[QUOTE="killzowned24"]that running animation looks sooo bad.ocstewI suppose your cowish pride prevents you from commenting on the graphics? looks like gears 2 . certainly no graphics king.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="killzowned24"]that running animation looks sooo bad.ocstewI suppose your cowish pride prevents you from commenting on the graphics? looks like gears 2 . certainly no graphics king.
MAG is a unique console game supporting 256 players.[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="1kryptic"]
None of that stopped you from giving MAG a 9.
tempest91
No excuse for bad animations.
as i said 256 players to handle vs what 10 in gears?[QUOTE="zero_snake99"]
It looks good, but I don't think its anywhere near some of the best out today. Yeah, the skybox is great, but whats even better is the total lack of skybox of Just Cause 2. Considering it renders all of it's clouds and the sky is completely dynamic. Besides, it's not hard making a skybox... all you have to do is make a large enough texture to map to the skydome/box
Snugenz
How come i never see you criticize and downplay PS3 exclusives ?.
If you're not interested in the 360 or its games, how bout you just ignore them and save your one sided negativity ?. I know its System Wars and all, but i'm sure you've heard that go old saying "if you've nothing good to say, say nothing".
Anyway, Halo Reach looks awesome for the amount on content its gonna come with, its what more devs should do, more content less graphics whore pandering.
/rant
Gears 3 looks pretty damn good alright, never picked up Gears 2 as the MP didnt really interest me but Beast mode looks like a lot of fun, might give it a go.
I think you missed the part where I said Halo was never about graphics. Halo is a great franchise, and anyone that doesn't know that Halo never really looked good has their had in their butt. Frankly, I have something negative to say about every game. For the first 2 years of the PS3 life cycle most if not all of the exclusives were garbage. My favorite game this gen? MGS4, broken by installs. Resistance 1? Broken by loading times. Resistance 2? Horrid graphics. Uncharted 2? MP is fun, but not that good after an hour, it gets boring. Want to know my opinion on Gears? I hate the series. I think it's trash. The online sucks, and the campaign is even worse. Halo? 1 and 3 I like a lot. The Campaign for 2 and 3 were bad though. Crackdown is fun. Crackdown 2, is Crackdown 1. Fable? Fable hasn't been good since the first one. Number 2 was trash because Molynuex broke it. I like Forza, it's fun, and I spend a lot of time with it, do I think it's fantastic simulator? No, do I still enjoy it? Yes. Now that I've "criticized" the only games I have something legitimate to say, am I a fanboy? No, BUT I will say, I dislike Microsoft with a passion. I believe their business practices are bad for consumers, and I think that their policies are worse. Oh, and IF you want to imply that I am a fanboy, it's because of my PC roots, not my ownership of a PS3.[QUOTE="tempest91"][QUOTE="killzowned24"] MAG is a unique console game supporting 256 players. killzowned24
No excuse for bad animations.
as i said 256 players to handle vs what 10 in gears?So, if I don't want to make a game look good, I can just add more players and call it unique?
[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="1kryptic"] MAG is a unique console game supporting 256 players. tempest91
No excuse for bad animations.
Yes... it is an excuse, because its hardware demanding to animate 256 players with hundreds of animations, BUT is it an excuse for shallow mechanics? No. While admittingly fun, it is, as most people call it, bland.True, but still, if epic skyboxes are not hard, then Why don't other devs do them?siddhu33
It's not that it's hard, it's just there are other things they can focus on. Making a big high rest skybox/dome requires a lot of memory. Not to mention, most of those resolutions are limited by the engine. For example, I believe Source and EU3 engine are both limited to 1024x1024 for each side of the box.
[QUOTE="tempest91"][QUOTE="killzowned24"] MAG is a unique console game supporting 256 players. killzowned24
No excuse for bad animations.
as i said 256 players to handle vs what 10 in gears? why are you trying to change the point you first made? 256 players is no excuse for poor animations :|[QUOTE="tempest91"][QUOTE="killzowned24"] MAG is a unique console game supporting 256 players. zero_snake99
No excuse for bad animations.
