Infamous 2 is one ugly game.

^ since there seems to be a red dead redemption discussion going on, I will say that all things considered, the games are pretty much even. the only reason I give the edge to red dead is because it has AA, and infamous 2 doesn't. that makes a pretty significant difference.

RDR looked like crap. I rented the 360 version and the framerate made me want to vomit. Really fun game but suffered severely being stuck on extremely old hardware....

^ since there seems to be a red dead redemption discussion going on, I will say that all things considered, the games are pretty much even. the only reason I give the edge to red dead is because it has AA, and infamous 2 doesn't. that makes a pretty significant difference.

theuncharted34

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

well, I thought this might be a troll thread. infamous 2 looks great for an open world game, and while there are better looking games like RDR out there, it doesn't beat Infamous 2 by much at all.

improvements over the first infamous include - higher resolution textures and better character models, and FAR less object pop up which was my major gripe of the first.It is a HUGE improvement over the first graphically. and thanks to it's great art style it's a pretty game to look at. not to mention it has good particle effects and destruction which wasn't in the first at all.

and OMG the powers were so awesome :D the flow of the game is much faster and fluid than the first, and did I mention the awesome powers? :P the demo didn't show much of them, but the one's that were there were really cool. the first was a great game, and infamous 2 will be OUTSTANDING. I can't wait to pick up this beast next week 8)

TheGuardian03

it has a few dips, but I think those will be ironed out in the final game.

between this and e3, I am just too excited for words :P

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

^ since there seems to be a red dead redemption discussion going on, I will say that all things considered, the games are pretty much even. the only reason I give the edge to red dead is because it has AA, and infamous 2 doesn't. that makes a pretty significant difference.

Shinobishyguy

yeah, but I was just talking about the 360 version :P the ps3 version doesn't compare.

[QUOTE="da_illest101"]

let's be honest here the demo was quite average, but it was the same for the first infamous who turned out to be an uglyCrackdown knock-off

c49thaine

Broke

It does not have amazing visuals, but they are definitely not ugly. It is just that the jaggies and aliasing take away from it on the whole. It is indeed better looking than the first one, though. The character models and colors are big improvements and some of the effects are great looking as well.

Anyway, I can't get enough gliding around the city, picking up and hurling cars and just raising hell in general. Of course, I loved the first one, so it is given that I would dig the sequel. My pre-order remains firmly intact. Can't wait.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

^ since there seems to be a red dead redemption discussion going on, I will say that all things considered, the games are pretty much even. the only reason I give the edge to red dead is because it has AA, and infamous 2 doesn't. that makes a pretty significant difference.

TheGuardian03

that's why I say they're pretty much even as far as the core games go, RDR has higher res textures, and slightly better draw distance, but Infamous 2 has WAY more things going on, and tons of particle effects. only thing missing from infamous 2 is AA, but idc it looks outstanding for an open world game :)

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="TheGuardian03"] RDR is in the desert doesn't have much going on screen, and the towns are small with not many NPC's infamous 2 has much going on screen, anyways Assassins creed brotherhood looks better than both.rumbalumba

Believe it or not,good terrain(complex) needs more polygons than bunch of boxes(city games).Plus when you factor in ALOT of vegetation and grass it takes a huuge hit on console bandwidth(lots of alphas).

ROFL. stop kidding yourself. Red Dead's vegetation is not even that good. all the grass are in 2d. with inFamous 2 you have particle effects, different animations, different AI, special effects for different powers, explosions, etc.

with Red Dead there's not even any particle effect. the blood does not even look great. i mean, seriously. the animations are clunky. the whole game has tons of glitches and bugs. inFamous 2 hands down has better performance. with Red Dead the framerate dips jsut by rotating the camera or just travelling on ah orse. whattajoke. in Red Dead it's a terrain with nothing on it. with inFamous you get enemy AI, you get dozens of pedestrians walking, reacting, you get cars, almost everything in the environment is interactive. with Red Dead you can't even climb or jump. very limited.

Your stupid post really itches me to put you DF performance analysis which proves that RDR on 360 has NOT A SINGLE frame rate drop in wild.Not a single one.
Animations?I think everyone will agree that RDR spanks majority of games when it comes to animations.Shooting guys in leg and they realistically fall,wrapping a guy and tying it on horse and than dragging it around,they realistically react to it.Horses move extremely realistically and I have never played a game that has horses move that good,even Betsheda said that if they can't bring it to that levle they won't put any in Skyrim.Lighting is better by some margine in RDR(except for ofcourse amazing looking powers,they didn't have those in old west).Day/night cycles,facial animations,AA etc all go to RDR.

