Show me these AMAZING console graphics.

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] These are good for console standards.

mitu123

nah, too much brown

Kameo looks amazing, im calling that the best graphics on consoles

the early PS2 games like FFX, MGS2, Budokai 1 looked better than most PS2 games down the track, not a big deal

Mario 64 also looked alot better than many N64 games

I see a lot of graphic similarities between Gears 3 and Bulletstorm.

jun_aka_pekto

Well no sh*t

Why do people think that good graphics means realistic graphics?

There are 10 year old games that look better than most games that are released today.

Sorry had to do this:

:P

[QUOTE="skinyfatso"]

These are not mine but i think they look good.

>1080p GOW3 shot with 16xAA

seems legit

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

[QUOTE="skinyfatso"]

These are not mine but i think they look good.

mike_on_mic

>1080p GOW3 shot with 16xAA

seems legit

I'll never forget the day I brought my PS3, a copy of Killzone 2 and a brand spanking new HDTV. I rushed home ripped open the boxes, set everything up popped in the disc and watched the intro movie, so far I was impressed and then the actual game started....... "WHAT THE %&** IS THIS?!?!?!?" The graphics were so bad I seriously thought something was wrong with my console, after 10 - 15 mins I popped in GTA4 and to my surprise it was far far worse. I mean people were haling KZ2 as graphics king when it looked as if someone had smeared turd all over my brand new TV (game play was good though).

I thought uncharted 2 was amazing though, other then that consoles have been meh

Wow!!!! :lol:Let me explain how your HDTV/Games/Upscaling works. Your HDTV has 1 not 2 or 3 but 1 Native resolution. It's either 720p native, 1080i native, or 1080p native. Everything fed to your HDTV is converted by the TV's scaler to fit its, the HDTV's, Native resolution whether its 720p, 1080i, or 1080p. Your games native resolution is determined by the devolopers. UC3, I believe has a native resolution of 720p. The PS3 uses software scaling resolution. Xbox 360 uses a hardware scaler. It works the same way on the HDTV as it does on the console. So, if you play UC3 at 1080p (not sure if the game supports it as I don't have UC3) on PS3, the game's resolution is scaled by software by the PS3. The HDTV takes that signal, from your Blu-ray/dvd/PS3/Xbox and directly or convert it to meet the HDTVs native resolution. If a HDTV states that it can have 720p/1080i/1080p resolutions, it means that it CAN convert all those formats to the Native resolution of your HDTV. It means that it supports it not that the TV can suddenly go from 1920 x 1080 pixels to 1280 x 720 pixels. That's impossible to do. You don't have to have a 1080p Native HDTV for it to support the 1080p resolution because the TV scaler will convert that signal sent by your player to your HDTVs native resolution. So, YES, to answer BibiMaghoo's question in my sig, a native 1080p HDTV can only display a 1080p image.

cdragon_88

Sorry had to do this:

:P

Life-is-a-Game

[QUOTE="mike_on_mic"][QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

>1080p GOW3 shot with 16xAA

seems legit

KevinButlerVP

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]I see a lot of graphic similarities between Gears 3 and Bulletstorm.NoodleFighter

To be fair, I don't have a 360 plus, the box of the PC version I have is different from what you showed.

These are nice:cool:

All i'm thinking as I look at these pics of console games is how much better they would look on my PC. Especially the ones with jaggies.

All i'm thinking as I look at these pics of console games is how much better they would look on my PC. Especially the ones with jaggies.

Game-fu

[QUOTE="KevinButlerVP"]

[QUOTE="mike_on_mic"] Is that real. that looks amazing if it is.04dcarraher

I can see why everyone likes, Uncharted,Killzone and Gears but I'm sorry God of War looks ugly. It just does not look appealing artistically or technically from these screens.

Thank you for the rip free explanation. I have one other question though that has yet to be answered. Does this not mean that a monitor will only display at its native res without scaling too? and if so, does that not destory the PC bullshots that are being taken at a presumably lower res than maximum? The reason I say this is that you could then apply teh hermit logic to the PC screens. ''well, your monitors native res is XXXX, but your screens are at XX, so I will take them and stretch them for an accurate reporoduction lol''BibiMaghoo

IF you feed a 1080p image to a 1080p TV AND tell your TV to do a 1:1 output of that image then yes, its a direct image without scaling. However, if you do not tell your TV to do a 1:1 output then your TV will try to scale that 1080p image even though its 1080p. Hence, why you really don't want to scale your image if it is already the correct resolution, your TV does extra work without really needing to do it and the picture might even lose digital pixels.

