360 is Graphics King!!! Try And Beat This!!!56k=Murder In The First.

none of these screens look better than Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2 in motion.

Your sarcasm detector is fail. He's comparing bullshot with bullshot and that Confrontation bullshot looks better than the Gears 3 bullshot ;)

bigblunt537

That's because those are renders, not bullshots.

Crysis + GT5 = OP Denied

Flawless Victory.... Babality!

Nice shot, but judging from the videos GeoW3 is still as flat and static as previous games in the series. KZ2 level of cinematic effects is still unreachable by other console games.

after all a PS3 or 360 with the current top of the line GPU lets say Gforce GTX 480 1536MB GDDR 5 with a Intel Core i7 950 and 4 GB of system memory would probably make any PC game look dated.

Eltormo

This new learning amazes me, Eltormo. Explain again where I can get a Xbox 360/Playstation 3 with those specifications.

[QUOTE="santoron"]

[QUOTE="ImprovedMind"] You want console graphics king, then we need to have console exclusives too. Looks like your PS3 just got destroyed in the games department.georgia_bulll

That's the funny thing: Nothing about Console Graphics King or Graphics King at all affects the metagame. It was simply a term used to denote best looking game on a console. Nothing about SW was affected by it, yet there's apparently been some feeling hurt or something, I dunno. :roll:

Anyhow, the term Console Exclusive was absolutely an attempt to modify the metagame, and your quote is a prime example. That's why it went away.

the term has been used in every generation prior to this even in the 16bit days when PC games were crap in comparison (arcades were the best of the best during those days). so why this gen are some trying to pretend that it's some kind of imagiary thing for consoles?

No one back then said Super mario world is the best graphics and some one else say the arcades is better. It would be stupid because everyone understands that when you say that you are referring to consoles.

if I say Super Mario Galaxy2 has the best graphics on the wii would an authority step in and say, "no your wrong because you are ignoring xbox360, PS3, PSP, DS, 3DS and PC111! lol the logic behind this argument is just terrible.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

after all a PS3 or 360 with the current top of the line GPU lets say Gforce GTX 480 1536MB GDDR 5 with a Intel Core i7 950 and 4 GB of system memory would probably make any PC game look dated.

Vesica_Prime

This new learning amazes me, Eltormo. Explain again where I can get a Xbox 360/Playstation 3 with those specifications.

No where but that is the point you can't so why compare 2005 tech with 2010 one is beyond me,but a console with those specs will probably run Killzone or Gears with much better graphics than Crysis for sure.

Wow so when a Killzone picture is shown its bashed for having no colour, then we have gears and its 1 colour pallete its praised as graphics king :shock:

Crysis is graphics king. Period.

Reach, Uncharted 2, and Killzone 2 look better. Quite a bit better.

360 back on top:shock:Am Cry:cry:

MortgageMan007

That bullshot doesn't even look better than the Multiplayer compnent of Uncharted 2

And thats only the MP...

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

after all a PS3 or 360 with the current top of the line GPU lets say Gforce GTX 480 1536MB GDDR 5 with a Intel Core i7 950 and 4 GB of system memory would probably make any PC game look dated.

This new learning amazes me, Eltormo. Explain again where I can get a Xbox 360/Playstation 3 with those specifications.

No where but that is the point you can't so why compare 2005 tech with 2010 one is beyond me,but a console with those specs will probably run Killzone or Gears with much better graphics than Crysis for sure.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="georgia_bulll"]

I didn't ignore anything and I didn't get proven wrong either, I saw the info so you need to simmer down.

I ASKED HIM, for the link for it being open world. He have a link but not the quote, so I told him to give a quote with the link (like he should have done anyway)

And how did I get proven wrong dude? lol

Everything I did see was liner gameplay in the videos here, so unless you can provide a newer video than what was shown in the other thread you can just chill.

You seem to be looking for something to brag about here but you are just over-eager and looking for something that's not there.

DragonfireXZ95

It doesn't look good at all... Looks decent at best.DragonfireXZ95

tonitorsi

Gotta love ND And yes, it actually looks better, kind of amazing O.O

Honestly i hate when people compare PC with consoles, i know, SW rules blah blah...
DS graphics suck compared with PC... SW rules...

[QUOTE="tonitorsi"]

Kane04

Gotta love ND And yes, it actually looks better, kind of amazing O.O

Honestly i hate when people compare PC with consoles, i know, SW rules blah blah...
DS graphics suck compared with PC... SW rules...

