Cutscene and ingame graphics seamless confirmed UC4

Crysis was far better in more ways than just textures and resolution. Between geometry, lighting, and post production effects like motion blur, along with the scale of the explorable environments, and framerates, Crysis was far more advanced than any console games of the last generation.

Crysis itself was ported to PS3 and the amount of downgraded tech was significant. Just because something comes out later doesn't mean it's more advanced, it just means they had more tricks to make you think what they want.

But again, even if you think the tech is "superior," the fact of the matter is Crysis is just the better looking game on a technical level. It easily beats GoW3 graphically, and any PS3 game really. Only a delusional cow would think otherwise.

@Vaasman: GoW 3 used advanced per object motion blur. It was amazing period. Kratos character model and some of the enemy models were as good if not better then what was in the original Crysis. Not to mention you would have up to 50 enemies on screen at a time vs Crysis which rarely had more then 5. The bottom line is there were things GoW 3 did better then Crysis. There were many things it did better then other games at the time as well.

That doesn't make it graphics king though. Because it has one or two nice pieces of tech doesn't mean it isn't way behind in other areas. Must we go down this road of extreme cow denial yet again?

@Vaasman: Comparing other games in the genre nothing was even close. The Hermit butthurt is hillarious. GoW 3 had you hurt then and UC4 will have you hurt now. The fact you jump into a thread just to talk Shit is hilarious.

Other titles in the genre? Boy you sure got desperate to change the subject all of a sudden.

@Vaasman: I didn't change the subject at all. It's dumbasses like you that compare scale of a open world fps to a action adventure game. As I said GoW had you butthurt then and UC4 has you butthurt now.

Except clearly it's you that's butthurt that I disagree, since you're so vehemently denying what is all but fact about games in the last generation, and resorting to baseless personal insults. I feel no butthurt from console releases that I play anyway.

GoW3 had great elements to it, and it was very impressive for it's limitations, but it wasn't graphics king. As a complete package, GoW3 didn't even come close to several PC titles. UC4 is likely the same way. If you want to deny that that's your opinion and that's okay, just don't be a raging lunatic about it.

@Vaasman: Except it did and it has the awards to prove it. All you have is a worthless opionion on SW. And UC4 is the same way? Lmao if it came out tomorrow it would stomp almost any game visually including those on PC.

I do not agree at all. There is no generally accepted rule that the player must have total control all of the time.

I don't censor games with lots of cutscenes; I'm merely saying it's shit. It's a criticism. Maybe you should actually learn what the difference between the two is before you start using your weak analogies.

That is simply not true. You did *not* say that cutscenes are shit. You said that you would be happier if one specific game -- namely Uncharted 4 -- had no cutscenes at all.

And shades of grey? How is that shades of grey? A game trying to be a movie by throwing in shitload of cutscenes and boringly scripted events is not a shade of grey, it's a failure as a colour. It contradicts its own medium's unique strength and decides to be something else without being better than that something else. It loses qualities of both medium instead of synthesizing them into something new, which is what all medium-hybrids should aspire to.

Again, that is *your* opinion. I do like cutscenes if they are done well. And I do not follow your definition of a good game at all. Particularly, I do not think that a good game must give total control to the player all of the time. And I do not like open world games that much. Believe it or not: That's a question of taste.

CANNOT FUCKING UNSEE!

Are you serious? I've already told you, it got awards because no one in 2010 was attempting to be graphically interesting. In a head on fight, GoW3 would be easily beaten on a technical level by games that had already released. You're denial at this point is beyond unhealthy.

Also as I've also already told you, U4 is NOT releasing tomorrow, it's going to be up against Witcher 3 ultra, Dreadnought, Order, Star Citizen and anything else releasing this year that has only barely been shown, like Unreal Tournament 4 and Total War: Atilla. Even if you think it's the best thing shown, bottom line is it's not coming any time soon and it's competition will be heavy by the time it releases later this year.

@Vaasman: Lmao, because a kid in system wars said "nobody wanted to make good looking games in 2010". Lmao really? That's your argument?

Every year people try to make better looking games, that has been known since the beginning of gaming. I'm sorry only games that impress you have Crysis in the title.