As far as screen shot comparing is concerned, it depends on how it was captured. On the PC its pretty simple. When you select a supported resolution by the game, it is that true resolution being rendered. So if I set witcher 2 for 1280 x 720 then that image is correctly displayed at that resolution when I take a in-game screen shot. If i set and take a 1920 x 1080 picture then that image is correctly displayed at that resolution with in-game screen shot. It's a true unaltered image of the game itself at its true resolution set by the user. It doesn't matter what your HDTV resolution is, the screenshots taken in-game are the correct resolution as long as the user sets the game to that resolution. I have a 1080p tv that supports all the resolutions. If you are unclear, I can take some in-game screenshots of witcher 2 for you at different resolutions if you would like.

On the consoles, you have to hook up the system to a capture device. For the screen shots to be correct, the settings of your capture device and software have to be set correctly. Even when its set correctly, the screen shots arent the real representation of the correct resolutions by the game. For example, you set UC3 to 1080p and your capture device to 1080p. However, the reality is that UC3 is 720p native only. The image you get, while it claims to be 1080p, is really a scaled version of 720p turned into 1080p by the PS3. Hence, this is why the PC guys are saying that its stretched. If they took your already captured scaled 1080p screenshot and stretched that, then they don't know what the hell they are doing because those pictures, again if set correctly, are already scaled to 1080p already. What you are doing is stretching a 1080p image that was already scaled from 720p.

NO taking an image and stretching it is not how upscaling works although the idea of it is correct. Upscaling does take your image and blow it up, however in the process the scaler takes that digital information and adds more information and tries to fill in the blanks for all the missing pixels that the smaller resolution didn't have. It cleans up the image as well. Basically, its job is to take a smaller resolution image and make it bigger and tries its best to make it not look like those horrible stretched image the PC guys have posted that you didn't agree with.

As far as taking screenshots with a digital camera is concerned, there's too much unknowns to make that picture account for anything.

God damn, emos shouldn't be using razorblades to cut, they should be using Uncharted 3, look at those jaggies :lol:, and that contrast :lol:

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]Thank you for the rip free explanation. I have one other question though that has yet to be answered. Does this not mean that a monitor will only display at its native res without scaling too? and if so, does that not destory the PC bullshots that are being taken at a presumably lower res than maximum? The reason I say this is that you could then apply teh hermit logic to the PC screens. ''well, your monitors native res is XXXX, but your screens are at XX, so I will take them and stretch them for an accurate reporoduction lol''cdragon_88

IF you feed a 1080p image to a 1080p TV AND tell your TV to do a 1:1 output of that image then yes, its a direct image without scaling. However, if you do not tell your TV to do a 1:1 output then your TV will try to scale that 1080p image even though its 1080p. Hence, why you really don't want to scale your image if it is already the correct resolution, your TV does extra work without really needing to do it and the picture might even lose digital pixels.

As far as screen shot comparing is concerned, it depends on how it was captured. On the PC its pretty simple. When you select a supported resolution by the game, it is that true resolution being rendered. So if I set witcher 2 for 1280 x 720 then that image is correctly displayed at that resolution when I take a in-game screen shot. If i set and take a 1920 x 1080 picture then that image is correctly displayed at that resolution with in-game screen shot. It's a true unaltered image of the game itself at its true resolution set by the user. It doesn't matter what your HDTV resolution is, the screenshots taken in-game are the correct resolution as long as the user sets the game to that resolution. I have a 1080p tv that supports all the resolutions. If you are unclear, I can take some in-game screenshots of witcher 2 for you at different resolutions if you would like.

