PS3 never Tehnically Surpassed Geow2

Gears 2 didnt even look that great.... even for a 2009 game. broken 2xMSAA who really cares :? Gears desen't even need MSAA as proven by gears 3.

KZ3 looks exactly the same online and offline, except for the frame rate of course.

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]Probably you don't have play U1&U2,God of War 3,Killzone 2&3,Infamous 1&2,Resistance 3,Metal Gear Solid 4.DarkLink77

I personally think MGS4 looks better than Gears 2.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="AtariKidX"]Probably you don't have play U1&U2,God of War 3,Killzone 2&3,Infamous 1&2,Resistance 3,Metal Gear Solid 4.el3m2tigre

I personally think MGS4 looks better than Gears 2.

EDIT: Tbh, the MGS4 graphics are underrated.

[QUOTE="ermacness"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Did you seriously just say that MGS4, Uncharted: DF, and the original inFamous look better than Gears 2? Do we live in Bizzaro world now?DarkLink77

I like it how GS is the main squeeze as far as Gears and Halo is concerned, but as soon as MGS4 is in the mix, GS couldn't be anymore wrong.:lol:

[QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Did you seriously just say that MGS4, Uncharted: DF, and the original inFamous look better than Gears 2? Do we live in Bizzaro world now?sethman410

I personally think MGS4 looks better than Gears 2.

EDIT: Tbh, the MGS4 graphics are underrated.

Agreed. MGS4's graphics remind me a bit of Red Dead Redemption.

[QUOTE="GhoX"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Digital Foundry disagrees with you.DarkLink77

Probably you don't have play U1&U2,God of War 3,Killzone 2&3,Infamous 1&2,Resistance 3,Metal Gear Solid 4.AtariKidX

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="ermacness"]Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the same site that gave Gears 3 a "higher review than ANYTHING on the ps3" also stated that MGS4 boasted the best technical graphics that year, in which was coincidentally the same year that Gears 2 released.

ermacness

I like it how GS is the main squeeze as far as Gears and Halo is concerned, but as soon as MGS4 is in the mix, GS couldn't be anymore wrong.:lol:

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="GhoX"] You mean Eurogamer's Digital Foundry which only ever compares console graphics? Seeing how no console game has ever managed x8 MSAA, I can see how their opinion is valid and credible. [/sarcasm]GhoX

NO WAY, BRAH.

So have I. :o

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]Probably you don't have play U1&U2,God of War 3,Killzone 2&3,Infamous 1&2,Resistance 3,Metal Gear Solid 4.mitu123

i'm confused about why you would bring up GeoW 2 when GeoW 3 easily outmatches it along with all other console game at the moment.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]Probably you don't have play U1&U2,God of War 3,Killzone 2&3,Infamous 1&2,Resistance 3,Metal Gear Solid 4.DarkLink77

Is there any good looking ps3 shooter that can shell out 720p 2xMSAA online multiplayer with steady framerate? I say this is impossible on the ps3 because even the best of the best, UC2, KZ2/3, had to cut corners. UC2 online had zero AA. KZ2 had to use Quinctux, a less expensive and blurring AA alternative. UC3 & KZ3 are no different MLAA. this proves that the PS3 never technically beat the 360. You can oversaturate the colors to make it more appealing to the eyes but technically it shows. And this is from a guy who called Cliffy B a Cry babyrich-sac

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]Is there any good looking ps3 shooter that can shell out 720p 2xMSAA online multiplayer with steady framerate? I say this is impossible on the ps3 because even the best of the best, UC2, KZ2/3, had to cut corners. UC2 online had zero AA. KZ2 had to use Quinctux, a less expensive and blurring AA alternative. UC3 & KZ3 are no different MLAA. this proves that the PS3 never technically beat the 360. You can oversaturate the colors to make it more appealing to the eyes but technically it shows. And this is from a guy who called Cliffy B a Cry babym_machine024

I played Gears 2 yesterday..I think.

It looked great,whether it has technically surpassed anything is something I don't give 2 s***s about.

I wish people would drop it with console graphics. We'll most likely never get anything on par with PC graphics and arguing about consoles is like arguing about apples and oranges. And yes, the PS3 most likely has surpassed Gears 2 technically, I don't know all that stuff, but I do know that the PS3 is a powerful system , just like the 360.

[QUOTE="m_machine024"]

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]Is there any good looking ps3 shooter that can shell out 720p 2xMSAA online multiplayer with steady framerate? I say this is impossible on the ps3 because even the best of the best, UC2, KZ2/3, had to cut corners. UC2 online had zero AA. KZ2 had to use Quinctux, a less expensive and blurring AA alternative. UC3 & KZ3 are no different MLAA. this proves that the PS3 never technically beat the 360. You can oversaturate the colors to make it more appealing to the eyes but technically it shows. And this is from a guy who called Cliffy B a Cry babymitu123

Yes it did

Killzone 2 was flame for using backed shadows,when it has dynamic lighting,the game still port one of the best if not the best life like animation on a game,the lighting was incredible. Killzone 2 was so far ahead of Gears 2 it wasn't even close,still to this day Killzone 2 has better animation that Gears 3,and i would say better lighting to,at least from what i saw in the video and it did had AA unlike Gears 3.tormentos

Nah... Gears 3 looks better than Killzone 2 in lighting. Thanks in part to Lightmass and very high quality shadowing. Let's not forget Killzone 2 has no SSAO... Which lacks depth to lighting enviroments. Plus unlike Killzone 2, it doesn't skimp out on high resolution alpha effects.

Animation wise... You will be very surprised at the animations on the Locust and Lambent side of the coin. Very impressive stuff with the motion blur too.

As for Killzone 2's QAA it has it's trade offs.. It blurs the image and textures more so than any otherAA method available.

[QUOTE="tormentos"]Killzone 2 was flame for using backed shadows,when it has dynamic lighting,the game still port one of the best if not the best life like animation on a game,the lighting was incredible. Killzone 2 was so far ahead of Gears 2 it wasn't even close,still to this day Killzone 2 has better animation that Gears 3,and i would say better lighting to,at least from what i saw in the video and it did had AA unlike Gears 3.CorbraMax

Nah... Gears 3 looks better than Killzone 2 in lighting. Thanks in part to Lightmass and very high quality shadowing. Let's not forget Killzone 2 has no SSAO... Which lacks depth to lighting enviroments. Plus unlike Killzone 2, it doesn't skimp out on high resolution alpha effects.

Animation wise... You will be very surprised at the animations on the Locust and Lambent side of the coin. Very impressive stuff with the motion blur too.

As for Killzone 2's QAA it has it's trade offs.. It blurs the image and textures more so than any otherAA method available.

I had to check and see if this was made in 08'.

lol

You completly lost me with saying "20p 2xMSAA" what exactly does that mean? :?.. yes i not an expert in computer stuff or whatever they name graphics :lol:

finalstar2007

[QUOTE="CorbraMax"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"]Killzone 2 was flame for using backed shadows,when it has dynamic lighting,the game still port one of the best if not the best life like animation on a game,the lighting was incredible. Killzone 2 was so far ahead of Gears 2 it wasn't even close,still to this day Killzone 2 has better animation that Gears 3,and i would say better lighting to,at least from what i saw in the video and it did had AA unlike Gears 3.tormentos

Nah... Gears 3 looks better than Killzone 2 in lighting. Thanks in part to Lightmass and very high quality shadowing. Let's not forget Killzone 2 has no SSAO... Which lacks depth to lighting enviroments. Plus unlike Killzone 2, it doesn't skimp out on high resolution alpha effects.

Animation wise... You will be very surprised at the animations on the Locust and Lambent side of the coin. Very impressive stuff with the motion blur too.

As for Killzone 2's QAA it has it's trade offs.. It blurs the image and textures more so than any otherAA method available.

In that very same video... Uncharted 2 and both Gears 3 have a much better lighting solution. It's all about how light and shadows interact. After the footage I posted of Gears 3 I don't really see how anyone can argue that now.

Also funny that you mention framerate drops. Killzone 2 is less stable than Gears 3 in regards to framerate. When youpush more alpha effects your GPU will buckle under the pressure.

*Looks at GOW3 and UC2*

Alrighty then...

Does it matter though?

MLAA and FXAA are post processing techniques to heavily blur the outlines of objects. MSAA and CSAA are different techniques that are superior although they are usually more performance intensive. There are also techniques like 8xSQAA or 4x4 SS. MLAA is not that great especially in motion where aliasing is more pronounced. It's better than no AA and 2xMSAA if you don't mind the blur but 4xMSAA and higher is much more crisp. The PC also has Transparency Supersampling which gets rid of aliasing on certain objects that MSAA/CSAA doesn't cover.RyviusARC

I think these 2 pictures illustrate the differences between 4xmsaa and mlaa fairly well:

The top picture is 4xmsaa. The buildings in the upper right and hud elements in the lower left are still aliased.

The bottom picture is mlaa. The buildings and hud elements are no longer aliased, but the textures on the wall to the left are slightly blurrier.

It's a tradeoff imo, and looking at close objects like the gun, I'd be hard pressed to say that 4xmsaa gets rid of aliasing better on the objects that it covers (it also runs 2-3 times worse than mlaa in the case of hard reset).

[QUOTE="GhoX"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] More credible than Random Guy #24816 on a video game forum. :o Come at me, bro.DarkLink77

NO WAY, BRAH.

So have I. :o

To post above:

MLAA's greatest flaw is in motion, static screenshots offer poor comparisons. Further Hard Reset isn't the best game for comparing AAs. The fact that the UI isn't aliased suggests that the game has problematic coding in the area of supporting MSAA.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="GhoX"] Considering I've actually had experience with x4 to x16 MSAA in many PC games, I indeed have more grounds to make statements concerning the quality of AA than a console graphics comparison article that has only ever been nitpicking the minute differences between 360 and PS3.