I am pc gamer and I hate it as well. To be honest it seems like the pc gamers here just want to take all the fun out of systemwars. All the rules here seem to be designed for the pc, and if we strickly went by the rules there would be no need to post anything here.

Not graphics king.. but I sure am looking forward to it, coop with friends is always so fun on gears games.

Metro, Crysis, Crysis Warhead, ARMA2 and many more pc games look better hten gears3 and any other console game.

I think God Of War or Uncharted2 is CONSOLE graphics king.. but not overall, crysis destroys all

is it me or does that look like perfectdark zero with gow gameplay slapped on ,

huh to much shine

ive seen better graphics then that -on the nintendo gamecube ;/xbox/ps2-timesplitters future perfect any one

Keep drinkin' that ol' cool aid, buddy.

if any thing is the new graphics king its metro 2033 and dx11 while crysis is dx10.1 :P

yeh their both awesome looking games and crysis is a vast envrionment etc while metro is a tunnel shooter if any thign but it looks better even on dx 10 mode :)

i would love for a game as open as crysis and with metro graphics to come out but it would cripple my pc never mind my ps3 lol

His arms look like tumors.Timstuff

lol so it is not me he actually look fat on that screen and not strong like in the other versions,either way Gears character has the smallest head to body ratio of any video game,is almost NBA jam big head cheat but in reverse.haha

His arms look like tumors.Timstuff

As an owner of both Uncharted 2 and Crysis got to say that screenshot doesn't cut it. Though I think Gears has some potential those Unreal 3 tech demos from a while back looked really impressive. Unreal does foliage now, that's a step forward right there.

I don't care how good it looks.It's a new Gears of War.It will be awesome.

Lto_thaG

[QUOTE="Kane04"]

[QUOTE="tonitorsi"]

Advid-Gamer

Gotta love ND And yes, it actually looks better, kind of amazing O.O

Honestly i hate when people compare PC with consoles, i know, SW rules blah blah...
DS graphics suck compared with PC... SW rules...

I am pc gamer and I hate it as well. To be honest it seems like the pc gamers here just want to take all the fun out of systemwars. All the rules here seem to be designed for the pc, and if we strickly went by the rules there would be no need to post anything here.

[QUOTE="MortgageMan007"]

360 back on top:shock:Am Cry:cry:

tonitorsi

That bullshot doesn't even look better than the Multiplayer compnent of Uncharted 2nd thats only the MP...

You can only post bullshots of PS3 exclusives for graphics arguments. So don't pull this sort of stuff again. If you however feel the need to post an Uncharted 2 pre-rendered cutscene picture as if it was gameplay, you are free to do so. themyth01

lol did you play uncharted 2 the games go's from cut scenes to game play without actual pause or changes because the cut scenes were recorded using in game assets dude.

I said this when Uncharted 2 came out and I'll say it again here: There is no console graphics king. There is only Crysis.mythrol

Run Uncharted 2 on a PC that has a 7600 which is what the PS3 is say to have for GPU and 512 MB of ram for the whole system see if it run,hell any PC game that use those specs are primitively old.

The point is PC will always look better after the PS3 and 360 don't get a new GPU each year.:)

[QUOTE="mythrol"]I said this when Uncharted 2 came out and I'll say it again here: There is no console graphics king. There is only Crysis.Eltormo

Run Uncharted 2 on a PC that has a 7600 which is what the PS3 is say to have for GPU and 512 MB of ram for the whole system see if it run,hell any PC game that use those specs are primitively old.

The point is PC will always look better after the PS3 and 360 don't get a new GPU each year.:)

The console is easily the most technologically sophisticated gaming machine this side of a tricked-out $4,500 PC rig.GameSpot

[QUOTE="mythrol"]I said this when Uncharted 2 came out and I'll say it again here: There is no console graphics king. There is only Crysis.Eltormo

Run Uncharted 2 on a PC that has a 7600 which is what the PS3 is say to have for GPU and 512 MB of ram for the whole system see if it run,hell any PC game that use those specs are primitively old.

The point is PC will always look better after the PS3 and 360 don't get a new GPU each year.:)

I payed around 650 USD back in 2007 and I can still play most games at max or high settings at 1680x1050.

It is around 3 times more powerful than any console.