On the consoles, you have to hook up the system to a capture device. For the screen shots to be correct, the settings of your capture device and software have to be set correctly. Even when its set correctly, the screen shots arent the real representation of the correct resolutions by the game. For example, you set UC3 to 1080p and your capture device to 1080p. However, the reality is that UC3 is 720p native only. The image you get, while it claims to be 1080p, is really a scaled version of 720p turned into 1080p by the PS3. Hence, this is why the PC guys are saying that its stretched. If they took your already captured scaled 1080p screenshot and stretched that, then they don't know what the hell they are doing because those pictures, again if set correctly, are already scaled to 1080p already. What you are doing is stretching a 1080p image that was already scaled from 720p.

NO taking an image and stretching it is not how upscaling works although the idea of it is correct. Upscaling does take your image and blow it up, however in the process the scaler takes that digital information and adds more information and tries to fill in the blanks for all the missing pixels that the smaller resolution didn't have. It cleans up the image as well. Basically, its job is to take a smaller resolution image and make it bigger and tries its best to make it not look like those horrible stretched image the PC guys have posted that you didn't agree with.

As far as taking screenshots with a digital camera is concerned, there's too much unknowns to make that picture account for anything.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

This shot looks good too:

HaloinventedFPS

dem jaggies, dem low res textures

[QUOTE="Spartan070"]

Does anyone remember how awesome Enclaved graphics were for Xbox? Best console graphics last gen by FAR, smooth framerate as well. Xbox had 64mb of memory! :o Know why no one remembers? Cause that game sucked and had ebsolutely ridiculous difficulty. Still, shows how fleeting graphical ownage is. Even BF3 PC will be nigh forgotten in roughly 7 months when another PC game pulls out BEAST MODE and destroys it graphically.

Anyway, just brooding...:P

HaloinventedFPS

looks meh, 3rd shot is a bullshot

[QUOTE="mike_on_mic"][QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

>1080p GOW3 shot with 16xAA

seems legit

KevinButlerVP

i was being sarcastic, thats a bullshot, GOW3 is 720p and it uses MLAA, which is like 2xAA, not 16xAA

For console graphics nothing on earth beats KZ3, UC3 and God of war3. gpuking

that shot is a cutscene

Thank you for the rip free explanation. I have one other question though that has yet to be answered. Does this not mean that a monitor will only display at its native res without scaling too? and if so, does that not destory the PC bullshots that are being taken at a presumably lower res than maximum? The reason I say this is that you could then apply teh hermit logic to the PC screens. ''well, your monitors native res is XXXX, but your screens are at XX, so I will take them and stretch them for an accurate reporoduction lol''BibiMaghoo

A monitor works the exact same way a TV does. There is no difference. You can display at full screen or direct feed just like damn near every TV can. PC games have no maximum res either.

It does not destroy any PC bullshots, as there are none. Unlike console games (Well, except the Wii :P) we can display any of our games at whatever resolutions we wish until our video cards give out. Again, it's upscaling not stretching.

Thank you for taking the time to write what is probably the most informative post I have ever seen on these boards. From what you say though, I was right to call out the shots as bogus, as 1) no one knows how they were captured and at what res. (no one here captured them) 2) Because they are just being stretched without the use of a scaler adding more info to fill in the banks. again, thanks for taking the time dude. :) BibiMaghoo

1. What pictures are you calling bogus again? Every console shot you'll find here is taken with a capture device. How else would they get a direct feed? There isn't one. Some people did capture their own screens here as well.

2. What's being stretched? Certainly not those console shots being upscaled to 1920x1080. Stretching them would be just zooming in, not what those pictures were doing.

http://playstationlifestyle.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/TLOU_image_2.jpg lol this has to be a bullshot. What do you wizards think? I thought it was just concept art until I blew it up and looked at the really jaggy and flat leaves.ActionRemix

[QUOTE="ActionRemix"]http://playstationlifestyle.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/TLOU_image_2.jpg lol this has to be a bullshot. What do you wizards think? I thought it was just concept art until I blew it up and looked at the really jaggy and flat leaves.mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="ActionRemix"]http://playstationlifestyle.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/TLOU_image_2.jpg lol this has to be a bullshot. What do you wizards think? I thought it was just concept art until I blew it up and looked at the really jaggy and flat leaves.ActionRemix

xbox 360 game look better than pc game to mekodman4

Find me one that looks better than this.