Yes... it is an excuse, because its hardware demanding to animate 256 players with hundreds of animations, BUT is it an excuse for shallow mechanics? No. While admittingly fun, it is, as most people call it, bland.I'm not demanding hundreds of animations, I would just like a few good ones.
as i said 256 players to handle vs what 10 in gears?[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="tempest91"]
No excuse for bad animations.
tempest91
So, if I don't want to make a game look good, I can just add more players and call it unique?
lol, whatever. If you think that animation was awesome good for you. I didnt bring up MAG you did.[QUOTE="tempest91"][QUOTE="killzowned24"] as i said 256 players to handle vs what 10 in gears?killzowned24
So, if I don't want to make a game look good, I can just add more players and call it unique?
lol, whatever. If you think that animation was awesome good for you. I didnt bring up MAG you did.No I didn't.
why are you trying to change the point you first made? 256 players is no excuse for poor animations :|lawlessxYou obviously have no clue how animations work do you? It IS possible, BUT only on better hardware. It requires too much processing and memory. Same reason why the graphics aren't that good in that game in the first place.
I'm not demanding hundreds of animations, I would just like a few good ones.tempest91
It still requires a lot of processing.
lol, whatever. If you think that animation was awesome good for you. I didnt bring up MAG you did.[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="tempest91"]
So, if I don't want to make a game look good, I can just add more players and call it unique?
tempest91
No I didn't.
oh, sorry. but you react to it the most lol.and they said the X360 was maxed-out lol
the graphics are getting better all the time.
Gears 3 looks to be up there with the best.
[QUOTE="Snugenz"][QUOTE="zero_snake99"]
It looks good, but I don't think its anywhere near some of the best out today. Yeah, the skybox is great, but whats even better is the total lack of skybox of Just Cause 2. Considering it renders all of it's clouds and the sky is completely dynamic. Besides, it's not hard making a skybox... all you have to do is make a large enough texture to map to the skydome/box
zero_snake99
How come i never see you criticize and downplay PS3 exclusives ?.
If you're not interested in the 360 or its games, how bout you just ignore them and save your one sided negativity ?. I know its System Wars and all, but i'm sure you've heard that go old saying "if you've nothing good to say, say nothing".
Anyway, Halo Reach looks awesome for the amount on content its gonna come with, its what more devs should do, more content less graphics whore pandering.
/rant
Gears 3 looks pretty damn good alright, never picked up Gears 2 as the MP didnt really interest me but Beast mode looks like a lot of fun, might give it a go.
I think you missed the part where I said Halo was never about graphics. Halo is a great franchise, and anyone that doesn't know that Halo never really looked good has their had in their butt. Frankly, I have something negative to say about every game. For the first 2 years of the PS3 life cycle most if not all of the exclusives were garbage. My favorite game this gen? MGS4, broken by installs. Resistance 1? Broken by loading times. Resistance 2? Horrid graphics. Uncharted 2? MP is fun, but not that good after an hour, it gets boring. Want to know my opinion on Gears? I hate the series. I think it's trash. The online sucks, and the campaign is even worse. Halo? 1 and 3 I like a lot. The Campaign for 2 and 3 were bad though. Crackdown is fun. Crackdown 2, is Crackdown 1. Fable? Fable hasn't been good since the first one. Number 2 was trash because Molynuex broke it. I like Forza, it's fun, and I spend a lot of time with it, do I think it's fantastic simulator? No, do I still enjoy it? Yes. Now that I've "criticized" the only games I have something legitimate to say, am I a fanboy? No, BUT I will say, I dislike Microsoft with a passion. I believe their business practices are bad for consumers, and I think that their policies are worse. Oh, and IF you want to imply that I am a fanboy, it's because of my PC roots, not my ownership of a PS3.1. Halo always looked good, not always the best but it always looked good when compared to other current games.