I haven't upgraded since then.

Also try playing UC2 on your console while running Windows 7. You wouldn't be able to.

So your argument is invalid.

This. I remember when the PS3 came out [QUOTE="GameSpot"]The console is easily the most technologically sophisticated gaming machine this side of a tricked-out $4,500 PC rig.Kane04

That was just PR BS.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

[QUOTE="mythrol"]I said this when Uncharted 2 came out and I'll say it again here: There is no console graphics king. There is only Crysis.Hakkai007

Run Uncharted 2 on a PC that has a 7600 which is what the PS3 is say to have for GPU and 512 MB of ram for the whole system see if it run,hell any PC game that use those specs are primitively old.

The point is PC will always look better after the PS3 and 360 don't get a new GPU each year.:)

I payed around 650 USD back in 2007 and I can still play most games at max or high settings at 1680x1050.

It is around 3 times more powerful than any console.

I haven't upgraded since then.

Also try playing UC2 on your console while running Windows 7. You wouldn't be able to.

So your argument is invalid.

Funny i bough a Gforce 240 1 GB of ram and can't run crysis higher than mid settings i have 2GB of ram and a AMD dual core CPU.

What card did you get on 2007 that still play everything on max setting now.?

no my point isn't valid because PC had huge specs and get new things yearly,my PS3 doesn't and was able to pull a game that wowed pretty much every one,to the point that they simply ignore everything on PC and gave Uncharted 2 the best graphics.

For what the PS3 has inside is more than good,now like i told you run game on a 7600 which is so be what the PS3 has with 512 MB of total ram for boht video and system memory and see if its run at all,let alone reach Uncharted 2 graphics.

[QUOTE="Kane04"]This. I remember when the PS3 came out [QUOTE="GameSpot"]The console is easily the most technologically sophisticated gaming machine this side of a tricked-out $4,500 PC rig.Hakkai007

That was just PR BS.

So gamespot did PR for the PS3.?

Maybe you are not getting why they get to that number.

There was nothing like Cell on PC so something like Cell on PC would have been hugely expensive,the GPU wasn't that expensive,but the XDR also was expensive,not to mention blu-ray which alone was $1,000,i am sure the number is blow out but at least close to $2000 on value it was,if you wanted to have something simillar on PC.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

Run Uncharted 2 on a PC that has a 7600 which is what the PS3 is say to have for GPU and 512 MB of ram for the whole system see if it run,hell any PC game that use those specs are primitively old.

The point is PC will always look better after the PS3 and 360 don't get a new GPU each year.:)

Eltormo

I payed around 650 USD back in 2007 and I can still play most games at max or high settings at 1680x1050.

It is around 3 times more powerful than any console.

I haven't upgraded since then.

Also try playing UC2 on your console while running Windows 7. You wouldn't be able to.

So your argument is invalid.

Funny i bough a Gforce 240 1 GB of ram and can't run crysis higher than mid settings i have 2GB of ram and a AMD dual core CPU.

What card did you get on 2007 that still play everything on max setting now.?

no my point isn't valid because PC had huge specs and get new things yearly,my PS3 doesn't and was able to pull a game that wowed pretty much every one,to the point that they simply ignore everything on PC and gave Uncharted 2 the best graphics.

For what the PS3 has inside is more than good,now like i told you run game on a 7600 which is so be what the PS3 has with 512 MB of total ram for boht video and system memory and see if its run at all,let alone reach Uncharted 2 graphics.

I have an 8800gt, AMD Athlon x2 5200+ 2.7ghz and 2 gigs of ddr2 800mhz ram.

I didn't say everything at max, I said just about everything at max or high.

I can play Crysis at high at 1680x1050 or the modded CCC version which looks like very high.

Metro 2033 plays at very high directx 10 1440x900 or directx 9 very high at 1600x1024.

Most of the games coming out have no problem running at high or max at 1680x1050.

.

.

.

Also your argument is still invalid as the PS3 does not run under a Windows OS and if it did then just about any game from this gen would be unplayable on it.

UC2 is not that great looking of a game it is a bunch of smoke and mirrors and wouldn't take much to run it at it's low resolution. It's a small corridor shooter so it's not going to stress a system.

The PS3 uses a 7800gt with some gimped hardware it is not a 7600gt just as it is not exactly a 7800gt.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="Kane04"]Eltormo

That was just PR BS.

