The true diffrence between the Power of the Consoles regarding graphics...

People just look at one aspect of power to try to define "power" which is the over all graphics "displayed" however the graphics composition is what seperates PS3's power over xbox360's from the games Ive seen. (I.E. what aconsole is able to do at that quality level)

Looking at the highest level of graphics on the system between geners the one thing seperates them is the amount and how much is going on at one time.

KZ2 > Gears 2....however people also forget at that same graphics level that that KZ2 is over Gears 2 it is also, 32players onscreen>>>>10players, not to mention the advanced physics and lighting that KZ2 boasts.

GT5>Forza3...also 16>>>>>8

Infamous>Crackdown...Destruction in Imfamous>>>Destruction in Crackdown

the trend continues with most exclisvie games between the system, not to mention the law of deminishing returns, for the PS3 to be able to display that many more players/objects/particles/effects on screen allwhile maintaining the same or even greater overall graphic quality it would mean the the PS3 would have to be working much harder than the xbox360 in that same respect for simular games.

I would also like to point out that I "think" that xbox360 "possibly" could produce graphics as good as Killzone 2...however I do not believe it would be able to handle the composition (all that is done) in Killzone 2. I.E. physics/lighting/objects on screen/number of players avalible.

Thoughts?

I might agree but in all fairness, we have'nt seen any game for the 360 with the same amount of work put into to coding specifically for the console.

So I'll agree from what we have available as evidence but I'll also claim that the 360 probably has the same potential (considering how multiplats turn out).

I was ignoring this as much as I could but basically. You're not a dev, you don't know whether games on each console could be reproduced on the other. Also, Red Faction Guerilla (multiplat) destroys both inFamous and Crackdown in physics and destructibility.

I might agree but in all fairness, we have'nt seen any game for the 360 with the same amount of work put into to coding specifically for the console.

So I'll agree from what we have available as evidence but I'll also claim that the 360 probably has the same potential (considering how multiplats turn out).

Filthybastrd

That's fair, and I'm only going on what has been released so nothing is certian. But I also think it important to note the Sony made it a prime point of boastiong over MS's xbox360 when came to the "proformance" of it's system at a high graphic level because of the Cell technology. In the end that might be therealdiffrence.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

I might agree but in all fairness, we have'nt seen any game for the 360 with the same amount of work put into to coding specifically for the console.

So I'll agree from what we have available as evidence but I'll also claim that the 360 probably has the same potential (considering how multiplats turn out).

playharderfool

That's fair, and I'm only going on what has been released so nothing is certian. But I also think it important to note the Sony made it a prime point of boastiong over MS's xbox360 when came to the "proformance" of it's system at a high graphic level because of the Cell technology. In the end that might be therealdiffrence.

I suspect it was mainly PR tbh.

I'm sure they had planned something a bit different and more powerfull. That did'nt really pan out too well when the 360 released however. The RSX certainly looks like a bit of an afterthough.

Edit: I'm saying this because I owned an Elite before my ps3 and while I do prefer my new machine they're the same bloody thing once it comes to overall gaming. They both do some things better than the other and it's rather close all the way.

I was ignoring this as much as I could but basically. You're not a dev, you don't know whether games on each console could be reproduced on the other. Also, Red Faction Guerilla (multiplat) destroys both inFamous and Crackdown in physics and destructibility.

ActicEdge

:) NONE of us here on System wars are developers for either of these consoles Sir...

1. I'm only going by what games have been relesed so far.

2. InFamous is "an impressive looking game" that maintains that level destrucability and amount going on on-screen...Red Faction is not.

3. You haven't DISPROVEN anything I've said by pleading the 5th on this matter. All you're saying here is the you don't like the observation that I"ve pointed out and therefore you are mad.

4. Name 2 or 3 exclusive games of a simular gener that disproves or challenges the observation that I've made here:o

KZ2 > Gears 2....however people also forget at that same graphics level that that KZ2 is over Gears 2 it is also, 32players onscreen>>>>10players, not to mention the advanced physics and lighting that KZ2 boasts.playharderfool

Agree about physics...but graphicly IMO GeOW2 is just as good as KZ2...while lightning is better in Killzone the Gears has better textures.