2. I never said you were a fanboy, just questioned why you even bother to post if you have nothing but negative things to say about the particular subject. The fact that i'm asking you instead of just ignoring your posts like the dozens of fanboys on the site is specifically because i dont think your a fanboy and that the behavior in question is baffling to me.
3. Disliking a company is no excuse to lay into developers hard work purely because that game is on said company's machine (not saying thats what your doing).
Anyway, in order to justify this post, back on topic ... yeah Gears 3 still looks good.
1) Halo 1 looked good. Halo 2 looked slightly above average for its time, but Halo 3 and ODST looked just bad. It doesn't look good at all, and that's solely because of Bungie's choice in using the Halo 2 engine to do those other 2 games.1. Halo always looked good, not always the best but it always looked good when compared to other current games.
2. I never said you were a fanboy, just questioned why you even bother to post if you have nothing but negative things to say about the particular subject. The fact that i'm asking you instead of just ignoring your posts like the dozens of fanboys on the site is specifically because i dont think your a fanboy and that the behavior in question is baffling to me.
3. Disliking a company is no excuse to lay into developers hard work purely because that game is on said company's machine (not saying thats what your doing).
Anyway, in order to justify this post, back on topic ... yeah Gears 3 still looks good.
Snugenz
2) I'm glad you don't find me a fanboy, I did have something good to say about GeoW 3 though. While I didn't say it was "graphics king" (which in it's current stage, isn't) it doesn't look bad and it doesn't concern me how the game looks at this stage in the game. I did also say that the 3 types of "characters" in this game resembles Halo... in which, it does. I gave my reasons why I think so. Hopefully I'm just wrong in my assumption based on the last 2 games that the campaign is some half assed through together, and that's what got me flak.
3) I don't dislike the developers. Bungie is a great group of guys with lots of talent. Epic, I have started to dislike them more as they completely stopped making PC games, in which I own several of.
And yes. Gears 3 does look good.
But does it have da foliage
I mean yeah the worlds messed up but without any vegetation the world would be dead.
1) Halo 1 looked good. Halo 2 looked slightly above average for its time, but Halo 3 and ODST looked just bad. It doesn't look good at all, and that's solely because of Bungie's choice in using the Halo 2 engine to do those other 2 games.zero_snake99
Halo 1 looked good to the point of envy for PC gamers in 2001. Halo 2 looked "slightly above average" compared to Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. On the console front it was a contender alongside Ninja Gaiden and Chronicles of Riddick.
Halo 3 looks far from bad, and in fact its awesome lighting was only recently bested by Alan Wake. Both games incidentally have large scale levels.
Just for your info, Halo: Reach also uses the Halo 2 engine. I think they just reuse the framework for all their Halo games. Will probably change following their new action title.
MAG is a unique console game supporting 256 players.[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="1kryptic"]
None of that stopped you from giving MAG a 9.
tempest91
No excuse for bad animations.
or really awful boring gameplay
[QUOTE="zero_snake99"]1) Halo 1 looked good. Halo 2 looked slightly above average for its time, but Halo 3 and ODST looked just bad. It doesn't look good at all, and that's solely because of Bungie's choice in using the Halo 2 engine to do those other 2 games.
FrozenLiquid
Halo 1 looked good to the point of envy for PC gamers in 2001. Halo 2 looked "slightly above average" compared to Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. On the console front it was a contender alongside Ninja Gaiden and Chronicles of Riddick.
Halo 3 looks far from bad, and in fact its awesome lighting was only recently bested by Alan Wake. Both games incidentally have large scale levels.
Just for your info, Halo: Reach also uses the Halo 2 engine. I think they just reuse the framework for all their Halo games. Will probably change following their new action title.
