Bungie or Insomniac: Which one is more technically talented?

Bungie.
Bungie even as a first party relatively went without much support outside of monetary from microsoft.
where as sony literally hires programming farms for their first party games.

WilliamRLBaker

Good thing Insomniac is a 100% independent company then.....>.>

Not to mention you have no proof of this hiring of "programming farms".

Seriously, the way people are talking in this thread you would think Ted Price sits with his feet up at his desk smoking cigars while some coding monkeys come in and do the work for them.

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

Halo 3 has much better lighting and the texture rez is though the roof for a console game, but the lack of AF makes this worthless. Yea, r2 is probably more technically impressive.

Better lighting you say?

I guess its perfectly natural for large objects to not have shdows right?

And human faces look like ass too.

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

Halo 3 has much better lighting and the texture rez is though the roof for a console game, but the lack of AF makes this worthless. Yea, r2 is probably more technically impressive.

TheGrat1

Better lighting you say?

I guess its perfectly natural for large objects to not have shdows right?

And human faces look like ass too.

[QUOTE="TheGrat1"]*Looks at Halo 3* *looks at R&C Future and Resistance 2* Insomniac by a landslide. [QUOTE="-Snooze-"]That's incorrect. I never claimed it was insomniacs fault. I said that whilst Sony gives the devs a fantastic engine, tons of support, MS dose not. This meaking it easy for insomniac to make a better game, regardless of there skill. Also, Halo is FAR more "perfect" online then resistance.Ninja-Hippo

They do not own Insomniac Games. At all. :|

Where do people get this stuff from?

And I believe the average PS3 game costs about 16-17 million dollars to make so yes, it is considerably more.

before halo3 i would have said bungie. despite its glitches, halo2 is a technical miracle on the xbox. they must have not only used every trick in the book to get it working..they must have made a new book of tricks in the process. but halo3 is just such a technical dissapointment. a team that could squeez halo2 out of the xbox could only get the 360 to produce what it did for halo3. its not even running at 720P for heavens sake. its not like bungie were stuck for cash or time. maybe they compromised it to make sure the MP was smooth and, to its credit, halo3 does tick along at a nice pace and i dont remember it ever having a framerate problem. but is that really the best bungie could squeez out of the 360? its not a bad looking game of course but, from a technical perspective.....i thought they would get the 360 to really shine. epic have done a better job on the 360 from a technical perspective to be honest.osan0

[QUOTE="TheGrat1"]

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

Halo 3 has much better lighting and the texture rez is though the roof for a console game, but the lack of AF makes this worthless. Yea, r2 is probably more technically impressive.

Better lighting you say?

I guess its perfectly natural for large objects to not have shdows right?

And human faces look like ass too.

What a surprise, the main 360 fanboys of the board all say Bungie obviously. Consistent trend I notice. That's why these same fanboys only get excited for xbox 360 only titles/multiplatforms, but no PS3 games. I think the true experienced gamers, KNOW good games and will play focus on the games, not the console.

mD-

I don't really care whether you like Halo or not. I'd just like to see things accurately represented ;) There are a lot of graphical tricks in work for certain types of Shadows in Halo 3... One, which I've noticed in many games in the past is that it starts to blur certain shadows as you get further from them, and eventually they disappear entirely - before the object that was casting the shadow does. Your incident on top of the tower was probably due to this. That being the case, I still consider that the exception to the rule in how good certain darkness types effects look in Halo - I found their reaction to weapon's fire to be spectacular, and it really gave a great look to the very frequent gunfights in the game. Something like the large-object shadows at a distance is a rare thing in the game - but since they made things which happen every 2 minutes look great, I'd say they really nailed what should have been their priority. Besides, the Scarab's explosion has sweet lighting ;) Anyways, why bother proving your claim to Halo fanboys? They won't believe it even if you smack them in the face with proof. The facts of the matter are that Insomniac made darn near two very good looking games in the time it took Bungie to make Halo 3. Halo 3 has its strong points technically (I only respond because I consider lighting to be one of them), but overall, it doesn't look better than games Inosmniac in less time. It's arguable it even looks worse. From a purely technical standpoint concerning graphics, Insomniac simply accomplished more in less time.Shafftehr

I would say Bungie games have better gameplay, but insomniac kills in the visual/innovative department. I would've said Insomniac if this was Halo 3 vs Resistance 1, but I thought R2 was terrible.

