Aliasing.

[ShadowX8001]

OMG THEY DON'T! WOW! It's going to look ever better, didn't think that could happen. I don't know much about this game.

[JerryAgent]

lol Every time my friend starts talking about the awesome graphics his 360 has I tell him that PC is worlds ahead of him. He doesn't like that very much.

[ShadowX8001]

Ya the PC blows it away and is gonna get better. Though the prices on everything SUCK!

[ReaperOfsouls]

lol Every time my friend starts talking about the awesome graphics his 360 has I tell him that PC is worlds ahead of him. He doesn't like that very much.

Ya, my friends are the same way, "Its HD man!" then I am like, big woop, all HD is are better resolutions which PC's have and still have better ones lol.

[Killa4live]

Well, whoever says that is out of their mind. It also shows that they are truly uneducated since everybody who is a Crysis fan knows most of the screens don't have Anti Aliasing.

Ur just fooling urself, they have AA, and are even pre-rendererd.
And yes the PC is way better than anything else.
First play the real game and then rate the graphics, cuz we might be in a for a unpleasent suprise, like has happenend to other games which had super duper ss and video's

[Appclypse]

I think its gona be weird when we look back at this game in 10 years time and, at the current rate of graphical development, we will go it looks like what the first doom looked like back then.

I can't imagine what computers will be capable of by then, its almost scary :). In a good way.

[PuertoRecon]

Bluetooth brain implants anyone?

[Killa4live]

Bluetooth brain implants anyone?

PurpleTooth and we are the games, and Computers play on us.

[ReaperOfsouls]

PurpleTooth and we are the games, and Computers play on us.

What are you on about purple tooth?

...


Ur just fooling urself, they have AA, and are even pre-rendererd.


No and no.

The screens obvisouly do not have AA because they are so jagady adn they are not pre rendered because thats just DX10.

If you read the news with the comparison screen shots of DX10 and DX9 screen shots side by side you would see that difference, you naiveness is fooling you. not us.

[PuertoRecon]

First of all, as Reaper said, they DON'T have AA. It's common sense. If they did have AA, they wouldn't look choppy on the edges. Now, I do agree with you. Games sometimes release stunning E3 videos but then, they dissapoint. Look at BF2.:rolleyes:

[ShadowX8001]

He said they didnt

[Steakslim]

Ur just fooling urself, they have AA, and are even pre-rendererd.


I believe he said they DID, unless he was just using some very bad sarcasm.

[PuertoRecon]

Exactly, he was saying the DID have it. We were saying that they DON'T have them.

[ReaperOfsouls]

No, just unfounded and non-thought out claims.

[Akuma]

But thats the truth. Its hard to believe, But nodoubt in about 3-4 years
crysis will suck. I for one am looking forwerd to it.;)

Also It probably wont take that long before your next pc build.
Right now everyones looking at amazing DX10 games.

But the truth is Microsoft already knows DX10.1 up and down.

Everyones starting to fit DVD readers and burners in there rigs.
Around the corner? Blue ray and HD DVD.

Everyones gobbling up DDR2 for there new sockets.
Around the corner? DDR3 baby.

Evryone wants to run crysis with dual CPU's.
Around the corner? Quade Cores.

Evryone wants SLI or crossfire.
Around the corner? Meatstacks. Mainboards fitted with 3 or 4 PcIE x16 buses.

I dont think will be pluging enything into our brains or chasing
each other around the front yard wearing VR helmets and toting broomsticks of doom. But were going to have some very, VERY fast hardware on our desks.

Intel themselves have stated. "Dont be surprized in very near future, CPU's
will be manufacture with 6 or even 12 cores in the processores."

And buy this time games of tomorrow will be games of yesterday.
But thats then and this is now. In between were all going to run the gaming gammet. But im very happy to say, Im running it with CRYSIS.:D

[Steakslim]

But thats the truth. Its hard to believe, But nodoubt in about 3-4 years
crysis will suck. I for one am looking forwerd to it.;)

Also It probably wont take that long before your next pc build.
Right now everyones looking at amazing DX10 games.

But the truth is Microsoft already knows DX10.1 up and down.

Everyones starting to fit DVD readers and burners in there rigs.
Around the corner? Blue ray and HD DVD.

Everyones gobbling up DDR2 for there new sockets.
Around the corner? DDR3 baby.

Evryone wants to run crysis with dual CPU's.
Around the corner? Quade Cores.

Evryone wants SLI or crossfire.
Around the corner? Meatstacks. Mainboards fitted with 3 or 4 PcIE x16 buses.

I dont think will be pluging enything into our brains or chasing
each other around the front yard wearing VR helmets and toting broomsticks of doom. But were going to have some very, VERY fast hardware on our desks.

Intel themselves have stated. "Dont be surprized in very near future, CPU's
will be manufacture with 6 or even 12 cores in the processores."

And buy this time games of tomorrow will be games of yesterday.
But thats then and this is now. In between were all going to run the gaming gammet. But im very happy to say, Im running it with CRYSIS.:D

And it's nice to know that games, or at least ones made by at least half compitent developers, can only go up from here. I mean, imagine say a Battlefield game (BF3? I'm still waiting for them to name the next game Battlefield: Earth, without realizing the ****ty film with the same name so I can laugh) with the amount of destructable elements in it's environment Crysis has, it would easily solve some simple woes such as why can't that lamp post be defeated by a tank, well not anymore, goodbye lame static object that cannot be crushed or pushed away dispite it's obvious weaker disposition against a large armoured vehicular machine of DEATH, or if a jet/chopper/votl crashes into a forest, leaving a long stretch of debris and tattered plant life, with a possible forest fire (okay the fire is pushing it...but then again who knows by then). If it doesn't have a ****-ton of bugs in it, I'd say it'd be a damn fine BF game...and even if it did have bugs, it'd be a somewhat damn fine BF game.

[Appclypse]

Yh its called Battlefield: Bad Company and it looks like it has even greater physics than Crysis ( not nessacerly greater graphics though or gameplay LOL ).

From what i have seen you are able to blow bits out of concrete buildings and stuff looks gd but im not convinced just yet, i have only seen like 8 screen shots so its to earlier to say.

[Akuma]

Even tho bad company is looking great, I think its only for console.
So it will have definet limatations. But there is still lots to sqeez out of them fur shure...so dont get me wrong.

But as for PC and new hardware. The future of gaming will expand.
I dont think its far fetched that multiplayer games will have 128 players online.
This will be the norm. Also it seems the Total interactive environment
is the way to go and a hot eliment in gaming now.

And even hotter when you consider they could use the second core for the Physics and envirenment. Not to mention later this year they can even use
the 3rd and forth core. If AMD have there way its going to be there K8L
salution in 4X4 mainboard for a total of 8 cores for multi threaded gaming.

lets see 1 for core operating system.
1 core physics.
1 core game.
1 core sound...?

O-O.. we still have 4 cores left. good thing im overclocking..LOL
So we can all agree that games are going to look amazing and are going to be real Big. But your right ..the only way were going to see these thing come to fruition are if compitent developers take the helm. Intead of the ones looking for a quick buck.
And I think with crytek we can see they are still out there.
{ThnX Crytek for not selling out to EA}

But now that these thing are coming to pass.. make no mistake.

Agiea, Nvidia's and ati's physic card salutions are dead in the water.
totaly and compleatly. Games just wont need them.
Havok is still on solid ground IF ther software can run on a CPU instead
of a GPU. And as far as I know, It can. :p

[jo-snowman]

Even tho bad company is looking great, I think its only for console.
So it will have definet limatations. But there is still lots to sqeez out of them fur shure...so dont get me wrong.

But as for PC and new hardware. The future of gaming will expand.
I dont think its far fetched that multiplayer games will have 128 players online.
This will be the norm. Also it seems the Total interactive environment
is the way to go and a hot eliment in gaming now.

And even hotter when you consider they could use the second core for the Physics and envirenment. Not to mention later this year they can even use
the 3rd and forth core. If AMD have there way its going to be there K8L
salution in 4X4 mainboard for a total of 8 cores for multi threaded gaming.

lets see 1 for core operating system.
1 core physics.
1 core game.
1 core sound...?

O-O.. we still have 4 cores left. good thing im overclocking..LOL
So we can all agree that games are going to look amazing and are going to be real Big. But your right ..the only way were going to see these thing come to fruition are if compitent developers take the helm. Intead of the ones looking for a quick buck.
And I think with crytek we can see they are still out there.
{ThnX Crytek for not selling out to EA}

But now that these thing are coming to pass.. make no mistake.