I'd say that Halo 3's looks depend on the location. Pitstop as an MP map looks awful imo, but something like Sandtrap or Orbital looks fantastic - and yeah the lighting in Halo is top notch. I think Reach is using a completely gutted version of the engine, and Bungie have changed pretty much everything :)[QUOTE="tempest91"]I'm not demanding hundreds of animations, I would just like a few good ones.zero_snake99
It still requires a lot of processing.
You're still making excuses. At this point, it's like all they cared about was getting 256 player matches to work and the quality went out the door. Yes that many players does require a lot of processing, but they decided on that number, and they still should attempt to make it look and feel good and it doesn't.
[QUOTE="zero_snake99"]
I'm not demanding hundreds of animations, I would just like a few good ones.tempest91
It still requires a lot of processing.
You're still making excuses. At this point, it's like all they cared about was getting 256 player matches to work and the quality went out the door. Yes that many players does require a lot of processing, but they decided on that number, and they still should attempt to make it look and feel good and it doesn't.
All this from a 30 second multiplayer clip? Get real.[QUOTE="zero_snake99"]
[QUOTE="tempest91"]I'm not demanding hundreds of animations, I would just like a few good ones.tempest91
It still requires a lot of processing.
You're still making excuses. At this point, it's like all they cared about was getting 256 player matches to work and the quality went out the door. Yes that many players does require a lot of processing, but they decided on that number, and they still should attempt to make it look and feel good and it doesn't.
"Making excuses" implies I'm fabricating a reason, and I'm not, it IS the reason why it had poor animations. When Planet Side came out in 03, that game had absolutely poor animations and graphics, it looked dated by several years, but the developers did the same thing as the MAG devs did. They went with massive battles and armies over quality of visuals. Besides, why are we talking about MAG? Comparing a large multiplayer game to a campaign with MP features.[QUOTE="tempest91"][QUOTE="zero_snake99"]
zero_snake99
You're still making excuses. At this point, it's like all they cared about was getting 256 player matches to work and the quality went out the door. Yes that many players does require a lot of processing, but they decided on that number, and they still should attempt to make it look and feel good and it doesn't.
"Making excuses" implies I'm fabricating a reason, and I'm not, it IS the reason why it had poor animations. When Planet Side came out in 03, that game had absolutely poor animations and graphics, it looked dated by several years, but the developers did the same thing as the MAG devs did. They went with massive battles and armies over quality of visuals. Besides, why are we talking about MAG? Comparing a large multiplayer game to a campaign with MP features.Implications are a bi-product of personal bias, because "excuses" in no way imply fabrication. It simply means to remove blame from something, and we are talking about MAG because someone made a comment about it and people were offended by it and started rabidly defending a mediocre game. I'm simply saying that a large scale game can't use it's scale as an excuse for poor animations, simple as that. I'm not asking for anything fancy or numerous, just quality. If you can't do it at that scale, then reduce the quantity for the sake of quality.
[QUOTE="tempest91"][QUOTE="zero_snake99"]
It still requires a lot of processing.
Phazevariance
You're still making excuses. At this point, it's like all they cared about was getting 256 player matches to work and the quality went out the door. Yes that many players does require a lot of processing, but they decided on that number, and they still should attempt to make it look and feel good and it doesn't.
All this from a 30 second multiplayer clip? Get real.We are in SW, aren't we?
I LOL at everyone complaining at the graphics, I own U2 and GOW3 and I can truly say that Epic has stepped up their game. Well done :D
Welcome to SW. They did it with Halo Reach and GT5. They'll continue to do it for as long as SW exists. :P And Beast mode looks like a ton of fun. :shock:Amazing how people come to conclusions on visual details like textures from an offscreen gameplay clip...NVIDIATI
This looks amazing!! IMO this is almost making KZ2/3 look pretty bad. Also this is definitely on par with UC2 and some things are looking better than UC2 like the foliage. Someone also mentioned that this has too much color. I disagree it looks just fine. I actually think UC2 has more color than this.
....and people say that the 360 is maxed out or not as powerful as the Ps3. Just stop.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment