Resistance: Fall of Man, next gen graphics?

[SpeedZealot369]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I have a 360 and GoW and I'd love to play Resistance. GoW is good, but it's not all that so far (4hrs in). The same environment over and over and the same combat over and over. It's not hard to look nice when you only have four different grey rock textures to draw. Resistance looks like a fun game, Insomniac always makes fun games. I looking forward to RS:Vegas too.

Are you blind or retarded? every level in GoW looks drastically different and equally stunning. And it's not just high res textures, the graphics are very artistic from the floor tiles up to the destroyed buildings you see in the background when you look up.

As for the ocmbat being the same over and over you can say that about any game. In GoW they do a good job of putting you in different situations, there's a vehicle scene which breaks the action up pretty nicely, and there are many different enemies to deal with. The active reload is a nice touch that hasn't been done before and it adds a lot to the gameplay.

The multiplayer is a lot of fun too, Xbox live rocks

As for the PS3, resistence doesn't look that great game-wise but I would like to try it online, 40 players batteling each other sounds awesome. I tried BF2 but it didn't do much for me and I think it would work awesome on a console. Lack of a headset sucks though.

I have no doubt the PS3 has a lot of unlocked potential, but right now with the lack of any good games I have no reason to even consider buying it. If they ever make a new twisted metal I would buy the PS3 in a second, TMB was amazing on PS2.

I guess the next gen started with the xbox 360 unlike the "it starts when we say it does" statement sony made.

Anyway back to GoW

SZ

 

[Todd33]

Every level in GoW looks drastically different? My copy must be defective. I have been in the same bombed out city fighting the same mobs with the same weapons. Speaking of weapons I hate GoWs system. You can effectively hold one extra gun, you pick the shotgun and you need the sniper you are screwed. I don't care for realism, let me have all the guns I find it makes the game fun. HL2 does this right and I read Resistance (like the Ratchet games) also has amazing weapons and you can carry them all and quick swap. In GoW I'm always using the same main gun over and over and my secondary gun gets little use.

Then again I'm not a rabid fanboys, I judge games based on gameplay and not hype.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Are you still living in 1997? In fact both 360 and PS3 have operating systems that eat up resources. The PS3 OS uses 32 mb of the 256 mb of vram and 64 mb of its 256mb of system memory vs the 360 OS that eats up 32 mb of total system memory and will likely keep going up with updates. These consoles are more like PCs than consoles of old. Those old arguments about them being closed systems and having higher efficiency doesn't apply anymore either since most console games are cross platform so they're not custom tailored for any single console. Just look at the 360, it took a year before a custom tailored game like GoW could show off its potential while the rest have looked fairly mediocre.

why would the OS use 32mb of vram?

also, can we have a link to where a dev/person from sony has said how much vram and ram the PS3 OS takes up?

UMA baby

360 and PS3 both use a unified memory architechture, though the 360's seems more unified to me in that its got 1 big 512mb pool for everything to share

PS3's set up is different, its got 256 clustered next to Cell and 256 actually on the RSX packaging under the heatspreader. but the RSX can call up on more memory from the stuff located next the Cell processor if it needs it but im not sure if this is akin to turbo-cache where when your GPU runs out of its own memory it pilfers system memory for more but has to suffer higher latencies/less bandwidth to do so

 

[enz660hp]

I would buy a ps3 if killzone 2 will actually look like that trailer. Thats a pretty big step closer to photo-realistic graphics and with a big enough HDTV and nice sound, you can have quite an immersive experience.

 

[Aikouka]

I'd need to take a look at that trailer, but yesterday when I went to pick up my copy of Every Extend Extra (PSP) from EB Games, I got a chance to play the PS3 and they had Untold Legends in it. The gameplay was what I expected, but the graphics seemed quite lacking from what everyone praised it to be (i.e. the best). I easily noticed the aliasing around the characters to the extent that it looks like either no AA was enabled or maybe only 2x AA (which we all know that 2x AA doesn't do that much). Also, the AF was either very low or non-existant as texture blurring in the distance on the cobblestone was very apparent.

Yet again, I can't say I'm surprised. The PS3 does run a variant of the G70, which doesn't have the best IQ in the world. I'm also bound to be much more picky over the IQ since I run a G80 on full quality settings ( 16xQAA and 16xAF via the control panel ). With this, I don't understand why many people are rushing out to get one (other than to sell it). I orginally thought about buying a PS3, but then after some careful consideration of launch titles, I decided against it. I don't see myself ever buying a game until at least next year and even then, I don't know if I'll want to play yet another DMC sequel or another FF game that I won't like (as some may've seen in the software forum, I'm not much of an afficianado of the newer FF games ). Fortunately, a lot of games are going cross-patform, so I can just pick them up for my XBOX 360 if I so choose .

So yeah, I think I'll stick with my PC for now, because unlike the PS3 or 360 or Wii, it can do everything I want.

 

[Midwayman]

Honestly the ps3 isnt really all that great.

Maybe compare the ps3 as a core 2 extreme x6800 with a 7800gtx. While the 360 is more like a FX57 with 8800gts.

both competent systems, but I can tell you which one I would rather game on.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Midwayman
Honestly the ps3 isnt really all that great.

Maybe compare the ps3 as a core 2 extreme x6800 with a 7800gtx. While the 360 is more like a FX57 with 8800gts.

both competent systems, but I can tell you which one I would rather game on.

Not only does your analogy suck it's fanboy BS.

 

[Andyb23]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: m21s
Launch titles are always a little rough around the edges.

You wont be saying this come next year once the games are using the full potential of the PS3.


Gears of War for Xbox360 came out how long after the system released.....There you go.

Patience

Gears of War is rumored to be coming to the PC.

sorry bub:

"Gears of War is an Xbox360 exclusive. We're developing it specifically to take advantage of the power and features of the console. All of the work on Gears between now and when we ship is toward creating the ultimate Xbox360 game.
Could we, in the future, adapt Gears for Windows just as Microsoft did with Hal?? Sure we could and, as you can see from J Allard's comments, Microsoft is clearly cool with that idea. But we're a long way off from thinking about that. Right now our only goal is to make Gears one of the "must have" titles for Xbox360 and judging by reaction to our relatively early showing at E3 we're well on our way toward achieving that. One major web site, 1UP.com, already voted us their Best Xbox360 Game in their Best of E3 roundup! "

 

[Andyb23]

As for the people saying Gears of Wars sucks...

Maybe a Wii is more down your alley.

LOL no HD capabilites no Hard drive....

 

[Midwayman]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Midwayman
Honestly the ps3 isnt really all that great.

Maybe compare the ps3 as a core 2 extreme x6800 with a 7800gtx. While the 360 is more like a FX57 with 8800gts.

both competent systems, but I can tell you which one I would rather game on.

Not only does your analogy suck it's fanboy BS.

Fan boy BS? Hardly. ps3 has more cpu power, but the 360 has more gpu power.

The analogy may not be the greatest, but just trying to put it in term people understand.

<- works for a game dev.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
Yet again, I can't say I'm surprised. The PS3 does run a variant of the G70, which doesn't have the best IQ in the world.

After reading that sentence I found you to not be a credible source. ATI and Nvidia have pretty much the same IQ. Yes, I have seen systems and pictures running on either company's cards.

They look the same. They both look great actually. Oh, so there's a difference in AF/AA?

Right, that's only noticable if you stop in the game and look at an object for 10 minutes.

No one really cares.

And to be quite honest, the 360 and PS3 aren't going to be running games in very high AA/AF. So what does it matter?

Sure, the launch PS3 games won't blow you away with graphics. Big deal, expect much better results within a couple years.

Resistance falls into that category...but from what I've heard, it's an excellent game. The single player experience is supposed to be really good, but multiplayer is said to be amazing.

Am I really going to care about graphics a whole lot? It looks a bit better than Half-Life 2. Last time I checked, that game looked fine to me. For a launch PS3 title, I'll be content.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Andyb23
As for the people saying Gears of Wars sucks...

Maybe a Wii is more down your alley.

LOL no HD capabilites no Hard drive....

The Wii gives you 480p which is EDTV. More than plenty for a system that has explicitly stated it's not in it for the graphics war.

No hard drive? Why would the Wii need one? It's got 512MB onboard flash for storage for game saves, and a 2GB SD stick will only set you back $20. More than enough to carry your personalized stuff with you to other systems.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: Andyb23
As for the people saying Gears of Wars sucks...

Maybe a Wii is more down your alley.

LOL no HD capabilites no Hard drive....

The Wii gives you 480p which is EDTV. More than plenty for a system that has explicitly stated it's not in it for the graphics war.

No hard drive? Why would the Wii need one? It's got 512MB onboard flash for storage for game saves, and a 2GB SD stick will only set you back $20. More than enough to carry your personalized stuff with you to other systems.

QFT. I'd get a Wii before a 360 or PS3. Zelda, cheaper, and a better controller. Plus, it's just so cute...

 

[hans030390]

Here's another random thought I had.

Unreal Tournament 2007 and Gears of War both run on Unreal Engine 3.

The PS3 has been shown to easily play UT 2007 (real-time footage too).

Based on that, a PS3 will likely be able to play GoW (or games with similar to better graphics).

So, I wouldn't complain about graphics just yet.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: hans030390
After reading that sentence I found you to not be a credible source. ATI and Nvidia have pretty much the same IQ. Yes, I have seen systems and pictures running on either company's cards.

Oh-ho-ho, here's my stab... after reading that sentence, I found you to either be blind or a troll. Have you seen the AF charts comparing G80, R5xx and G70? Have you? Come back and say that to me again when you have... I have a feeling that I'll be waiting a long time.

Actually, also, to make you look like even more of an ill-informed punk, now nVidia's IQ is better than ATi's with the G80 compared to the R5xx.

Oh and congratulations, I see you learned to form an opinion and unfortunately, it differs from mine. Welcome to life, learn to live it.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: thilan29

Oh BTW, that Killzone trailer looks pretty amazing and I'd be very impressed if that was ingame footage.

according to "PSM" magazine it was in game footage being rendered at ~5 fps on a dev box with dual 6800ultra's at around 5 fps, and they sped it up to 60fps to show the video. :Q

How can u "speed it up"??

5 fps is just at real time. Wait 12 seconds and you have one full set of frames at 60 fps.

Even on the PC, the operating system uses hardly any of your resources during gaming. Most processes just sleep in the background taking hardly any raw power. Some RAM may be used for various things, but probably not more than 150M (which is 7.5% of 2G). In Vista it might change since they're adding all that junk (even context switching) to the video architecture. More likely than not however, >98% of your CPU power is going towards the current process if it is the only intensive one open (such as a game). The 3D part of the GPU is 100% committed to the game alone.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: Andyb23
As for the people saying Gears of Wars sucks...

Maybe a Wii is more down your alley.

LOL no HD capabilites no Hard drive....

The Wii gives you 480p which is EDTV. More than plenty for a system that has explicitly stated it's not in it for the graphics war.

No hard drive? Why would the Wii need one? It's got 512MB onboard flash for storage for game saves, and a 2GB SD stick will only set you back $20. More than enough to carry your personalized stuff with you to other systems.

yeah i love that if you get wii you don;t need to buy a mem card or other crap.
unline the XBOX360

btw. whenever i get the money i WILL buy BOTH xb360 and wii. ps3 however sucks.

 

[enz660hp]

ooohhhh man, LOOK at this pc game. This looks even better than CRYSIS!

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: Midwayman

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Midwayman
Honestly the ps3 isnt really all that great.

Maybe compare the ps3 as a core 2 extreme x6800 with a 7800gtx. While the 360 is more like a FX57 with 8800gts.

both competent systems, but I can tell you which one I would rather game on.

Not only does your analogy suck it's fanboy BS.

Fan boy BS? Hardly. ps3 has more cpu power, but the 360 has more gpu power.

The analogy may not be the greatest, but just trying to put it in term people understand.

<- works for a game dev.

the differences between the system's power is a lot closer than you make it seem.

Oh-ho-ho, here's my stab... after reading that sentence, I found you to either be blind or a troll. Have you seen the AF charts comparing G80, R5xx and G70? Have you? Come back and say that to me again when you have... I have a feeling that I'll be waiting a long time.

Text

ill give you a if you can tell the difference between ATI and NV iq

 

[josh6079]

That image quality comparison you linked was pretty moot since they didn't enable ATI's HQAF:

We?re sticking with the default control panel optimizations for both manufacturers except when using transparency AA/adaptive AA. In that case, we used ATI?s ?Quality? setting for adaptive AA (which forces the use of supersampling to improve IQ) and NVIDIA?s ?Super-sampling? setting for the GeForce card. We also turned on gamma correction for AA in this case as well.

HQAF isn't on by default, therefore they weren't comparing the ultimate of each GPU's AF.

That was a thread of its own though and really doesn't have a place in here, other than the PS3's AF is going to be as shotty as the 7-series' was.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: josh6079
That image quality comparison you linked was pretty moot since they didn't enable ATI's HQAF

I doubt any xbox360 games will use HQAF... if they even support it

also, from the G80 review at anandtech

ATI's 16xAF is more likely to cause shimmering with the High Quality AF box checked than without. Even when looking at an object like a flat floor, we can see the issue pop up in the D3DAFTester. NVIDIA has been battling shimmering issues due to some of their optimizations over the past year or so, but these issues could be avoided through driver settings. There isn't really a way to "fix" ATI's 16x high quality AF issue.

R5xxx AF IQ isnt way better than G70 AF IQ anyway

 

[StrangerGuy]

Developers should continue to develop shinier games until development costs rises through the stratosphere and people lose more interest in games (and video cards, for that matter) because the games are priced too high, lacks substance, are brainless rehashes and requires a hell of an expensive setup to play. So continue the wonderful trend!

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
R5xxx AF IQ isnt way better than G70 AF IQ anyway

Great, now point out to me where I SAID THAT. I only said it "isn't the best in the world." Which means there currently exists mainstream products that produce better results. G80 is the easiest example to provide, as it produces incredible results at all settings, but you can even go with the R5xx and see marginally (yet still) better results.

Now, because unless I set a disclaimer, people start claiming fanboyism, I haven't owned an ATi graphic product since an on-board Rage Pro over 8 years ago. I absolutely abhor ATi drivers and ATi support. I currently use a G80 (GTX) in my system and although I'm happy with it, I'm starting to get annoyed with nVidia's crummy new control panel and the fact that it can no longer be disabled. Who knew that making it harder to find anything was the best way to go?

Oh, and Oatmeal Raisin please, I don't really care for chocolate.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: hans030390
After reading that sentence I found you to not be a credible source. ATI and Nvidia have pretty much the same IQ. Yes, I have seen systems and pictures running on either company's cards.

Oh-ho-ho, here's my stab... after reading that sentence, I found you to either be blind or a troll. Have you seen the AF charts comparing G80, R5xx and G70? Have you? Come back and say that to me again when you have... I have a feeling that I'll be waiting a long time.

Actually, also, to make you look like even more of an ill-informed punk, now nVidia's IQ is better than ATi's with the G80 compared to the R5xx.

Oh and congratulations, I see you learned to form an opinion and unfortunately, it differs from mine. Welcome to life, learn to live it.

I've seen plenty of AF/AA charts and screens comparing cards. What do you think I'm basing what I'm saying off of? I'm not a blind troll going by just what I think.

I've seen pictures using the best cards out (even the G80) and the only difference you'll see is a very slight difference in AA/AF. By that I mean possibly a few pixels. Not to mention, the pictures are blown up so that you can see the differences (although sometimes I still see none).

It's not realistic to think that everyone will be running at uber-high AA/AF/Resolution settings, even if they are on a nice card. It's also even more unrealistic to think that all next gen games will be running at extremely high AA/AF settings.

So when running on low AA/AF settings, is there really a difference? No. The difference seen on higher settings is only seen if you stop and look at it, OR if you blow up the picture to expose differences.

Don't take me as some "ill-informed" fool. I'm constantly reading reviews on video cards and I have specifically looked at AA/AF comparisons in the past.

Applying all of this to the 360/PS3...there will be no difference in IQ based on the video cards. They will likely run at a lower AA/AF setting anyways, so you'll have to rule out a difference there.

IQ is not all about AA/AF. I've turned it on and off in games and generally I don't prefer it being on of off. So, I save performance by turning it off...and I really don't notice a difference (if I do, I have to stop and stare...and even then I don't care).

Aside from AA/AF, they're both capable cards. They both run Unreal Engine 3 (GoW).

Should we be worried about Resistance "not looking good"? No.

Stop comparing any form of IQ between the two systems based on which company they used for video.

Edit: If you read a recent article about te G80 on anandtech, they have a direct comparison of the G70, G80, and ATI (not sure which). I saw no difference. Maybe it was lack of AA/AF? That's about what you'll see in games. No difference between the companies.

 

[Arkaign]

I was at Wal-Mart last night, and watched a demo loop, and can see why the OP posted this. The shots of Resistance looked merely decent, rather than amazing. GoW has truly set a new standard in Console FPS.

Anyways, the rest of the video demo reel was uneven. Some of it looked fantastic, some of it looked sorta like PS2 @ HD res.

I'll leave you guys with an obvious observation.

Compare GoW to ANYthing at the 360 launch.

Compare Halo2 to ANYthing near the Xbox1 launch.

Compare GT4 to ANYthing near the PS2 launch.

ETC ETC.

As developers get more time with the HW, games and the quality they are able to extract from the systems invariably improves. Sometimes by a LOT.

With PS3 this will probably be doubly true, as they learn to leverage the ridiculously complex Cell architechture, the split memory maze, etc.

I think that within 6-9 mos, the systems will achieve a certain amount of parity, with some games on PS3 being mind-blowing (GT5, no doubt, those are always showcase titles), and 360 firming up so that you get more GoW quality, and less of disappointing stuff like PDZ.

Btw, play what you like. It's below idiotic to flame people on message boards about consoles. I'm admiring Nintendo for flying under the radar with Wii, and for staying perhaps the only company that still makes consoles for KIDS!