And 2D grass...REALLY?This must be the dumbest thing I have read on SW.What do you expect grass to look like in video game??

[QUOTE="TheGuardian03"][QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

^ since there seems to be a red dead redemption discussion going on, I will say that all things considered, the games are pretty much even. the only reason I give the edge to red dead is because it has AA, and infamous 2 doesn't. that makes a pretty significant difference.

theuncharted34

that's why I say they're pretty much even as far as the core games go, RDR has higher res textures, and slightly better draw distance, but Infamous 2 has WAY more things going on, and tons of particle effects. only thing missing from infamous 2 is AA, but idc it looks outstanding for an open world game :)

There is no game on consoles(bar JC2) that has bigger draw distance and IF2 draw distance is actually quite meh.There is constant fot/blur(same like in IF1) that hides buildings(possibly because LOD transaction).

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"] RDR on the ps3 looked kinda jagged.

TheGuardian03

yeah, but I was just talking about the 360 version :P the ps3 version doesn't compare.

the ps3 version runs in sub hd, and uses quincux AA. not a good combination :P

I don't want to see a single game next gen using quincux. it gets rid of more jaggies than MSAA, but I hate the loss of detail.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="TheGuardian03"] Not to mention it has destruction and powers which you can destroy the city with :P, RDR doesn't have that.Bus-A-Bus

that's why I say they're pretty much even as far as the core games go, RDR has higher res textures, and slightly better draw distance, but Infamous 2 has WAY more things going on, and tons of particle effects. only thing missing from infamous 2 is AA, but idc it looks outstanding for an open world game :)

There is no game on consoles(bar JC2) that has bigger draw distance and IF2 draw distance is actually quite meh.There is constant fot/blur(same like in IF1) that hides buildings(possibly because LOD transaction).

just cause 2 may have impressive draw distance, but the pop up (not to mention terrible textures, and really low resolution) is laughably bad.

I know red dead has a pretty nice lead in draw distance, but there's barely anything going on at all.

im looking at it right now and its improved alot over the 1st one! how can u even compare these visuals to crackdown 2?????

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

that's why I say they're pretty much even as far as the core games go, RDR has higher res textures, and slightly better draw distance, but Infamous 2 has WAY more things going on, and tons of particle effects. only thing missing from infamous 2 is AA, but idc it looks outstanding for an open world game :)

theuncharted34

There is no game on consoles(bar JC2) that has bigger draw distance and IF2 draw distance is actually quite meh.There is constant fot/blur(same like in IF1) that hides buildings(possibly because LOD transaction).

just cause 2 may have impressive draw distance, but the pop up (not to mention terrible textures, and really low resolution) is laughably bad.

I know red dead has a pretty nice lead in draw distance, but there's barely anything going on at all.

Well...thats how wild west looks like.I still stand by mine statemant.IF2 looks great for open world game,but I find RDR and probably ACB better looking

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

There is no game on consoles(bar JC2) that has bigger draw distance and IF2 draw distance is actually quite meh.There is constant fot/blur(same like in IF1) that hides buildings(possibly because LOD transaction).

Bus-A-Bus

just cause 2 may have impressive draw distance, but the pop up (not to mention terrible textures, and really low resolution) is laughably bad.

I know red dead has a pretty nice lead in draw distance, but there's barely anything going on at all.

Well...thats how wild west looks like.I still stand by mine statemant.IF2 looks great for open world game,but I find RDR and probably ACB better looking

well, better looking is subjective, personally I prefer infamous 2's look. technically though it's pretty close besides AA.

Haven't played Assasins creed brotherhood, but it does look good. how does it compare technically though?

Honestly I am lost for words. This game looks amazing in all the trailers but has anyone played it?. It almost looks as bad as Crackdown 2. Anyone hyping this as open world graphics king prepare for dissapointment. Also the gameplay is average, I bet my account it won't get AAA here.

Anyone else played it?.

BigBoss255

no dont say that. this is my most hypped game ever. infamous was an amazing game but had serious crappy graphics. but infamous 2 looks amazing what are u taking about, the gameplay videos looks great.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

just cause 2 may have impressive draw distance, but the pop up (not to mention terrible textures, and really low resolution) is laughably bad.

