Doom 3 in 2004 dont bother saying Doom 3 doesnt count because its a linear corridor shooter, because we all know uncharted is an open world gameHaloinventedFPShttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkZwxrNqYLk Comparing Uncharted 3 to Doom 3 is like comparing a Cat to a Lion. ID should have used that on Rage it look better incredible how good that pic look compare to the video i posted...lol
Uncharted 3 is Graphics King based on Digital Foundry
This topic is locked from further discussion.
lol uncharted 3 looks better tbh. However Crysis (especially when modded) would be more apt for comparison.If they really said that,they are blind.
call_of_duty_10
[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]haha ha wow, not sure if you are trolling and a good PC from 2006 didnt cost 2k, it cost about 500-600 and a PC from 2006 can run BF3 on medium, which is above console settings, not to mention still gets 64 players, enjoy 24 playerstormentosOn 2006 multicore CPU where basically new,and you did not say good PC you say high end a high end PC on 2006 was more than $2,000 dollars. Maybe you forget the price of multi core CPU back on 2006,some were more than $800 for the CPU alone,the GPU top of the line was like $550 and some times even crossing the $600 line. I don't care about the number of player, Resistance 2 support 60 players online 8 players co-op,and Mag 256 players dude,that doesn't mean anything. The fact is bringing PC is silly the PS3 and 360 don't get a new GPU each year.that's just plain wrong, dual core CPU's for PC's where out way before 2006, athlon 64 x2 dual core was released on april 2005 and this generation of consoles runs all multiplats since 2005 on what we call 'medium' PC settings, make no mistake, never in the history of conolses have consoles been more powerful than Pc's and to say it would cost you 2k for a decnt PC back then is just plain rubbish, to build a PC to run games on high settings would cost about 800 quid to build.
There is no denying that Uncharted 3 looks astounding, and the level of technical comprehension Naughty Dog has on the PS3 is arguably peerless. They know how to leverage the system in a form that let's them tell the story they aim to tell in a very beautiful manner. As for the versus PC talk, yes, the game could look much better, but UC3 is a good example of how much importance the software side of graphics matters, especially when you can code to metal and directly control the graphical aspects of the game by controlling the overall scope of the environment in regards to where the player can go.
I would love to see the game running in actual 1080p, with 60 FPS,and better LOD management using my PC.
Now, how much futher could Naughty Dog push the PS3? That probably depends as much on the gameplay as much as the hardware. Clearly they are good at balancing and scheduling the loads involved. What can be said is that an open world game a la GTA4 pretty much can never look as good as Uncharted 3 on the PS3 hardware, too little memory and GPU related limitations. Of course there are limits, but visual tricks and LOD management always helps.
[QUOTE="Allthishate"][QUOTE="ConsoleCounsla_"] uncharted 3 = amazing game =\= gears of war 3, 4, 5, and/or 6ConsoleCounsla_well that's your opinion. and your nothing more a troll so nuff said . even if i was a troll, how does that change the fact? uncharted 3 = amazing game. uncharted 3 =/= gears 3. therefore gears 3 =/= amazing game. simple math my fellow poster......regardless..you dont have to be rich to own a ps3. i own both games and imo they are the same in there own respects . i dont understand why u cant accpt that . they are equal in my eyes.
you don't need a new card and CPU every year, that's just silly, crysis looks better fully modded on 3 year old hardware, heck it looked better on PC's when it came out than any console game looks now.delta3074Please before quoting me read what i say,did i say you need a new card and CPU each year.? No i say the PC get a new CPU and GPU each year. Crysis was made with future cards in mind it was bending cards to its knees,to the point of top of the line cards been able to put 30 FPS on very high at 1024x768 a resolution consider low res for PC gamers.
[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]haha ha wow, not sure if you are trolling and a good PC from 2006 didnt cost 2k, it cost about 500-600 and a PC from 2006 can run BF3 on medium, which is above console settings, not to mention still gets 64 players, enjoy 24 playersdelta3074On 2006 multicore CPU where basically new,and you did not say good PC you say high end a high end PC on 2006 was more than $2,000 dollars. Maybe you forget the price of multi core CPU back on 2006,some were more than $800 for the CPU alone,the GPU top of the line was like $550 and some times even crossing the $600 line. I don't care about the number of player, Resistance 2 support 60 players online 8 players co-op,and Mag 256 players dude,that doesn't mean anything. The fact is bringing PC is silly the PS3 and 360 don't get a new GPU each year.that's just plain wrong, dual core CPU's for PC's where out way before 2006, athlon 64 x2 dual core was released on april 2005 and this generation of consoles runs all multiplats since 2005 on what we call 'medium' PC settings, make no mistake, never in the history of conolses have consoles been more powerful than Pc's and to say it would cost you 2k for a decnt PC back then is just plain rubbish, to build a PC to run games on high settings would cost about 800 quid to build. A good PC back in late 2005 was probably $1200 or so. These days, yes, it's about $800 US for a top of the line machine, though $500 easily gets you a comprehensive set of hardware + OS for gaming.