Agiea, Nvidia's and ati's physic card salutions are dead in the water.
totaly and compleatly. Games just wont need them.
Havok is still on solid ground IF ther software can run on a CPU instead
of a GPU. And as far as I know, It can. :p

well that is all good and well but let's think realisticly.
How many of us are rich enough to actually buy next-gen hardware. By the time it is affordable enough for people to actually buy them, games will already be like two generations ahead. And if games start requiring these fancy shmancy new hardware, who will actually be able to run the games. Will video games soon be confined to the rich and wealthy?

And with the rising cost of game developement and the introduction of in game advertisment we can already see that gaming is getting more and more costly. Crysis is a prime example of this; to run the game well you need a fast and expensive computer.

I think that the future is all about efficiency. About pumping as much memory and speed out of a single unit without introducing new costly technologies. This will allow developers to make games more available to everyone, and hardware less costly.

[ShadowX8001]

Ya thats the problem for upgrading, something new always comes out. I wonder how long this upgrade I am gonna get hopefully will last!

[DarQraven]

Hmm, I think at the moment, both Intel and AMD are rushing out new CPU systems because dual core is a hot word for consumers right now.
For instance, many uninformed gamers that I have talked to literally think it will make their system exactly twice as fast, so if they now have 60fps, they'd have 120fps with a dual core. Sorry, but .. no.

It's just some new hype. I bet after Intel have launched their Core 16 Billion-o line, things'll cool down a bit. There really just isn't very much use for 8-core CPU's yet, and anytime soon as far as I can tell. The calculations required to stuff all that in and outgoing data into your CPU would probably already cost you 1 core, let alone what your motherboard would have to be like to support those huge bandwidths.

The problem right now is that with their current technologies, CPU's have hit the thermal barrier. They can't go much faster without melting the chips, and you'd have to install a nuclear powered fan in your case to cool a CPU running at 6Ghz. Many user's don't want to wear protective earmuffs because the sound of their fans might damage their ears.
That's why Intel and AMD are expanding the number of cores instead of increasing clock speeds.

Once that n-core-rage cools down a bit, or new technologies have been developed, I think we won't go higher than 4-6 cores for gamers within any reasonable time. There just won't any need for more.

[ReaperOfsouls]

Hmm, I think at the moment, both Intel and AMD are rushing out new CPU systems because dual core is a hot word for consumers right now.
For instance, many uninformed gamers that I have talked to literally think it will make their system exactly twice as fast, so if they now have 60fps, they'd have 120fps with a dual core. Sorry, but .. no.

It's just some new hype. I bet after Intel have launched their Core 16 Billion-o line, things'll cool down a bit. There really just isn't very much use for 8-core CPU's yet, and anytime soon as far as I can tell. The calculations required to stuff all that in and outgoing data into your CPU would probably already cost you 1 core, let alone what your motherboard would have to be like to support those huge bandwidths.

The problem right now is that with their current technologies, CPU's have hit the thermal barrier. They can't go much faster without melting the chips, and you'd have to install a nuclear powered fan in your case to cool a CPU running at 6Ghz. Many user's don't want to wear protective earmuffs because the sound of their fans might damage their ears.
That's why Intel and AMD are expanding the number of cores instead of increasing clock speeds.

Once that n-core-rage cools down a bit, or new technologies have been developed, I think we won't go higher than 4-6 cores for gamers within any reasonable time. There just won't any need for more.

Could not of said it better myself, well put.

One thing I have to add is that hopefully the games of tomorrow like crysis will utilize dual core so that there is an actual benefit besides being able to multi task like a feen.

[Appclypse]

You konw what i think they should do.
Link a **** load of sims together like,
flight sim,
somthing like fighter ops
boat sim,
train sim
any first person shooter they can (CRYSIS!!!)
And, hell, why not the Sims that would be fun online.

[I am RKO]

Yeah. I am going to buy a DX10 card just for this. It's sweet.

[Whiteplague]

if anyone utters those words ill have to smack them

and an interesting discussion about cores, have you guys heard that the technology is on the way (and has been tested a bit) for processors that arent (umm whats the words well forget it) connected by boards, but transmit data via laser making them 100 times as fast

and i ROFL LOL'd at DarQraven with your comment about earmuffs and nuclear fans


i have 1 request can i see a DX10 screenshot beside a DX9 screenshot because i dont plan on a large upgrade just for one game according to one thread my sytem will do fine with what i have now im just missing a dual core which i dont really need anyway, DX10, and vista whcih i dont want for a while anyway enough jibber jabber i wanna see DX10 crysis beside DX9 crysis

[Appclypse]

They only thing im gona miss with DX10 is destructabiltiy. Alot of people hate and i know there are other threads ( my own being one ) but i will miss it from online play :cry:.