[QUOTE="Shafftehr"] I don't really care whether you like Halo or not. I'd just like to see things accurately represented ;) There are a lot of graphical tricks in work for certain types of Shadows in Halo 3... One, which I've noticed in many games in the past is that it starts to blur certain shadows as you get further from them, and eventually they disappear entirely - before the object that was casting the shadow does. Your incident on top of the tower was probably due to this. That being the case, I still consider that the exception to the rule in how good certain darkness types effects look in Halo - I found their reaction to weapon's fire to be spectacular, and it really gave a great look to the very frequent gunfights in the game. Something like the large-object shadows at a distance is a rare thing in the game - but since they made things which happen every 2 minutes look great, I'd say they really nailed what should have been their priority. Besides, the Scarab's explosion has sweet lighting ;) Anyways, why bother proving your claim to Halo fanboys? They won't believe it even if you smack them in the face with proof. The facts of the matter are that Insomniac made darn near two very good looking games in the time it took Bungie to make Halo 3. Halo 3 has its strong points technically (I only respond because I consider lighting to be one of them), but overall, it doesn't look better than games Inosmniac in less time. It's arguable it even looks worse. From a purely technical standpoint concerning graphics, Insomniac simply accomplished more in less time.TheGrat1

I think both are great at what they do, but neither really stands out to me.

Eh, fair enough. Maybe you have an early model XBOX and the graphics card is starting to chug on you? I do notice scarab shadows, though they don't look spectacular... Oh well, I don't care enough about this to argue. So, have a good day ;)Shafftehr

[QUOTE="TheGrat1"] And I alwways wanted to know, what is DNF?Shafftehr

insomniac, no contest.

There are some areas in which Bungie is better and some areas where Insomniac is better.

themyth01

Insomniac is 100x better when it comes to technical aspects of a game. Graphically they are ahead of Bungie and they always manage to pull off minor miracles in the video game world (60 player lagless, flawless multiplayer).So if we are talking technically talented, then Insomniac gets a landslide victory. If you are talking about which company produces the best games, thats all up to the player.II_Seraphim_II

that has nothing to do with the devs abilities, psn is server based and xbl is p2p.

I think people are confused. This thread isnt about which Dev is better or which game is better. Its about which dev is technically more talented. Which dev is able to get the most out of their respective system. So yes, I agree that Halo is better than Resistance, but Insomniac are more technically talented devs than Bungie. Im not saying that they are better devs, just saying that when it comes to getting the most out of the hardware, Insomniac pushes harder.II_Seraphim_II

I would say Bungie games have better gameplay, but insomniac kills in the visual/innovative department. I would've said Insomniac if this was Halo 3 vs Resistance 1, but I thought R2 was terrible.

bigblunt537

How the hell are Insomniac far more innovative when most of their fps gameplay ideas are taken straight out of Halo.

I'd say any studio that can deal with PS3 archtecture and make a good looking and smooth running game is pretty technically talented. And has thick skin and a big check from Sony.

clearly insomniac..but u kno who is gonna argue about halo eing one of the best series eva and so on

Insomniac! their games are beautiful!RedruM_I

[QUOTE="gamer620"][QUOTE="NYrockinlegend"]Insomniac, because they created three great franchises whereas bungie only made halo so far. insomniac's games are better looking too. Other than that, they take off existent ideasNYrockinlegend

I remember the first time I played Ratchet and Clank. I was expecting it to be a platformer. It seemed like the developer thought "Well, we don't know how to properly make a platformer, so we'll throw in some guns and go the action route." From the need to cuss on the back of the first game's box art("you get to blow *$!@ up!") to Deadlocked, stripped of all platforming elements completely, I could never hold them in high regards.

I've bought all Ratchet and Clanks and all three Halos. I like each game series about the same, but In the end Bungie takes it in for the win.

"Technically" Insomniac created really smooth and good looking games on all the playstations, while Bungie's tech this gen have been far behind. Artistically, though, its hard to argue, but I would prefer insomniac because I love the art style of the ratchet and clank series.

Insomniac by a mile.

both are very good.but bungie,with its amazing support for its online component of halo.and the simple fact that they pretty much made the first good fps for a console.(other than maybe goldeneye).