[QUOTE="ActionRemix"][QUOTE="mitu123"] What's that suppose to be?mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="ActionRemix"]It's from a PS3 exclusive called The Last of Us set to be revealed tomorrow. Here's the other screenshot: http://www.lastofus.com/wallpapers/TLOU_image_1.jpg PC gamers: "teh jaggies!!!"ActionRemix

[QUOTE="cdragon_88"]

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]Thank you for the rip free explanation. I have one other question though that has yet to be answered. Does this not mean that a monitor will only display at its native res without scaling too? and if so, does that not destory the PC bullshots that are being taken at a presumably lower res than maximum? The reason I say this is that you could then apply teh hermit logic to the PC screens. ''well, your monitors native res is XXXX, but your screens are at XX, so I will take them and stretch them for an accurate reporoduction lol''BibiMaghoo

IF you feed a 1080p image to a 1080p TV AND tell your TV to do a 1:1 output of that image then yes, its a direct image without scaling. However, if you do not tell your TV to do a 1:1 output then your TV will try to scale that 1080p image even though its 1080p. Hence, why you really don't want to scale your image if it is already the correct resolution, your TV does extra work without really needing to do it and the picture might even lose digital pixels.

As far as screen shot comparing is concerned, it depends on how it was captured. On the PC its pretty simple. When you select a supported resolution by the game, it is that true resolution being rendered. So if I set witcher 2 for 1280 x 720 then that image is correctly displayed at that resolution when I take a in-game screen shot. If i set and take a 1920 x 1080 picture then that image is correctly displayed at that resolution with in-game screen shot. It's a true unaltered image of the game itself at its true resolution set by the user. It doesn't matter what your HDTV resolution is, the screenshots taken in-game are the correct resolution as long as the user sets the game to that resolution. I have a 1080p tv that supports all the resolutions. If you are unclear, I can take some in-game screenshots of witcher 2 for you at different resolutions if you would like.

On the consoles, you have to hook up the system to a capture device. For the screen shots to be correct, the settings of your capture device and software have to be set correctly. Even when its set correctly, the screen shots arent the real representation of the correct resolutions by the game. For example, you set UC3 to 1080p and your capture device to 1080p. However, the reality is that UC3 is 720p native only. The image you get, while it claims to be 1080p, is really a scaled version of 720p turned into 1080p by the PS3. Hence, this is why the PC guys are saying that its stretched. If they took your already captured scaled 1080p screenshot and stretched that, then they don't know what the hell they are doing because those pictures, again if set correctly, are already scaled to 1080p already. What you are doing is stretching a 1080p image that was already scaled from 720p.

NO taking an image and stretching it is not how upscaling works although the idea of it is correct. Upscaling does take your image and blow it up, however in the process the scaler takes that digital information and adds more information and tries to fill in the blanks for all the missing pixels that the smaller resolution didn't have. It cleans up the image as well. Basically, its job is to take a smaller resolution image and make it bigger and tries its best to make it not look like those horrible stretched image the PC guys have posted that you didn't agree with.

As far as taking screenshots with a digital camera is concerned, there's too much unknowns to make that picture account for anything.

The screenshots were captured in 720p, that's the format of the pictures. 720p screenshots of a 720p game. Clearly they aren't captured in 1080, unless the person who captured them decided to scale them down manually to exact 720p resolution for no apparent reason. However at this point I suppose grasping at straws is all you have.

Still as has been said before, if anyone anywhere can find any Uncharted screenshot that is any different in quality then we can compare them. So far no one has been able to find a single Uncharted 3 screenshot that is better quality than those posted here. That's probably because they are 720p and the game itself is 720p. If you can't find a single screenshot of better quality on the entire internet, I'd say it is time to accept reality. Denial is a powerful thing I suppose though.

Edit - I'll add another just to keep it fresh in the memory. Another comparison with someone elses upscaled 1080 screenshot and the witcher 2.

[QUOTE="kodman4"]xbox 360 game look better than pc game to meagpickle

Find me one that looks better than this.

see how pointless that rebuttal is?

[QUOTE="agpickle"]

[QUOTE="kodman4"]xbox 360 game look better than pc game to meSpartan070

Find me one that looks better than this.

see how pointless that rebuttal is?