Real question should be since it scored better than bf3, it's mp should be better, right?
Not necessarily. A proper review leverages all aspects of a game's features and their importance. Whereas UC3's strength is in it's single player, BF3's strength is in it's multiplayer. BF3's SP is pretty weak though, and UC3's MP is good, hence why UC3 might be considered "better overall". Personally I could give less than a damn about MP in Uncharted, as that is not why I would buy it, same with with SP in BF3. Between the two, I'd rather have BF3. More hours of fun to be had.Real question should be since it scored better than bf3, it's mp should be better, right?
slimjimbadboy
[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]haha ha wow, not sure if you are trolling and a good PC from 2006 didnt cost 2k, it cost about 500-600 and a PC from 2006 can run BF3 on medium, which is above console settings, not to mention still gets 64 players, enjoy 24 playersRyviusARCOn 2006 multicore CPU where basically new,and you did not say good PC you say high end a high end PC on 2006 was more than $2,000 dollars. Maybe you forget the price of multi core CPU back on 2006,some were more than $800 for the CPU alone,the GPU top of the line was like $550 and some times even crossing the $600 line. I don't care about the number of player, Resistance 2 support 60 players online 8 players co-op,and Mag 256 players dude,that doesn't mean anything. The fact is bringing PC is silly the PS3 and 360 don't get a new GPU each year. A good dual core CPU back then was only a few hundred not 800 hundred. And a good GPU was around 300USD. That PC could outperfrom consoles. But for me I upgrade maybe once every 4 years. At the beginning of 2004 I bought a 6800gt and AMD Athlon 64 3200+. Even when the Xbox 360 and PS3 came out my computer was still playing most games at higher settings than consoles. It took years before my computer couldn't at least match console settings.
in 2004 I bought a Sempron 3300+ and a 6600gt and and it kept up with Console multiplats too, COD 2 looked better, Oblivion etc. then late 2005 I received 7600gt and used it until 2007 when I upgraded to a Athlon X2 6000, and a Geforce 8800GT, added another 8800GT for $100 in 2008 and that system was used until late 2010 when I upgraded the cpu/mobo and memory. Kept the 8800GT's until mid 2011 where I upgraded to a GTX 560. My old system from 2007 is still outclassing console's with one 8800GT.
[QUOTE="PC_Otter"][QUOTE="delta3074"]that's just plain wrong, dual core CPU's for PC's where out way before 2006, athlon 64 x2 dual core was released on april 2005 and this generation of consoles runs all multiplats since 2005 on what we call 'medium' PC settings, make no mistake, never in the history of conolses have consoles been more powerful than Pc's and to say it would cost you 2k for a decnt PC back then is just plain rubbish, to build a PC to run games on high settings would cost about 800 quid to build.delta3074A good PC back in late 2005 was probably $1200 or so. These days, yes, it's about $800 US for a top of the line machine, though $500 easily gets you a comprehensive set of hardware + OS for gaming.i am talking british pound stirling dude, 800 quid would have been about 1600 dollars,lol
I wasn't sure (even with "quid") that you were referring to pounds since you were responding to a poster who was using US dollars and you even mentioned the 2k in your post. 800 pounds is not that much cheaper than $2000 dollars, though I know you Brits have to deal with VAT and what not too which sucks and skews understanding of imported product prices and what not for those not in the UK.