I know red dead has a pretty nice lead in draw distance, but there's barely anything going on at all.

theuncharted34

Well...thats how wild west looks like.I still stand by mine statemant.IF2 looks great for open world game,but I find RDR and probably ACB better looking

well, better looking is subjective, personally I prefer infamous 2's look. technically though it's pretty close besides AA.

Haven't played Assasins creed brotherhood, but it does look good. how does it compare technically though?

Well it looks like AC2 in bigger city,better draw distance,added SSAO and motion blur.Oh and it has considarably better looking indoors and Desmond sequences.

Honestly I am lost for words. This game looks amazing in all the trailers but has anyone played it?. It almost looks as bad as Crackdown 2. Anyone hyping this as open world graphics king prepare for dissapointment. Also the gameplay is average, I bet my account it won't get AAA here.

Anyone else played it?.

BigBoss255

I say we change the thread title to "infamous 2 is one GLORIOUS game"

yea, i've been hearing the game looks like s***. too bad.

Haters will hate, and to the guy above, how about you play the game first before spitting bile damn, atleast go to a friends house and politely ask if you could play hir or her ps3 for 45 minutes.

It looks better than RDR which brown with tints of orange, in an empty landscape but had really good ligthing and atmosphere.

If it is as fun to play as the original, then honestly I couldn't be a***d.

I guess I'm the only one bothered by the fact that there aren't ragdoll physics of any kind? but there are general physics..the demo is good from what I played but that just bothers me since practically every game has some kind of physics system involved. Just makes the game seem weird.katana_duo

[QUOTE="katana_duo"]I guess I'm the only one bothered by the fact that there aren't ragdoll physics of any kind? but there are general physics..the demo is good from what I played but that just bothers me since practically every game has some kind of physics system involved. Just makes the game seem weird.mrmusicman247

you infamous lovers sure don't have any expectations of infamous 2 improving on the former in any way, shape or form, do you?

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"][QUOTE="katana_duo"]I guess I'm the only one bothered by the fact that there aren't ragdoll physics of any kind? but there are general physics..the demo is good from what I played but that just bothers me since practically every game has some kind of physics system involved. Just makes the game seem weird.meatgrinderz

you infamous lovers sure don't have any expectations of infamous 2 improving on the former in any way, shape or form, do you?

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"][QUOTE="katana_duo"]I guess I'm the only one bothered by the fact that there aren't ragdoll physics of any kind? but there are general physics..the demo is good from what I played but that just bothers me since practically every game has some kind of physics system involved. Just makes the game seem weird.meatgrinderz

you infamous lovers sure don't have any expectations of infamous 2 improving on the former in any way, shape or form, do you?

[QUOTE="meatgrinderz"]

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"] Eh. The first one didn't have them. So I don't really care. mrmusicman247

you infamous lovers sure don't have any expectations of infamous 2 improving on the former in any way, shape or form, do you?

the graphics appear to be at best "decently improved". just read the opinions of people in this thread.

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"][QUOTE="meatgrinderz"]

you infamous lovers sure don't have any expectations of infamous 2 improving on the former in any way, shape or form, do you?

meatgrinderz

the graphics appear to be at best "decently improved". just read the opinions of people in this thread.

its a demo i think the final game will look better? and even if it dont who cares ima buy it infamous was great

[QUOTE="meatgrinderz"]

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"] >.> Have you not seen any videos of Infamous 2? It improves almost in every way of Infamous. Ragdoll physics were not essential nor were they a complaint in the first game. It's preference thing. mrmusicman247

the graphics appear to be at best "decently improved". just read the opinions of people in this thread.

[QUOTE="meatgrinderz"]

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"] >.> Have you not seen any videos of Infamous 2? It improves almost in every way of Infamous. Ragdoll physics were not essential nor were they a complaint in the first game. It's preference thing. mrmusicman247

the graphics appear to be at best "decently improved". just read the opinions of people in this thread.

[QUOTE="meatgrinderz"]

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"] Eh. The first one didn't have them. So I don't really care. mrmusicman247

you infamous lovers sure don't have any expectations of infamous 2 improving on the former in any way, shape or form, do you?

If people don't want to buy games based on graphics, then its their problem. The game actually looks pretty good in motion. Won't be a day one buy for me but I'll get it somewhere down the line.

It's not exactly in the league of Uncharted, Crysis, Gears of War, but it's not hideous either.