No seriously, go look at 2010, few titles if any attempted to push graphics. GoW3's only competition was probably Metro 2033. Maybe there's a bit of a case for Reach and RDR but neither of those games did much to truly compete. I never said they didn't want to make "good" looking games, just nothing that raised the bar for everyone.

And really, GoW 3 could win every graphics award in the book, which it didn't, but it only wins them because it didn't release against Crysis, which on a technical level was still ahead of all other games when GoW3 released. You really just need to get over that.

@Vaasman: Except it did, it won almost every visual award of its time. Halo Reach was arguably the best looking game on the 360 at the time. RDR was one of the best looking open world games at the time. Crysis was a good looking game on high end pc's that looked and ran like absolute crap on most pcs of the time.

I had a gtx 285 at the time that had dips below 30 fps. That was a $500 card that came out well after Crysis . That's not impressive to release a game and have to wait nearly 2 years before a single gpu can run it.

Question is what cpu did you have paired with that GTX 285? My old 8800GT SLI averaged around 50 fps at 1680x1050 never dipped below 32 fps.

@04dcarraher: an I 920. I ran it at 1080p. It generally stayed well above 30 but certain parts it would tank especially in crysis warhead.

No actually as far as I can tell it lost at quite a few places. It didn't even win best visuals at IGN. But all this is just a distraction as I've already mentioned. It could win all the awards it wants, it still wasn't a graphics king when it launched. It only pulls ahead in a few bullet points, otherwise it was nowhere near as complete a technical marvel as other games that had released before it. That you couldn't get Crysis running really has nothing to do with the points being made about either game.

@Vaasman: oh that's right ign gave it to Kirby epic yarn Lmao. Regardless GoW 3 won at more then half the gaming publications and was nominated by everyone. It was a stunning looking package for its time.

Problem with Crysis & Warhead were designed during the time were quad cores were just starting to emerge so the engine only ever used two cores. There were tweaking mods that actually tweaked the engine to allow it to run better while keeping the graphics and even able to enhance them too.

Blast Hardcheese.

"Cinematic"

And I can agree with that much. It was an excellent looking title for it's limitations and when it came out. Just, not a graphics king by the time it launched.

Note that I've never said that I think it or U4 were unimpressive. Just that they aren't THAT impressive.

Even if you want to argue that U4 will be the best looking title, it's only a very marginal improvement over what's come before, to a degree that several people, including myself, find it's merit as the "best game on a technical level" to be highly debatable. Uncharted 4 is not the Gears of War 1 of this generation.

@Vaasman: The Gears of war of this generation? That will go to the order 1886 as it comes out in a few weeks. However if UC 4 manages to look slightly better and do it on a much larger scale then that is impressive. The law of diminishing returns applies to everything now. We literally argue about how some hair moves better then the other or how one game has 2 more trees in the distance.

@robert_mueller:

I don't care for cut scenes most of the time but Uncharted does a pretty good job. There's that truck part in Uncharted 2 which I actually though was a cut scene until I thought, "jeez I'm actually p,aging this?!" Uncharted cutscenes are more exposition than anything else.

Ninja Gaiden on NES had amazing cutscenes.

Yeah man, The Witcher 3 is going to crush everything out there. CD Projekt Red said themselves hat they want to make the best looking game ever made and we all know they're more than capable of doing so when you look at their track record. The Witcher 3 on PC is going to be godly. My PC will be more than ready as I'm doing a major overhaul within the next couple of months - I'm going to officially leave my consoles in the dust with an i7-5820K, 16 GB's of ram, and dual 970's. Can't fucking wait.

Wow PS4 games trashing anything on PC right now. Neckbeards smashing their own scrotums with hammers just to dull the pain of realizing how much time and money they wasted on their nerd rigs....

Lol!

So it is like Ryse: Son of Rome. Welcome to 2013.

Definitly graphics king yes but overall graphics king? not a chance even Crsis 2 DX11 still looks better.

But Metro 2033 does look more impressive in Gow 3 in my opinion and GOW 3 only looks that good and has that much scale because of static camera angles.

Also, it's clear you know jack shit about graphics because graphics is a combination of both technical power AND artstyle, GOW 3 would not look as good on a less powerful machine than the Ps3 would it?

Your argument works both ways, thats the problem.