[DarQraven]

What do you mean? As far as I know, the physics are not part of D3D 10, so even without a videocard, the physics will be the same.

[Appclypse]

No DX10 is related to the physics, they talked about it in an interrview. They said that DX9 players will have the core features, on single player the same as DX10 excluding some of the graphics. DX10 players get the physics on multiplayer and single player.

[Whiteplague]

awww that sux man i need to upgrade!! (and only a little while ago i bought a 7900GT)

[Appclypse]

i got a 8800 but i don't have vista.

[Whiteplague]

NOO!!! 8800 can we trade pleeeeeeaaaaase???

i dont have vista either

if i bought an 8800 it would be an 8800 GTX 512mb and it would be the company BFG who also happen to be the most expensive nvidia distributor, i dont have much faith in eVGA PNY or those other guys you never hear of. however i dont have 700 dollars to spare someone want to send me the money? it will pay off when you get really good POTD's

BFG for the win!

[Appclypse]

i got the downgraded 320mb, it is great but it cost me a bloody arm and a leg.

[lavbanka]

I have enough to buy the 8800 and vista, but I am going to wait til crysis to come out 'cause the card will drop by at least 50-100 bucks (hopefully)

[Whiteplague]

lavbanka i will praise you for the rest of your life (not to mention shiny POTD's) if you send me the money...

oh and you can have all the oxygen you want courtesy of Whiteplague

edit: how about we go look up the 8800 GTX from BFG at 512mb and then both arms and legs will be gone

edit2: somehow i felt stupid when writing 512mb now i know why... it doesnt come in 512 it has 320 640 and 768. i found 768mb GTX for $557(u.s.)

[Wheelman56]

No DX10 is related to the physics, they talked about it in an interrview. They said that DX9 players will have the core features, on single player the same as DX10 excluding some of the graphics. DX10 players get the physics on multiplayer and single player.

Destructibility in multiplayer would create network lag, not graphics lag (at least no more or not much more than you would get in SP). You shooting up a tree or a building then having to send all that information to the server then the server having to relay all that information to every player in the server and keep it updated would create massive network lag for everyone in the server. That's why they can't do it.

[Appclypse]

I have enough to buy the 8800 and vista, but I am going to wait til crysis to come out 'cause the card will drop by at least 50-100 bucks (hopefully)

Yh i would have waited but i couldn't play anything, not even armed assault. I had a Geforce 6150 so my computer just lagged on everything.

[lavbanka]

lavbanka i will praise you for the rest of your life (not to mention shiny POTD's) if you send me the money...

oh and you can have all the oxygen you want courtesy of Whiteplague

edit: how about we go look up the 8800 GTX from BFG at 512mb and then both arms and legs will be gone

edit2: somehow i felt stupid when writing 512mb now i know why... it doesnt come in 512 it has 320 640 and 768. i found 768mb GTX for $557(u.s.)

:) Well over at newegg I found some no more than $600. And I have a feeling the by the time Crysis comes out they will be no more than $550. I can't imagine the day when the minimum requirenments of a game will be to have an 8800 just like now when some games have it at 256mbs.

Yh i would have waited but i couldn't play anything, not even armed assault. I had a Geforce 6150 so my computer just lagged on everything.

I feel you. I have 3 computers right now and the one I used to play games on had 32mb video card, 1.4GHz AMD processor and 756mb ram. Imagine playing a modern game on that. Then I got a laptop which was pretty powerful (i won't mention the specs so I wouldn't bore you guys) but then I got a very new one and that is where I spent more than $2000 and I feel like it's a waste since it's only been about a year since I had my 7600GT and now I have to replace it with the 8800. :(

[Appclypse]

YH lol i cant afford to upgrade every year, even if its my graphics card. NEVER could afford to do it one go. It has been 3 years since i upgraded last. Cost me bout £300 for 2.0ghz geforce 6150 and 1gb of ram, in that time only one thing has changed, that my new graphics card. which cost me nearly as much as upgrading hte entire computer (£270 with a new thingy)

[Whiteplague]

its a shame that these things have to be so expensive, i cant wait till the engineers come out with the latest greatest pwning'est way of production so it doesnt cost so much

[lavbanka]