10 players in multiplayer has nothing to do with power...its more about netcode, afterall in Gears singleplayer there are way more opponets on screen.

GT5>Forza3...also 16>>>>>8playharderfool

16>8 undoubtly true...but the price was compromised environments. Its really hard to say which one looks better...it all depends what you looking at.

Infamous>Crackdown...

playharderfool

Ofc true...but Crackdown is old game and seriously in not the 360s first league graphicly.

I would also like to point out that I "think" that xbox360 "possibly" could produce graphics as good as Killzone 2...however I do not believe it would be able to handle the composition (all that is done) in Killzone 2. I.E. physics/lighting/objects on screen/number of players avalible.

Thoughts?

playharderfool

theres nothing special about KZ2s graphics. most people get caught up in the visuals.

the physics and death animations are nothing too special, ragdoll + motion capture. motioncaptured animations have little to do with system power and ragdolls have been done in almost every game. the overall physics again is nothing special, yes it looks good but its not like other games havnt done physics as well if not better.

the lighting again is decent, while it has numerous lights the quality of those lights is only decent. the way the lights interact and display. the number of interactive objects on screen in KZ2 is limited and hardly anything to call impressive as is the number of people on screen.

on top of that the overall quality of the objects in the environment are average to poor if you actually stop and stare the textures are pretty average throughout with a few good ones here and there, and some shadows are pretty bad.

however none of that matters. graphics which is the tech behind everything which most people confuse with visuals, is for boring people. most users care about the visuals, which is where KZ2 excels for one thing people complain about blur, well the object based moton blur is impressive, also the most impressive is the DOF effect constantly applied to the scene.

the difference in graphics and graphics capabilities of the two machines is null. its not even worth talking about since its so small.

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I was ignoring this as much as I could but basically. You're not a dev, you don't know whether games on each console could be reproduced on the other. Also, Red Faction Guerilla (multiplat) destroys both inFamous and Crackdown in physics and destructibility.

clone01

:) NONE of us here on System wars are developers for either of these consoles Sir...

1. I'm only going by what games have been relesed so far.

2. InFamous is "an impressive looking game" that maintains that level destrucability and amount going on on-screen...Red Faction is not.

3. You haven't DISPROVEN anything I've said by pleading the 5th on this matter. All you're saying here is the you don't like the observation that I"ve pointed out and therefore you are mad.

4. Name 2 or 3 exclusive games of a simular gener that disproves or challenges the observation that I've made here:o

Basically. he's going by what's released and he compared Forza 3 to Gran Turismo 5??????

And Reach (probably) > anything else What's your point?

And honestly, we all know PGR4 looks better than Forza 3 and GT5. Seriously now.

I would also like to point out that I "think" that xbox360 "possibly" could produce graphics as good as Killzone 2...however I do not believe it would be able to handle the composition (all that is done) in Killzone 2. I.E. physics/lighting/objects on screen/number of players avalible.

Thoughts?

I've thought of this as well TC. I agree, PS3 exclusives tend to have better graphics and action than 360 exclusives.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I was ignoring this as much as I could but basically. You're not a dev, you don't know whether games on each console could be reproduced on the other. Also, Red Faction Guerilla (multiplat) destroys both inFamous and Crackdown in physics and destructibility.

playharderfool

:) NONE of us here on System wars are developers for either of these consoles Sir...

1. I'm only going by what games have been relesed so far.

2. InFamous is "an impressive looking game" that maintains that level destrucability and amount going on on-screen...Red Faction is not.

3. You haven't DISPROVEN anything I've said by pleading the 5th on this matter. All you're saying here is the you don't like the observation that I"ve pointed out and therefore you are mad.

4. Name 2 or 3 exclusive games of a simular gener that disproves or challenges the observation that I've made here:o

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

I would also like to point out that I "think" that xbox360 "possibly" could produce graphics as good as Killzone 2...however I do not believe it would be able to handle the composition (all that is done) in Killzone 2. I.E. physics/lighting/objects on screen/number of players avalible.