So gamespot did PR for the PS3.?

Maybe you are not getting why they get to that number.

There was nothing like Cell on PC so something like Cell on PC would have been hugely expensive,the GPU wasn't that expensive,but the XDR also was expensive,not to mention blu-ray which alone was $1,000,i am sure the number is blow out but at least close to $2000 on value it was,if you wanted to have something simillar on PC.

The Cell is nothing special.

And blu ray was pretty much useless at the time.

By the time blu ray became popular it didn't cost as much.

I don't need a blu ray player to watch video at 1080 on my PC anyway.

The PS3 was alot cheaper if you add the blu ray player but PC gamers didn't really care about it nor did they use it or need it.

We still do not need a blu ray player.

.

.

.

Anyone who knows about computer hardware can smell the BS a mile away.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

That was just PR BS.

Hakkai007

So gamespot did PR for the PS3.?

Maybe you are not getting why they get to that number.

There was nothing like Cell on PC so something like Cell on PC would have been hugely expensive,the GPU wasn't that expensive,but the XDR also was expensive,not to mention blu-ray which alone was $1,000,i am sure the number is blow out but at least close to $2000 on value it was,if you wanted to have something simillar on PC.

The Cell is nothing special.

And blu ray was pretty much useless at the time.

By the time blu ray became popular it didn't cost as much.

I don't need a blu ray player to watch video at 1080 on my PC anyway.

The PS3 was alot cheaper if you add the blu ray player but PC gamers didn't really care about it nor did they use it or need it.

We still do not need a blu ray player.

.

.

.

Anyone who knows about computer hardware can smell the BS a mile away.

Yeah now is nothing special on 2006 it was.

As pointless as DVD was on 1997 all tech have to start some where,but that doesn't change the fact that it was $1,000 stand alone.

Probably not but to play those movies which where release in 1080p only on Blu-ray that i know it it was need it and it wasn't cheap.

You may say other wise buy i remember that many use to say the same about DVD on 2000 when the PS2 came out and DVD was a novelty,in fact my UT 2004 version was CD based as it was like 5 or 6 CD's that was on 2004,by that time almost all games release on the console market were release on DVD.

So basicaly all you do was downplay my argument with nothing more than your opinion,is your opinion vs mine,but the fact is a windows system with 512 MB of ram for both video and system with a 7600 card will not run a game with Uncharted 2 graphics,so for what the PS3 has is more than fine.

Yeah now is nothing special on 2006 it was.

As pointless as DVD was on 1997 all tech have to start some where,but that doesn't change the fact that it was $1,000 stand alone.

Probably not but to play those movies which where release in 1080p only on Blu-ray that i know it it was need it and it wasn't cheap.

You may say other wise buy i remember that many use to say the same about DVD on 2000 when the PS2 came out and DVD was a novelty,in fact my UT 2004 version was CD based as it was like 5 or 6 CD's that was on 2004,by that time almost all games release on the console market were release on DVD.

So basicaly all you do was downplay my argument with nothing more than your opinion,is your opinion vs mine,but the fact is a windows system with 512 MB of ram for both video and system with a 7600 card will not run a game with Uncharted 2 graphics,so for what the PS3 has is more than fine.

Eltormo

Wrong again.

The reason blu ray is pointless is gamers don't need it on the PC.

We never had the need for it.

Movies can be played at 1080P on a PC without using a blu ray player.

DVD was viable because PC games started to use it, but instead of using blu ray discs PC games use dvd or digital instead.

The largest PC games are only around 12 gigs if you do not count MMOs which are downloaded anyway.

The reason PS3 games use so much space is because they do not compress video or sound which doesn't really change much in quality at all with the right compression techniques.

Even PC gamers who wanted a blu ray player knew that all they would have to do is wait. There wasn't much for it when it was first released anyway.

Just like there was much out for DVD when it first came out. In fact it took many years before VHS stopped being used.

.

.

.

Also again I mentioned that the PS3 is not using a 7600gt it is using a 7800gt with gimped features.

A computer does much more than a gaming console so I am not sure why you are trying to compare that price wise.

A 7800gt 512vram could run UC2 at console settings and higher resolution and that video card came out in 2005.

Also RAM is cheap and still didn't cost a lot back then to grab another 512mb-1 gig.Maybe around 50 usd.