YH lol i cant afford to upgrade every year, even if its my graphics card. NEVER could afford to do it one go. It has been 3 years since i upgraded last. Cost me bout £300 for 2.0ghz geforce 6150 and 1gb of ram, in that time only one thing has changed, that my new graphics card. which cost me nearly as much as upgrading hte entire computer (£270 with a new thingy)

When I got my computer I had no intentions of upgrading it for another 2-3 years. But then I saw Crysis and then the 8800. I guess I bought my pc on the wrong time. This upgrade will probobly be my last for another 4 years, and by that time probobly the 16000 will be out.

its a shame that these things have to be so expensive, i cant wait till the engineers come out with the latest greatest pwning'est way of production so it doesnt cost so much

Lets just hope for that to happen, but I think that even if they do figure out a cheaper and better way of making it, it will still be expensive.

[DarQraven]

You could also do the way I did. Buy an X1900XT 512 in october, wreck it by january, RMA it, and get an 8800 in return because the X1900XT was out of stock, and it shouldn't have broken so early.
...
But that takes considerable planning :p

But I'm just wondering, there will be no physics in multiplayer? Did I get something wrong here?

While I understand that they can't send data about every single piece of shrapnel flying around after an explosion, they could send data about the location of the explosion itself, and then let the client calculate the physics.

[Appclypse]

DX10 has destructable enviroment online, like seriously destructable down to trees and concrete buildings i think. However DX9 users will only get that level of destructablity on single player. I think that you can still knock over the wooden huts in DX9 but not the trees and concrete buildings.

Everyone gets the same destructability in single player. there are going to be special DX10 server so that people can have the destructablity but that will only be available to DX10 players i assume.

There are still going to be very impressive physics for even the DX9 Players but it will never be quite the same. I hate the fact that i have to go out and buy Windows vista for it. But i refuse the buy windows vista it is rediculously over priced and i think over rated to. DX10 is, for me, the only meritable feature.

[DarQraven]

One word: university.
I get my Vista upgrade for free;)
Not everyone is that lucky though...

[lavbanka]

I thought that DX10 was mainly for visuals and that physics had nothing to do with it.

[Wheelman56]

DX10 has destructable enviroment online, like seriously destructable down to trees and concrete buildings i think. However DX9 users will only get that level of destructablity on single player. I think that you can still knock over the wooden huts in DX9 but not the trees and concrete buildings.

Explain to me then how if a DX10 user destroys a house of some sort, how is it going to work because according to you the DX9 users are still going to see it? Will DX10 users just be able to destroy everything then have a big open field where they can shoot people while the DX9 people still see buildings up?

There won't be destructible environments online. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with DirectX. It's because it would create MASSIVE server lag. That's why they didn't do it in BF2, that's why they aren't going to have destructible environments in multiplayer Frontlines: Fuel of War, and that's why there won't be destructible environments in multiplayer Crysis.

End of story.

[Killa4live]

Explain to me then how if a DX10 user destroys a house of some sort, how is it going to work because according to you the DX9 users are still going to see it? Will DX10 users just be able to destroy everything then have a big open field where they can shoot people while the DX9 people still see buildings up?

There won't be destructible environments online. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with DirectX. It's because it would create MASSIVE server lag. That's why they didn't do it in BF2, that's why they aren't going to have destructible environments in multiplayer Frontlines: Fuel of War, and that's why there won't be destructible environments in multiplayer Crysis.

End of story.
Finally someone who gets it.


PS: When u get used to DX10 u won't feel it as big ""Jippie" anymore.

When i went from all LOW to All High in BF2, i had a "jippie" feeling for a month, but afte that i don't really acre anymore, and couldn't really say it makes much difference

[DarQraven]

Now try going back to all low ... I'll bet you care! :p

[lavbanka]

My brother and I play BF2 side by side on different computers. One handles the game on all low while the other handles it at all high. I will tell you that the difference is a lot.

[Whiteplague]

i played BF2 on all low, then went back to all high...

if i ever play on all low again i think ill claw my eyes out

[lavbanka]

i played BF2 on all low, then went back to all high...

if i ever play on all low again i think ill claw my eyes out

Feels like someone turned the lights on and cut the grass. ;)

[Appclypse]

Explain to me then how if a DX10 user destroys a house of some sort, how is it going to work because according to you the DX9 users are still going to see it? Will DX10 users just be able to destroy everything then have a big open field where they can shoot people while the DX9 people still see buildings up?