Am I dreaming or some people are really that stupid to think that blurry mess and linear game with fixed camera aka Gow3 was more impressive than Crysis/Crysis Warhead built from ground up for top of the line PCs?

I cannot enjoy graphics without proper narrative. Most Crytek games are nothing more than tech demos for me. But when graphics is the one and only criterion, then you are certainly right.

This thread is NOT about the story.

Well, it is about the transition between cutscenes an ingame graphics which is most relevant for story-driven games.

No. Story = Writing.

You are telling me you haven't encountered cows before?

That's clear, but what is the point of cutscenes when the story/writing is weak?

I am a big fan and defender of cutscenes, but without good story/writing they are rather pointless.

And if they are pointless anyway, then superior graphical execution does not make them less pointless.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I mentioned graphics then you mentioned story. When I said, this thread is not about Story then you said, graphics are important for story. Then I said, good story is related to writing and now you started to talk about execution.

EDIT:

I know what you are trying to say and I don't disagree with you. I just mentioned Crysis that it was technically more impressive than Gow 3.

@delta3074: It doesn't matter what hardware you were running metro 2033 on. The animations still sucked and the character models looked like dolls.

All his discrepancies with GoW were res and framerate. The only design decisions that would effect it across hardware is fixed camera angles. Saying a game looks better because it has a higher res and framerate has nothing to do with the technical visuals of a game especially when you have unlimited configurations of hardware to run it on.

i think you missed the point of what i am saying, i think Metro 2033 looks better period, nothing to do with higher framerate or Technical graphics.

Best looking=/= Technical graphics.

Better looking to most people is down to there personal preference in art style which is why some people will say that gears 3 looks better than UC3 despite the fact we know that UC 3 is better graphically from a technical perspective.

As my old man always used to say 'Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder' and 'one mans trash is another mans gold'

and animations is more about immersive factors than whether a game looks good or not, thats more along the performance line.

Besides, the whole point in gaming is about escapism so Nitpicking about things like realistic animations will fall on deaf ears with me, they are games they are not supposed to accurately reflect real life that would be defeating the point of games in the first place.

Take uncharted 3 for example, damn good looking game but the angle of the gun when you shot in third person looks dodgy and well out of place whereas in gears it looks more realistic but that doesn't stop UC being the better looking game in my opinion.

They said the same in the past....

lol console gfx. 2nd place every gen. GIO, give up.

I wonder if Uncharted 4 is going to beat The Order for the title of graphics king, it's going to be hard since it's much more open. Probably going to see a big upgrade like all the other PS4 exclusives, especially if they decide to go with 30 fps.

The trend for PS4 exclusives so far has been reveal, downgrade claims, then upgrade.

I hope you either

A. Mean console gfx king.

B. Trolling like Gio,M3boarder,M3dude,GpuKing (all same person)

No, I mean graphics king. Including the most powerful of supercomputers.

@delta3074: Animation is a technical aspect. It requires processing power hence the reason animation has constantly improved as hardware has improved.. Are visuals subjective? Absolutely but I happen to think GoW 3 looked better and it actually had the rewards to back it up.

Animation is so important that's why games like oblivion are hard to play. Nothing kills a game like seeing your character run like they left the hangar in there pants.

Oh,

C. Satire.

I hate when everyone labels comedic satire automatically trolling on the internet. Kudos to you, sir.

Except this is what you first said...

Now you make excuses for your idiotic and fanboy comment that is pretty much just summed up to YOUR personal nobody bias SW fanboy opinion.

You are a nobody in the industry so your personal take on what deserves something vs what doesn't means nothing objectively. Lets make it clear

GS giving GOW3 graphics GOTY 2010 >>>>>>>>>>> your nobody bias SW forum poster personal opinion.

I get where you are coming from , whereas i don't mind or really notice wonky animations it's a big thing for you and i respect that, thats the whole point of personal preference, you prefer the way GOW looks i prefer the way Metro 2033 looks, ain't nothing wrong with that and neither of us is wrong we just both have different aspects that we focus on in games.

TBH i Know exactly what you mean about Oblivion, the dodgy animations in third person View are seriously noticeable in that game thats why i never play it in third person

uc4 going to be graphic king no doubt

So the downgrade will apply to the cutscene's as well. That's a shame.