Thoughts?

washd123

theres nothing special about KZ2s graphics. most people get caught up in the visuals.

the physics and death animations are nothing too special, ragdoll + motion capture. motioncaptured animations have little to do with system power and ragdolls have been done in almost every game. the overall physics again is nothing special, yes it looks good but its not like other games havnt done physics as well if not better.

the lighting again is decent, while it has numerous lights the quality of those lights is only decent. the way the lights interact and display. the number of interactive objects on screen in KZ2 is limited and hardly anything to call impressive as is the number of people on screen.

on top of that the overall quality of the objects in the environment are average to poor if you actually stop and stare the textures are pretty average throughout with a few good ones here and there, and some shadows are pretty bad.

however none of that matters. graphics which is the tech behind everything which most people confuse with visuals, is for boring people. most users care about the visuals, which is where KZ2 excels for one thing people complain about blur, well the object based moton blur is impressive, also the most impressive is the DOF effect constantly applied to the scene.

the difference in graphics and graphics capabilities of the two machines is null. its not even worth talking about since its so small.

People just look at one aspect of power to try to define "power" which is the over all graphics "displayed" however the graphics composition is what seperates PS3's power over xbox360's from the games Ive seen. (I.E. what aconsole is able to do at that quality level)

Looking at the highest level of graphics on the system between geners the one thing seperates them is the amount and how much is going on at one time.

KZ2 > Gears 2....however people also forget at that same graphics level that that KZ2 is over Gears 2 it is also, 32players onscreen>>>>10players, not to mention the advanced physics and lighting that KZ2 boasts.

GT5>Forza3...also 16>>>>>8

Infamous>Crackdown...Destruction in Imfamous>>>Destruction in Crackdown

the trend continues with most exclisvie games between the system, not to mention the law of deminishing returns, for the PS3 to be able to display that many more players/objects/particles/effects on screen allwhile maintaining the same or even greater overall graphic quality it would mean the the PS3 would have to be working much harder than the xbox360 in that same respect for simular games.

playharderfool

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

I would also like to point out that I "think" that xbox360 "possibly" could produce graphics as good as Killzone 2...however I do not believe it would be able to handle the composition (all that is done) in Killzone 2. I.E. physics/lighting/objects on screen/number of players avalible.

Thoughts?

washd123

theres nothing special about KZ2s graphics. most people get caught up in the visuals.

the physics and death animations are nothing too special, ragdoll + motion capture. motioncaptured animations have little to do with system power and ragdolls have been done in almost every game. the overall physics again is nothing special, yes it looks good but its not like other games havnt done physics as well if not better.

the lighting again is decent, while it has numerous lights the quality of those lights is only decent. the way the lights interact and display. the number of interactive objects on screen in KZ2 is limited and hardly anything to call impressive as is the number of people on screen.

on top of that the overall quality of the objects in the environment are average to poor if you actually stop and stare the textures are pretty average throughout with a few good ones here and there, and some shadows are pretty bad.

however none of that matters. graphics which is the tech behind everything which most people confuse with visuals, is for boring people. most users care about the visuals, which is where KZ2 excels for one thing people complain about blur, well the object based moton blur is impressive, also the most impressive is the DOF effect constantly applied to the scene.

the difference in graphics and graphics capabilities of the two machines is null. its not even worth talking about since its so small.

But why would the average gamer want to do that? When an average gamer not bothered about textures and shadoes and that kind of crap plays KZ2 do you think they'd stop and analyse every bit of lighting or stare at every bit of texture? Kz2 is the best console game graphically for me because it looks good when you play it, simple as.

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="playharderfool"]

:) NONE of us here on System wars are developers for either of these consoles Sir...

1. I'm only going by what games have been relesed so far.

2. InFamous is "an impressive looking game" that maintains that level destrucability and amount going on on-screen...Red Faction is not.

3. You haven't DISPROVEN anything I've said by pleading the 5th on this matter. All you're saying here is the you don't like the observation that I"ve pointed out and therefore you are mad.