There won't be destructible environments online. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with DirectX. It's because it would create MASSIVE server lag. That's why they didn't do it in BF2, that's why they aren't going to have destructible environments in multiplayer Frontlines: Fuel of War, and that's why there won't be destructible environments in multiplayer Crysis.

End of story.

Don't shoot the messenger mate. That is simply what i read. Also they said that they where planing on implimenting different servers for different users, DX10 Servers and DX9 Servers. Meaning the DX9 Players can join the DX10 games meaning the destructablity is only on certain servers.
If i am wrong i appologies in advance but i seriously don't think i dreamed that one up. And i would not lie just to piss you people off.

[Whiteplague]

Feels like someone turned the lights on and cut the grass. ;)



rofl thats SO true

[CrysisPwnz]

Ummm, I dont think they'll do that, not many people have a Crysis ready rig and will most likely be playing it on late DX9 hardware 7800-7950. The community will be varied and thin in terms of hardware, they're not going to put a dividing line unless it REALLY starts to sell and there would be a point to it.

[Whiteplague]

yeah, there probabl wont be a dividnig line, but i hope that people with dx9 and people with dx10 will be able to join a server without having something strange happening, they will most likely have to have a medium so that some features are removed when you go into multiplayer mode, like DX10 users will have to give up 100% destructible environments so that DX9 users can still have fun playing online without having a divided gaming community

[CrysisPwnz]

Playing this game on DX9 would be a shame though.

[DarQraven]

I'm still not quite following the replies in this thread. The physics have nothing to do with DX10.
I can only guess where that thought came from, but I assume it's the rumor that MS is working on an addition to DX10 that will allow a game to calculate physics on the GPU (already hardware supported on G80's)
However, whether this function will be in the first release of DX10 (the one we will be using when Crysis is out), or whether it will exist at all is unknown.
It will probably increase performance, but nowhere is there any mention of GPU-processed effects only. In other words, people with Vista and a G80/R600 GPU will probably have 70 fps in the same situation versus 55 fps on a DX9 system, assuming it's a very physics-heavy scene.

Why, then, there should be a dividing line between DX9 and DX10 servers, when the only difference is performance, is unclear to me.

Sources: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2380206503518140992
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=32160
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/10212

P.S. As you can see, these articles are the most recent about this feature, and they all date from somewhere around June last year. Since then, nothing has been heard about this feature. So we can only guess right now.

[Painmaker]

It does. Thats why DX10 handles more bush and stuff then DX9.

[DarQraven]

What does what? Source?

[Whiteplague]

hey, i only going along with what they say, theyre manipulating my mind away from reason

i believed you all along DarQ you sound more informed than anyone else

[Painmaker]

I saw this interview about DX10. It could handle way more then DX9 because they put more work on the GPU itself. So you can have more dynamic things at once.

[DarQraven]

Yeah, so basically, that's what I said:p
The G80 can offload physics computations to the GPU, assuming it's not clogged up with graphics computations. Yet, this still has to be supported by the API the game is programmed for, since I can hardly imagine Crytek programming the physics-GPU-thing just for one range of cards, and without outside support.

Also, I think it's a slight exaggeration (which PR people are very good at) that a C2D system with a G80 GPU could handle more physics effects than the same C2D system with, say, dual X1950XT's.
It could, at best, deliver the same effects at a slightly higher framerate.
But again, I doubt that difference would be so huge that it's actually worth disabling certain physics effects when you're not using a G80 GPU.

Just guessing here though...

[Wheelman56]

DarQ is right. Physics is a CPU process, not GPU.

[Appclypse]

**** it i give up :) im probably wrong, you convinced me anyway. I can't believe i dreamed that up though, not normally like me :laugh: .

[Mavrik347]

I was playing on a friends 360 a few days back and I was sadly disappointed... the graphics are nothing special, the PC is immensely better and seeing the 360 first hand only confirmed this for me, although it must be said - the PS3 certainly has PC graphics.

I still cant believe those SS's are with no AA... Crazy, the shaders are so good it covers it right up, I could only tell on a few SS's like on the one with the gun right up close.

[Painmaker]

The PS3 graphics are worse then 360. Its just the game you played...

[Mavrik347]

Roflroflroflroflroflroflroflroflroflroflroflroflro flroflroflroflroflroflrofl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You actually SEEN the PS3 in game graphics? PS3 actually uses AA.