That's how the game looks when you play it lol

Here's an ingame shot (remember to rightclick view image for fullsize):

Dialog Cutscene:

Ingame:

Cutscene:

God of war 3

[QUOTE="agpickle"]

[QUOTE="kodman4"]xbox 360 game look better than pc game to meSpartan070

Find me one that looks better than this.

see how pointless that rebuttal is?

Witcher 2 cinematics are rendered completely in real time, so they are still valid, and anyways the only difference between cutscenes and gameplay is that the cutscenes have better dof.

[QUOTE="lazerface216"]

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

I'm sorry what? (Using screenshot from post above)

iamrob7

ummm, no. this is the pic you posted...

now this is the pic topgun posted...

those look the same to you?

lol, you've just posted a small version of the shot the guy posted. He made it appear in 1080. Go and have a look at his post and notice how much bigger it is than your post. The shot you have posted here is 720. You just saved that guys shot, which was 720 and now you are displaying it in 720 without the upscaling that he posted it with. Just compare your post with his. It's obvious, look at the picture size and look at his picture size. In fact while you are at it, go and look at my post on the previous page which compares the two at 1080. I took a screenshot comparison with the actual gamespot page to prove it.

lol i can't believe i missed this! i had no idea the pic would scale to 720p when i quoted his post, i just quoted it. the point still remains that the original pic you posted looked much worse than topgun's upscaled 1080p pic, and numerous other posters have pointed this out as well.

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="ActionRemix"]It's from a PS3 exclusive called The Last of Us set to be revealed tomorrow. Here's the other screenshot: http://www.lastofus.com/wallpapers/TLOU_image_1.jpg PC gamers: "teh jaggies!!!"ActionRemix

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="ActionRemix"]It's from a PS3 exclusive called The Last of Us set to be revealed tomorrow. Here's the other screenshot: http://www.lastofus.com/wallpapers/TLOU_image_1.jpg PC gamers: "teh jaggies!!!"ActionRemix

[QUOTE="Spartan070"]

[QUOTE="agpickle"]

Find me one that looks better than this.

ferret-gamer

see how pointless that rebuttal is?

Witcher 2 cinematics are rendered completely in real time, so they are still valid, and anyways the only difference between cutscenes and gameplay is that the cutscenes have better dof.

:? So are plenty of console games, albeit that they don't look as good as the Witcher 2, the same rules apply.

"but teh no HUD :cry:"

This is all I heard for about 8 thread pages from hermits :|

double standards for FTL?

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="Spartan070"] bullshot - teh cinematics

see how pointless that rebuttal is?

Spartan070

Witcher 2 cinematics are rendered completely in real time, so they are still valid, and anyways the only difference between cutscenes and gameplay is that the cutscenes have better dof.

:? So are plenty of console games, albeit that they don't look as good as the Witcher 2, the same rules apply.

"but teh no HUD :cry:"

This is all I heard for about 8 thread pages from hermits :|

double standards for FTL?

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="Spartan070"]

Find me one that looks better than this.

Spartan070

see how pointless that rebuttal is?

That's how the game looks when you play it lol

Here's an ingame shot (remember to rightclick view image for fullsize):

Dialog Cutscene:

Ingame:

Cutscene:

Witcher 2s cutscenes look the same as ingame.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

Witcher 2 cinematics are rendered completely in real time, so they are still valid, and anyways the only difference between cutscenes and gameplay is that the cutscenes have better dof.

Spartan070

:? So are plenty of console games, albeit that they don't look as good as the Witcher 2, the same rules apply.

"but teh no HUD :cry:"

This is all I heard for about 8 thread pages from hermits :|

double standards for FTL?

Just to make you happy. Heres a gameplay shot. Looks just as good.

[QUOTE="TheGuardian03"]

Is that BF3 ? :o:shock:

mitu123

What are your specs?

this game looks fantastic.

I'd like to point out something that is always ignored when people talk about technically better games.

When a game offers whole moving levels that could be traversed through gameplay, does that count as a better tech?

I mean look at games like Uncharted 2-3, they brought the train level, the cruiseship that is moving in real-time, I mean that is some impressive looking stuff that is not only good to look at but it also add and serve the gameplay.