GhoX

NO WAY, BRAH.

So have I. :o

I have no idea what you're on about but Killzone 2/3 both look better than Gears online. Uncharted 2 looked like crap in MP though. Still Gears 2 was unplayable online.

Qwark-PS-Snake

[QUOTE="GhoX"] No, you are wrong. Its job is not to blur ugly textures or whatnot; its job is to blur the jagged edges of models, which will always look ugly. Even the best games; even Crysis have jagged edges if AA is not applied. All modern 3D games are made this way, and AA is the only solution as of now. nVidia doesn't have a visual advantage over ATi in terms of gaming visuals. Don't state inaccurate things just to push the argument in favour of your preferred console.ZombieKiller7

AA applies to the whole image, not "edges." Depends on the method of Anti aliasing, sure you can have a crappy full screen blur, but something like MSAA only applies AA to edges, leaving what is inside a polygon alone.

Crysis sucks. Subjective you may not like it, but the game is universally and critically acclaimed, and many people think it is a great game

Nvidia has always produced better looking images than ATi. This might have been true many, many years ago, but that claim now is just plain wrong.

[QUOTE="GhoX"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] It's not like Gears has 2XAA on every object, though. And until you get up to 8XAA, MLAA and FXAA is better. Kind of a moot point.DarkLink77

Well "technically" the job of AA is to blur things. It's a crutch used by developers to hide things that look bad, by putting a blur on them, because that often looks better. That's what MSAA, MLAA, QAA, etc are. They blur parts of the game, to make it look better. You won't get far boasting about 2xAA on Xbox360 games. That just proves that the textures are ugly and they are hiding it with blur. Of course PS3 games do it too. It's nothing to be proud of. All I'll say is this. 360 uses ATI, PS3 uses Nvidia. It's why 360 games all look canned. Nvidia has always produced cleaner, crisper colors. Besides that difference they are basically the same, and dependent on the developers.ZombieKiller7

Seems like a valid argument but ssshhhhh...

The cows will want to bury this thread quickly.

brennanhuff

All those fancy numbers mean nothing at all. Real world performance is all that matters.

[QUOTE="tormentos"]Killzone 2 was flame for using backed shadows,when it has dynamic lighting,the game still port one of the best if not the best life like animation on a game,the lighting was incredible. Killzone 2 was so far ahead of Gears 2 it wasn't even close,still to this day Killzone 2 has better animation that Gears 3,and i would say better lighting to,at least from what i saw in the video and it did had AA unlike Gears 3.CorbraMax

Nah... Gears 3 looks better than Killzone 2 in lighting. Thanks in part to Lightmass and very high quality shadowing. Let's not forget Killzone 2 has no SSAO... Which lacks depth to lighting enviroments. Plus unlike Killzone 2, it doesn't skimp out on high resolution alpha effects.

Animation wise... You will be very surprised at the animations on the Locust and Lambent side of the coin. Very impressive stuff with the motion blur too.

As for Killzone 2's QAA it has it's trade offs.. It blurs the image and textures more so than any otherAA method available.

The animation in all Gears of War games are stiff,point blank.

Anyone who says otherwise is in some serious denial.

[QUOTE="CorbraMax"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"]Killzone 2 was flame for using backed shadows,when it has dynamic lighting,the game still port one of the best if not the best life like animation on a game,the lighting was incredible. Killzone 2 was so far ahead of Gears 2 it wasn't even close,still to this day Killzone 2 has better animation that Gears 3,and i would say better lighting to,at least from what i saw in the video and it did had AA unlike Gears 3.sakura_Ex

Nah... Gears 3 looks better than Killzone 2 in lighting. Thanks in part to Lightmass and very high quality shadowing. Let's not forget Killzone 2 has no SSAO... Which lacks depth to lighting enviroments. Plus unlike Killzone 2, it doesn't skimp out on high resolution alpha effects.

Animation wise... You will be very surprised at the animations on the Locust and Lambent side of the coin. Very impressive stuff with the motion blur too.

As for Killzone 2's QAA it has it's trade offs.. It blurs the image and textures more so than any otherAA method available.

The animation in all Gears of War games are stiff,point blank.

Anyone who says otherwise is in some serious denial.

No I'm specifically talking about their animations. If you actually played it you would have room for comment. This isn't 2008 Unreal Engine 3 tech. Get with the times.

So wait....we're not doing whih graphics looks better anymore, just which graphics look better on paper? :|

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="GhoX"] I don't care about Gears, but claiming that MLAA or FXAA are superior than MSAA in terms of quality is plainly wrong. MSAA looks better than both those post-processing AAs in motion any day. It may be the oldest and most resource-using AA, but its quality is still regarded as the best. At 1080p, x2 MSAA would look better than MLAA/FXAA either in motion or stillframe; x4 MSAA would simply be overkill compared to MLAA/FXAA.ronvalencia

Is there a difference between driver forced mlaa like in the catalyst control center and native in game mlaa?