EDIT:

360: http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/1386/1137005454.jpg

PS3: http://www.firstadopter.com/images/ps3killzone.jpg

[Venomous]

PS3 Got owned

http://www.destructoid.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/gears%20of%20war.jpg 360

http://www.gamepro.com/screens/110671/80408-3-2.jpg PS3

[Mavrik347]

You just contradicted yourself :p, no offense meant mate, just asking; but do you have any serious experience with graphical or rendering technology? The PS3 shot is clean whereas the 360 has gaussian. If you know where to look you can see the difference, no doubt about it the 360 shot you have there has better lighting but lighting is down to the game, not the console. Although that PS3 shot is a terrible representation :P

EDIT: Example being ignore the blur on this picture, thats the games eye candy not the engine. Look at the smoothness of the shoulder pads etc, all adding polys and high res textures.
http://www.gamepro.com/screens/110673/101168-2-2.jpg

[Whiteplague]

i think ps3 wins over 360, although 360 does look relatively nice

[Venomous]

You just contradicted yourself :p, no offense meant mate, just asking; but do you have any serious experience with graphical or rendering technology? The PS3 shot is clean whereas the 360 has gaussian. If you know where to look you can see the difference, no doubt about it the 360 shot you have there has better lighting but lighting is down to the game, not the console. Although that PS3 shot is a terrible representation :P

EDIT: Example being ignore the blur on this picture, thats the games eye candy not the engine. Look at the smoothness of the shoulder pads etc, all adding polys and high res textures.
http://www.gamepro.com/screens/110673/101168-2-2.jpg

Eye candy? How do you know thats not photoshop just to make it look nice and pretty. You want an up close shot. Anything can look good far away. On the Gears of War picture you can notice the texture on the face and detail of the suit and texture of the suit. Look at the Ps3, everything is smoothed out his head looks like a over polished bowling ball. Where the 360's screen shot has facial marks like wrinkles in the forehead and cheeks.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/614/614682p1.html

http://news.com.com/Xbox+specs+revealed/2100-1043_3-5705372.html

360 Has a better GPU and Memory. Let sony put all the crap on its Blu-ray's it wants it will still look worse. The truth is if sony wanted to go all the way with the PS3 it would have improved its GPU and memory but the PS3 is a mega home entertainment center. Its built for the rich, we dont all need to spend 7,000 dollar TV's. I dont know how this thread came to this topic but. Oh well.

This is what Sony thinks will kill Gears. I laugh at them its not even out and it looks worse than anything out on Next Gen

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/714/714044/imgs_1.html

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/714/714044/img_3975844.html

[Venomous]

Roflroflroflroflroflroflroflroflroflroflroflroflro flroflroflroflroflroflrofl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You actually SEEN the PS3 in game graphics? PS3 actually uses AA.

EDIT:

360: http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/1386/1137005454.jpg

PS3: http://www.firstadopter.com/images/ps3killzone.jpg
And for you that says the PS3 uses AA Pfft.

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/714/714044/img_3870796.html

[DarQraven]

FINALLY!! The console wars have taken over this board too!

I can only say that I agree with Mavrik. Longer post coming, driving lessons right now.

[DarQraven]

FINALLY!! The console wars have taken over this board too!

I can only say that I agree with Mavrik. Longer post coming, driving lessons right now.

<longer post mode>
When compared to the X360, the PS3 has a higher raw performance, in terms of FLOPS. Which, in theory, should translate into better looking games.
Therefore, comparing Gears of War to Resistance is pretty unfair, considering Epic is known for their outstanding graphics, and it's a second/third-wave title. Resistance is part of the launch lineup. It's like comparing the world's first DX10 game to one released for DX10c, 2 years later. Just not fair.
Second of all, you're comparing games. You can make an ugly-*ss game on the PS3, even if it has a higher level of performance. That has nothing to do with the hardware. But other people have already said so, so I'll be short on that point.

@Venonous: while exact 'niceness' of graphics can not be defined, I think MGS4 is relatively on par with GoW when it comes to actual graphics, not design. What makes GoW look so good is the visual design, the grittiness of the playing world/characters, and the light effects.
Comparing a shot like the one you have of Dominic with an overexposed, colorcast shot like the one you gave (don't know exactly which game that is), is very wrong. If I look real closely, both games have roughly the same level of detail, yet on Dom's face, the detail is all gritty and dark (so obvious, and easy to see), while on the other screenshot, it's more realistic and subtle. That does not make the game any less detailed, it just makes it less stylized. Which is hardly something to consider when comparing graphics quality.