4. Name 2 or 3 exclusive games of a simular gener that disproves or challenges the observation that I've made here:o

ActicEdge

Basically. he's going by what's released and he compared Forza 3 to Gran Turismo 5??????

fine then :| GT5P then? You don't have to act like that dosen't exist just because it a proluge to a game, everyone konw's that game exists and it still meet's my comparioson. Even if we argue GT5P = Forza 3 graphcally it still is 16 vs 8.

And no from what I've seen forza 3 dosen't look better than GT5P tho Forza 3 dose look very impressive compaired to the last release.

Thoughts?

another insecure Sony fanboy trying to justify the fact his system cost more than the competition´s one. In fact (and ppl should know it right now) PS3 is not as powerfull as it was supposed to be. Its as powerfull as the 360 witch is a great thing.

Your argument is invalid...

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I was ignoring this as much as I could but basically. You're not a dev, you don't know whether games on each console could be reproduced on the other. Also, Red Faction Guerilla (multiplat) destroys both inFamous and Crackdown in physics and destructibility.

SpruceCaboose

:) NONE of us here on System wars are developers for either of these consoles Sir...

1. I'm only going by what games have been relesed so far.

2. InFamous is "an impressive looking game" that maintains that level destrucability and amount going on on-screen...Red Faction is not.

3. You haven't DISPROVEN anything I've said by pleading the 5th on this matter. All you're saying here is the you don't like the observation that I"ve pointed out and therefore you are mad.

4. Name 2 or 3 exclusive games of a simular gener that disproves or challenges the observation that I've made here:o

all I know is that Forza 3 looks AMAZING!

if the PS3 is so powerful it should be able to beat that game in graphics but so far GT5 doesnt look better. This tells me both systems are pretty much equal. The only difference depends on how much time and how much money you have to make a game.

Killzone 2 one of the best looking games out there had a huge budget and a very long development time.

Gears 2 on the X360 was made in 2 years and on a fraction of the budget. and still looks amazing.

Insecure cows can't admit the truth. The PS3 is, at best, slightly more powerful than the 360.

If you look at any game that didn't cost well over $40million to develop and isn't called Killzone 2, your point is moot.

Mark my words, Killzone 2 will be surpassed in graphical fidelity by many multi-plat games in the future.

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

People just look at one aspect of power to try to define "power" which is the over all graphics "displayed" however the graphics composition is what seperates PS3's power over xbox360's from the games Ive seen. (I.E. what aconsole is able to do at that quality level)

Looking at the highest level of graphics on the system between geners the one thing seperates them is the amount and how much is going on at one time.

KZ2 > Gears 2....however people also forget at that same graphics level that that KZ2 is over Gears 2 it is also, 32players onscreen>>>>10players, not to mention the advanced physics and lighting that KZ2 boasts.

GT5>Forza3...also 16>>>>>8

Infamous>Crackdown...Destruction in Imfamous>>>Destruction in Crackdown

the trend continues with most exclisvie games between the system, not to mention the law of deminishing returns, for the PS3 to be able to display that many more players/objects/particles/effects on screen allwhile maintaining the same or even greater overall graphic quality it would mean the the PS3 would have to be working much harder than the xbox360 in that same respect for simular games.

clone01

People just look at one aspect of power to try to define "power" which is the over all graphics "displayed" however the graphics composition is what seperates PS3's power over xbox360's from the games Ive seen. (I.E. what aconsole is able to do at that quality level)

Looking at the highest level of graphics on the system between geners the one thing seperates them is the amount and how much is going on at one time.

KZ2 > Gears 2....however people also forget at that same graphics level that that KZ2 is over Gears 2 it is also, 32players onscreen>>>>10players, not to mention the advanced physics and lighting that KZ2 boasts.

GT5>Forza3...also 16>>>>>8

Infamous>Crackdown...Destruction in Imfamous>>>Destruction in Crackdown

the trend continues with most exclisvie games between the system, not to mention the law of deminishing returns, for the PS3 to be able to display that many more players/objects/particles/effects on screen allwhile maintaining the same or even greater overall graphic quality it would mean the the PS3 would have to be working much harder than the xbox360 in that same respect for simular games.

playharderfool

Wasn't killzone 2's budget estimated at over 60 million? And Gears 2 clocked in at around 12 million, and was made on a pre-existing multiplatform engine. I'm not sure how relevant your comparison is.

Insecure cows can't admit the truth. The PS3 is, at best, slightly more powerful than the 360.

If you look at any game that didn't cost well over $40million to develop and isn't called Killzone 2, your point is moot.

Mark my words, Killzone 2 will be surpassed in graphical fidelity by many multi-plat games in the future.

gamecubepad

all I know is that Forza 3 looks AMAZING!

if the PS3 is so powerful it should be able to beat that game in graphics but so far GT5 doesnt look better. This tells me both systems are pretty much equal. The only difference depends on how much time and how much money you have to make a game.

Killzone 2 one of the best looking games out there had a huge budget and a very long development time.

Gears 2 on the X360 was made in 2 years and on a fraction of the budget. and still looks amazing.

CwlHeddwyn

yea i dont see any 360 games keeping up with ps3 exclusives.TheCoreGamer_

[QUOTE="TheCoreGamer_"]yea i dont see any 360 games keeping up with ps3 exclusives.vaderhater

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

I would also like to point out that I "think" that xbox360 "possibly" could produce graphics as good as Killzone 2...however I do not believe it would be able to handle the composition (all that is done) in Killzone 2. I.E. physics/lighting/objects on screen/number of players avalible.

Thoughts?

Dead-Memories

:| Actually no I'm not.

Are you clueless about Gamespot's TOS?

Even if we argue GT5P = Forza 3 graphcally it still is 16 vs 8.playharderfool

And no from what I've seen forza 3 dosen't look better than GT5P tho Forza 3 dose look very impressive compaired to the last release.playharderfool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqSHFegHI8U&feature=related

the whole areguement about forza 3 vs GT5 is a good indicator of system performance. both games are very similar looking. those are big budget games due out this year, and you certainly cant argue that GT5 has lacked development time because that game has been in the works forever.CwlHeddwyn

Both look great. I believe FM3 car models are approx. 1 million polygons, while GT5's cars are around 200k.

GT5 has more cars, FM3 has higher poly cars. Could this be a demonstration of the Cell>Xenon and Xenos>RSX? Who knows? Perhaps it's just a random design choice.

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

People just look at one aspect of power to try to define "power" which is the over all graphics "displayed" however the graphics composition is what seperates PS3's power over xbox360's from the games Ive seen. (I.E. what aconsole is able to do at that quality level)

Looking at the highest level of graphics on the system between geners the one thing seperates them is the amount and how much is going on at one time.

KZ2 > Gears 2....however people also forget at that same graphics level that that KZ2 is over Gears 2 it is also, 32players onscreen>>>>10players, not to mention the advanced physics and lighting that KZ2 boasts.

GT5>Forza3...also 16>>>>>8

Infamous>Crackdown...Destruction in Imfamous>>>Destruction in Crackdown

the trend continues with most exclisvie games between the system, not to mention the law of deminishing returns, for the PS3 to be able to display that many more players/objects/particles/effects on screen allwhile maintaining the same or even greater overall graphic quality it would mean the the PS3 would have to be working much harder than the xbox360 in that same respect for simular games.

joshallrad33

Wasn't killzone 2's budget estimated at over 60 million? And Gears 2 clocked in at around 12 million, and was made on a pre-existing multiplatform engine. I'm not sure how relevant your comparison is.

Would you rather me use Halo 3? it has a comparitable budget...

You see I was trying to be fair and what other graphcially impressive/praised exclisvie games dose xbox360 have? If you have any other suggestions please, bya ll means, let me know!

[QUOTE="CwlHeddwyn"] the whole areguement about forza 3 vs GT5 is a good indicator of system performance. both games are very similar looking. those are big budget games due out this year, and you certainly cant argue that GT5 has lacked development time because that game has been in the works forever.gamecubepad

Both look great. I believe FM3 car models are approx. 1 million polygons, while GT5's cars are around 200k.

GT5 has more cars, FM3 has higher poly cars. Could this be a demonstration of the Cell>Xenon and Xenos>RSX? Who knows? Perhaps it's just a random design choice.

[QUOTE="CwlHeddwyn"] the whole areguement about forza 3 vs GT5 is a good indicator of system performance. both games are very similar looking. those are big budget games due out this year, and you certainly cant argue that GT5 has lacked development time because that game has been in the works forever.gamecubepad

Both look great. I believe FM3 car models are approx. 1 million polygons, while GT5's cars are around 200k.

GT5 has more cars, FM3 has higher poly cars. Could this be a demonstration of the Cell>Xenon and Xenos>RSX? Who knows? Perhaps it's just a random design choice.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="CwlHeddwyn"] the whole areguement about forza 3 vs GT5 is a good indicator of system performance. both games are very similar looking. those are big budget games due out this year, and you certainly cant argue that GT5 has lacked development time because that game has been in the works forever.abuabed

Both look great. I believe FM3 car models are approx. 1 million polygons, while GT5's cars are around 200k.

GT5 has more cars, FM3 has higher poly cars. Could this be a demonstration of the Cell>Xenon and Xenos>RSX? Who knows? Perhaps it's just a random design choice.

No, I'm saying that the Xenos is pushing more polys than the RSX.

16*250k = 4 million

8*1 million = 8 million

Also, FM3 has better looking levels and superior physics from what I've seen. GT5 is running at 1280x1080 w/2xAA, whilst FM3 is 1280x720 w/4xAA.

I'm sure teh Cell's SPEs allow for a good amount of post-processing, but you can't deny that the 360 is pushing more polys.

Both look about the same to me. You couldn't go wrong with either of them.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I was ignoring this as much as I could but basically. You're not a dev, you don't know whether games on each console could be reproduced on the other. Also, Red Faction Guerilla (multiplat) destroys both inFamous and Crackdown in physics and destructibility.

:) NONE of us here on System wars are developers for either of these consoles Sir...

1. I'm only going by what games have been relesed so far.

2. InFamous is "an impressive looking game" that maintains that level destrucability and amount going on on-screen...Red Faction is not.

3. You haven't DISPROVEN anything I've said by pleading the 5th on this matter. All you're saying here is the you don't like the observation that I"ve pointed out and therefore you are mad.

4. Name 2 or 3 exclusive games of a simular gener that disproves or challenges the observation that I've made here:o

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

I would also like to point out that I "think" that xbox360 "possibly" could produce graphics as good as Killzone 2...however I do not believe it would be able to handle the composition (all that is done) in Killzone 2. I.E. physics/lighting/objects on screen/number of players avalible.

Thoughts?

washd123

theres nothing special about KZ2s graphics. most people get caught up in the visuals.

the physics and death animations are nothing too special, ragdoll + motion capture. motioncaptured animations have little to do with system power and ragdolls have been done in almost every game. the overall physics again is nothing special, yes it looks good but its not like other games havnt done physics as well if not better.

the lighting again is decent, while it has numerous lights the quality of those lights is only decent. the way the lights interact and display. the number of interactive objects on screen in KZ2 is limited and hardly anything to call impressive as is the number of people on screen.

on top of that the overall quality of the objects in the environment are average to poor if you actually stop and stare the textures are pretty average throughout with a few good ones here and there, and some shadows are pretty bad.

however none of that matters. graphics which is the tech behind everything which most people confuse with visuals, is for boring people. most users care about the visuals, which is where KZ2 excels for one thing people complain about blur, well the object based moton blur is impressive, also the most impressive is the DOF effect constantly applied to the scene.

the difference in graphics and graphics capabilities of the two machines is null. its not even worth talking about since its so small.

People who aren't fanboys of certian consoles disagree...

"Graphics- If you have even a little bit of interest in this game you should already know how GREAT the the graphics are. Think of this game as the console Crysis. Outstanding graphics, by far the best graphics I have seen on ANY console game and yes. This game has better graphics than Gears of War 2...!!! Definitely 10/10"

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/ps3/review/R132444.html

"Graphics alone are rarely a deal breaker for a game, but for Killzone 2 they are at least one of its major pillars. Put simply, Killzone 2 brings realism to a level seen in barely a handful of games today. Despite being almost entirely in first person, Killzone 2 manages to deliver an unusually cinematic experience.

Advanced lighting and other effects like blur, lens flare, and depth of field in games have become common in recent years, but Killzone 2 brings them to a whole new level. Much of the timeKillzone 2 honestly looks like a computer-generated movie in playable form which has almost never been said for a game, much less one released in the middle of a console cycle."

Read more: http://action-games.suite101.com/article.cfm/killzone_2_playstation_3_review#ixzz0QucDIVMx

"The graphics in Killzone 2 are, by far, the best in any console game to date. Everything from the spectacular lighting effects, the incredibly detailed animation, to the environments, level design and weapon effects are truly top-notch. It's going to be a while before Killzone 2 is displaced as the best in the graphics department. Due to the game's non-linearity, Guerilla have gone all-out in creating the most spectacular-looking and immersive levels possible."

http://www.bossfight.in/2009/03/killzone-2-single-player-review.html

The game has been hailed by many as one of the best looking games of this generation. I will take it one step further and say that it is definitely the best looking game on any console to date. The lighting, textures, and art design are absolutely top notch.

http://gamer.blorge.com/2009/02/25/review-killzone-2-the-best-looking-game-this-generation-part-1/

Graphics: Do you even have to ask? Killzone 2 is technically the best console game on the market in terms of graphics. Thankfully, the art direction steps up to the plate just as impressively.

http://gamernode.com/reviews/7698-killzone-2/page2.html

Graphics
Phenomenal visuals prove that Guerrilla either met or surpassed that infamous E3 trailer. Some technical issues hold it back from being a completely flawless masterpiece.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/949/949161p4.html

Should I go on? there's more...

[QUOTE="abuabed"][QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

Both look great. I believe FM3 car models are approx. 1 million polygons, while GT5's cars are around 200k.

GT5 has more cars, FM3 has higher poly cars. Could this be a demonstration of the Cell>Xenon and Xenos>RSX? Who knows? Perhaps it's just a random design choice.

gamecubepad

No, I'm saying that the Xenos is pushing more polys than the RSX.

16*250k = 4 million

8*1 million = 8 million

Also, FM3 has better looking levels and superior physics from what I've seen. GT5 is running at 1280x1080 w/2xAA, whilst FM3 is 1280x720 w/4xAA.

I'm sure teh Cell's SPEs allow for a good amount of post-processing, but you can't deny that the 360 is pushing more polys.

Both look about the same to me. You couldn't go wrong with either of them.

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

I would also like to point out that I "think" that xbox360 "possibly" could produce graphics as good as Killzone 2...however I do not believe it would be able to handle the composition (all that is done) in Killzone 2. I.E. physics/lighting/objects on screen/number of players avalible.

Thoughts?

theres nothing special about KZ2s graphics. most people get caught up in the visuals.

the physics and death animations are nothing too special, ragdoll + motion capture. motioncaptured animations have little to do with system power and ragdolls have been done in almost every game. the overall physics again is nothing special, yes it looks good but its not like other games havnt done physics as well if not better.

the lighting again is decent, while it has numerous lights the quality of those lights is only decent. the way the lights interact and display. the number of interactive objects on screen in KZ2 is limited and hardly anything to call impressive as is the number of people on screen.

on top of that the overall quality of the objects in the environment are average to poor if you actually stop and stare the textures are pretty average throughout with a few good ones here and there, and some shadows are pretty bad.

however none of that matters. graphics which is the tech behind everything which most people confuse with visuals, is for boring people. most users care about the visuals, which is where KZ2 excels for one thing people complain about blur, well the object based moton blur is impressive, also the most impressive is the DOF effect constantly applied to the scene.

the difference in graphics and graphics capabilities of the two machines is null. its not even worth talking about since its so small.

But why would the average gamer want to do that? When an average gamer not bothered about textures and shadoes and that kind of crap plays KZ2 do you think they'd stop and analyse every bit of lighting or stare at every bit of texture? Kz2 is the best console game graphically for me because it looks good when you play it, simple as.

Let me throw this into the mix:

A study shows that graphics, even story telling are secondary to pricing and social features.

What puts the 360 ahead is that it builds social connectivity into its games since its in the DNA of the whole platform. In this respect MS has really broken with conventional console thinking by building "power", not so much in its hardware, but in the software infrastructure that affects ALL its games.

[QUOTE="playharderfool"] Even if we argue GT5P = Forza 3 graphcally it still is 16 vs 8.Magik85

And no from what I've seen forza 3 dosen't look better than GT5P tho Forza 3 dose look very impressive compaired to the last release.playharderfool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqSHFegHI8U&feature=related

Nice CGI+concept video.

Now how about you post some actual in-gamegameplay video and or replay videos? The very fact that you post that cgi+concept video to back up your arguemt instead ofin-game video graphics shows howweak your counter argument is.

I See you and Raise with CGI+Concept+INGAME gameplay video

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/spec-iii-gran-turismo/44053

As you can see...even from the video that you were trying to use to challenge the fact thatGT's has equal or better graphicscompaired to Forza3's. Forza 3 in no way looks better than Prolouge..it would be hard to admit if you're a fan but if you look at the videos well...also

Here's you 1up, Gameplay video (no concept, no CGI)

http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/gran-turismo-5-prologue/126630

[QUOTE="joshallrad33"]

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

People just look at one aspect of power to try to define "power" which is the over all graphics "displayed" however the graphics composition is what seperates PS3's power over xbox360's from the games Ive seen. (I.E. what aconsole is able to do at that quality level)

Looking at the highest level of graphics on the system between geners the one thing seperates them is the amount and how much is going on at one time.

KZ2 > Gears 2....however people also forget at that same graphics level that that KZ2 is over Gears 2 it is also, 32players onscreen>>>>10players, not to mention the advanced physics and lighting that KZ2 boasts.

GT5>Forza3...also 16>>>>>8

Infamous>Crackdown...Destruction in Imfamous>>>Destruction in Crackdown

the trend continues with most exclisvie games between the system, not to mention the law of deminishing returns, for the PS3 to be able to display that many more players/objects/particles/effects on screen allwhile maintaining the same or even greater overall graphic quality it would mean the the PS3 would have to be working much harder than the xbox360 in that same respect for simular games.

Wasn't killzone 2's budget estimated at over 60 million? And Gears 2 clocked in at around 12 million, and was made on a pre-existing multiplatform engine. I'm not sure how relevant your comparison is.

Would you rather me use Halo 3? it has a comparitable budget...

You see I was trying to be fair and what other graphcially impressive/praised exclisvie games dose xbox360 have? If you have any other suggestions please, bya ll means, let me know!

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

No, I'm saying that the Xenos is pushing more polys than the RSX.

16*250k = 4 million

8*1 million = 8 million

Also, FM3 has better looking levels and superior physics from what I've seen. GT5 is running at 1280x1080 w/2xAA, whilst FM3 is 1280x720 w/4xAA.

I'm sure teh Cell's SPEs allow for a good amount of post-processing, but you can't deny that the 360 is pushing more polys.

Both look about the same to me. You couldn't go wrong with either of them.

abuabed

GT5 in-game is 1280x1080 w/2xAA, or 1280x720 w/4xAA, or in the garage 1920x1080 no AA.

Forza's website states that FM3 cars have more than 10x the polys and 4x texture res as FM2. FM2 cars have around 100k polys so you can do the math from there.

Poly count doesn't influence the appearance of games as much as shaders do. I remember reading in my collectors edition of COD4 that the characters have roughly the same poly count as COD 2, but normal mapping and HDR lighting make them look far superior.

I was just demonstrating that the Xenos can push more polys than the RSX while maintaining equal shader quality.