I upgraded my old laptop with another 512 mb of ram for around 6 USD a year ago.

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

No! The graphics king belongs to CRYSIS!! FLAWLESS VICTORY!!!!

lbjkurono23

The 360 can't even beat the ps3 let alone a gaming pc lol some graphics king.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

Yeah now is nothing special on 2006 it was.

As pointless as DVD was on 1997 all tech have to start some where,but that doesn't change the fact that it was $1,000 stand alone.

Probably not but to play those movies which where release in 1080p only on Blu-ray that i know it it was need it and it wasn't cheap.

You may say other wise buy i remember that many use to say the same about DVD on 2000 when the PS2 came out and DVD was a novelty,in fact my UT 2004 version was CD based as it was like 5 or 6 CD's that was on 2004,by that time almost all games release on the console market were release on DVD.

So basicaly all you do was downplay my argument with nothing more than your opinion,is your opinion vs mine,but the fact is a windows system with 512 MB of ram for both video and system with a 7600 card will not run a game with Uncharted 2 graphics,so for what the PS3 has is more than fine.

Hakkai007

Wrong again.

The reason blu ray is pointless is gamers don't need it on the PC.

We never had the need for it.

Movies can be played at 1080P on a PC without using a blu ray player.

DVD was viable because PC games started to use it, but instead of using blu ray discs PC games use dvd or digital instead.

The largest PC games are only around 12 gigs if you do not count MMOs which are downloaded anyway.

The reason PS3 games use so much space is because they do not compress video or sound which doesn't really change much in quality at all with the right compression techniques.

Even PC gamers who wanted a blu ray player knew that all they would have to do is wait. There wasn't much for it when it was first released anyway.

Just like there was much out for DVD when it first came out. In fact it took many years before VHS stopped being used.

.

.

.

Also again I mentioned that the PS3 is not using a 7600gt it is using a 7800gt with gimped features.

A computer does much more than a gaming console so I am not sure why you are trying to compare that price wise.

A 7800gt 512vram could run UC2 at console settings and higher resolution and that video card came out in 2005.

Also RAM is cheap and still didn't cost a lot back then to grab another 512mb-1 gig.Maybe around 50 usd.

I upgraded my old laptop with another 512 mb of ram for around 6 USD a year ago.

Is more of a 7600 because of its bandwight.

That is true and cost much more as well.

lol a 7800 with 512 MB of ram.. the PS3 as a whole has 512 MB of ram again my claims are not out of this world, that is wihtout counting the good CPU you most have since those benchmarks are never done with celerons and cheap Ram,it may have the GPU to do it but the cpu to do it i don't think it was abailable on 2005.

NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT GPU-based graphics cards are available immediately for a suggested retail price of $449 from the world's leading add-in card makers.

And just $449 dollars for a card that wasn't even the top dog because it was a step down from the 7800GTX,that is almost the price of a Blu-ray able PS3 20GB,and $50 more than a 360,which came with a more powerful advance GPU that the 7800GT.

What was the closes CPU to Cell on 2005 in the multi core area,the Antlon FX 55 or 57.?

The Antlon FX-55 was a $750+ CPU on 2005 the FX-57 $1,000 + the Gforce 7800 GT already you are close to $1500 in those 2 areas alone,maybe now you begin to understand why Gamespot came with that number.

Things PC are cheap today on 2005 there where not so cheap, now you can buy a Phenon quad core CPU for what $100 back on 2005 it was close to $1,000,i have been a PC owner for year i even studi to be a PC repair man dude.

Which in fact make no sence now with how low PC's are,in the late 90's you cuold make $150 to $200 fixing some one more than $1500 PC,now with $300 you buy 1 now.

Ram is cheap gaming ram with low latancy wasn't cheap any one who is a serious PC gamer and tech junkie can confirm that to you,on 2005 gaming Ram would bleed your wallet dry.

360 back on top:shock:Am Cry:cry:

MortgageMan007

Bullshot or not, that screen isn't even impressive to start with. KZ3 is MILES ahead of that. It isn't even close.

[QUOTE="erglesmergle"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

hermits didn't invent the term "console graphics king". it was done by people who recognized what the graphics king was and wanted a way around it.

ImprovedMind

And whats wrong with that? Everyone knows Crysis and PC beats all. Its pointless to included Crysis and PCs in the discussion so a sub-category was created. Console graphics king.