Also, someone else has already stated this: the xbox has insane amounts of gaussian blur. A way to test this for yourself is to fire up Photoshop, draw some rough black lines on a white background, and then apply a filter->blur->gaussian blur, with about 1 to 2 strenght.
Now look at the difference. The blurred image looks neater and cleaner, yet it's completely taking away every advantage of HD resolutions. You could consider it 'cheating'.

Examples of blur in screenshots in this thread:
-Dom's hair on the GoW screenie (which, btw, is not ingame, but one of the renders from pre-release. It's close to actual quality though) You could not for the life of me see individual hairs in it, it's just one black mass made to look like hair. How is that HD?

-The hands with the spear on the tropical-looking game. No light/shadow is ever going to behave like that when it's cast on the back of your hand, unless you have somehow melted your hands in some freak accident and smoothed them all out. While it looks pretty and exaggerated, it's in no way detailed.

I understand that we're not considering hardware performance, but image quality when we look at ingame graphics, but using Xbox's 'cheating' as an argument for it having better hardware is wrong.
Consider that the PS3 can do the exact same trick if developers choose to do so, but with higher polycounts, and more detailed maps/lighting, and I think you have a pretty clear case. The difference may not be huge, as Sony has tried to tell us all, but it's there.

[CrysisPwnz]

Im gonna memorize than entire post next time someone gives me that Gears of War has the best graphics sas. Either that or smack them but I cant get suspended again atleast until next year starts (lol)

Anyway, he said everything better than I could, in paragraphs. And one post!

GJ. Btw. Sticking up for 360 makes it suck more. So dont do it.

Last thing. Resistance pwnz every 360 launch title, Gears of war is already 360's second line of game, on its second holiday season too (I think, dont remember that far back)

And MGS4? Cmon is that fair, that footage is like a year old and nothing new since then, they already claimed at what a WIP it was when they used MGS3's animations just to get it together, if anything it was to make the kids at gameshows happy. And you're comparing it to the U3 engine? Like the best engine IMO second to CryEngine 2?

[Mavrik347]

DarQraven put it well.
Eye candy? How do you know thats not photoshop just to make it look nice and pretty.
Because thats called artificial advertising which is illegal.

You want an up close shot. Anything can look good far away. On the Gears of War picture you can notice the texture on the face and detail of the suit and texture of the suit. Look at the Ps3, everything is smoothed out his head looks like a over polished bowling ball. Where the 360's screen shot has facial marks like wrinkles in the forehead and cheeks.
Which is exactly what shows the PS3 as better, the PS3 can use more polygons, the texture is purely down to the game, not the console, I keep saying we are not discussing games, we are discussing console engines. texture quality is the game, the RES is the engine power. The fact is the PS3 out guns the 360, I'm not bias at all, I'm very open minded towards this and to the trained eye you can easily tell the difference.

Putting links to the 360 spec is truly pointless unless you compare them to the LATEST spec of the PS3 as it has changed and been upgraded over time.



ONNNNNNNN topic... One day, chances are people will say "awww I remember Crysis terrible graphics" one day, although I really do find it incredibly hard to imagine; history shows that until the day we have the ability to use incredible texture RES's and with high performance so you never get that slight blur when when you zoom in to a texture. There will be people looking bad saying, bad graphics. None the less I think everyone will always say it had truly stunning graphics for when it came out, just like the old C&C: Renegade.

[hakojako]

lol Every time my friend starts talking about the awesome graphics his 360 has I tell him that PC is worlds ahead of him. He doesn't like that very much.

haha ps3 is even worlds ahead of him and his 360

[Mr.Bubbles43]

Well, I would like to find common ground, so I will write a sentence and see what happens.

The piss I mean Wii is crap.

On Topic-I forgot what the topic was after reading all 6 pages.

[lavbanka]

Me too, but i didn't even try to read all six pages

[zuiquan1]

The piss I mean Wii is crap.


Graphics arent everything ;)

I have all three consoles and I just cant find a game on the 360 or PS3 that is....fun....sure the graphics are amazing but the Wii offers something unique, and its hella fun to play....

ANyway, the whole console war debate is stupid, and a bit off topic lol

[Vash2051]

Yay for off topic but guess what Consoles still suck arse compared to PC. Owned.

[ShadowX8001]

My thread pwns