i am talking british pound stirling dude, 800 quid would have been about 1600 dollars,lol[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="PC_Otter"] A good PC back in late 2005 was probably $1200 or so. These days, yes, it's about $800 US for a top of the line machine, though $500 easily gets you a comprehensive set of hardware + OS for gaming.PC_Otter
I wasn't sure (even with "quid") that you were referring to pounds since you were responding to a poster who was using US dollars and you even mentioned the 2k in your post. 800 pounds is not that much cheaper than $2000 dollars, though I know you Brits have to deal with VAT and what not too which sucks and skews understanding of imported product prices and what not for those not in the UK.in truth that 800 quid would have bought the most advanced PC at the time with all the bells and whistles and that includes the monitor, keyboard and mouse plus speakers
[QUOTE="PC_Otter"][QUOTE="delta3074"]i am talking british pound stirling dude, 800 quid would have been about 1600 dollars,loldelta3074
I wasn't sure (even with "quid") that you were referring to pounds since you were responding to a poster who was using US dollars and you even mentioned the 2k in your post. 800 pounds is not that much cheaper than $2000 dollars, though I know you Brits have to deal with VAT and what not too which sucks and skews understanding of imported product prices and what not for those not in the UK.in truth that 800 quid would have bought the most advanced PC at the time with all the bells and whistles and that includes the monitor, keyboard and mouse plus speakers I wouldn't know. I didn't build my first PC until April 2007, though I did end up spending way too much money on certain unnecessary things, skyrocketing the cost close to $1500. Now I have a much better understanding of hardware and what not to make much better decisions lol. Despite as such, I'm still glad to have bought that $100 Creative Platinum sound card :lol:
[QUOTE="delta3074"] that's just plain wrong, dual core CPU's for PC's where out way before 2006, athlon 64 x2 dual core was released on april 2005 and this generation of consoles runs all multiplats since 2005 on what we call 'medium' PC settings, make no mistake, never in the history of conolses have consoles been more powerful than Pc's and to say it would cost you 2k for a decnt PC back then is just plain rubbish, to build a PC to run games on high settings would cost about 800 quid to build.tormentosYou have a serious problem apparently you can't read,you get into other people conversations without actually reading and the you look foolish. He did not say decent PC he say high end PC,now i don't know what you get for high end,but for me is the very best or close,no walmart or sams $500 dollar crap. On 2005 the cheapest 64x 2 AMD CPU was $537 dollars do a research,the most expensive were $1,000 alone for the CPU a PC where the CPU cost $537 will not cost you probably less than $1,200,this was the case of the low end 64X2. http://techreport.com/articles.x/8295/1 Now on 2006 those model had go down in price,but since he did not say high end 2005 PC,he say high end 2006,is not the same,because those models on 2006 where not high end,already on 2006 there where other higher clocked and faster. So Yeah a high end PC on 2006 was more than $2000 pretty easy.when the ps3 first released here it was 500 pounds, 2 years later i bought a quad core phenom with 2 gb of RAM with an nvidia 8800 and 2 500gb SATA HDD's that smacks the ps3 round the face for 420 pounds and that included the keyboard, mouse and a HD monitor, trust me, in this country it is very nearly just as cheap to buy a more powerful PC that makes consoles look like weaksauce, i game on 360 over Pc for 2 reasons A: i prefer it and B: i can never get on the Pc because my wife is always on facebook playing crappy little Java games, saying that PC gaming is esponentially more expensive than console gaming is just a myth basically,it's just the same old excuse when PC gamers jump in and quite rightly state that no game on consoles will ever be graphics king and no game on consoles will ever be the most beutiful looking game.
in truth that 800 quid would have bought the most advanced PC at the time with all the bells and whistles and that includes the monitor, keyboard and mouse plus speakers I wouldn't know. I didn't build my first PC until April 2007, though I did end up spending way too much money on certain unnecessary things, skyrocketing the cost close to $1500. Now I have a much better understanding of hardware and what not to make much better decisions lol. Despite as such, I'm still glad to have bought that $100 Creative Platinum sound card :lol:if the sound cards done right by you for 4 years then it was a solid purchase imo[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="PC_Otter"]
I wasn't sure (even with "quid") that you were referring to pounds since you were responding to a poster who was using US dollars and you even mentioned the 2k in your post. 800 pounds is not that much cheaper than $2000 dollars, though I know you Brits have to deal with VAT and what not too which sucks and skews understanding of imported product prices and what not for those not in the UK.PC_Otter
i am talking british pound stirling dude, 800 quid would have been about 1600 dollars,lol[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="PC_Otter"] A good PC back in late 2005 was probably $1200 or so. These days, yes, it's about $800 US for a top of the line machine, though $500 easily gets you a comprehensive set of hardware + OS for gaming.PC_Otter
I wasn't sure (even with "quid") that you were referring to pounds since you were responding to a poster who was using US dollars and you even mentioned the 2k in your post. 800 pounds is not that much cheaper than $2000 dollars, though I know you Brits have to deal with VAT and what not too which sucks and skews understanding of imported product prices and what not for those not in the UK. I found a great example. AMD 64 X2 6000+ In UK when launch was priced for 300 quid,while on US it was $459 dollars,going by this a $2000 dollar PC should cost like 1,400 quid or more and not 800 like he claimed,funny thing how he challenge my argument even that i put dollar signs on it and he is from UK,is not the first time he does that,the argument was not about a modest PC,but a high end one,which on 2006 on US did not cost less than $2000 for a high end one.
[QUOTE="PC_Otter"]I wouldn't know. I didn't build my first PC until April 2007, though I did end up spending way too much money on certain unnecessary things, skyrocketing the cost close to $1500. Now I have a much better understanding of hardware and what not to make much better decisions lol. Despite as such, I'm still glad to have bought that $100 Creative Platinum sound card :lol:if the sound cards done right by you for 4 years then it was a solid purchase imo Regardless of how long I had it, It was a great card for games that supported Creative EAX like BF2 and 2142. The difference was amazing.[QUOTE="delta3074"]in truth that 800 quid would have bought the most advanced PC at the time with all the bells and whistles and that includes the monitor, keyboard and mouse plus speakersdelta3074
[QUOTE="PC_Otter"][QUOTE="delta3074"]i am talking british pound stirling dude, 800 quid would have been about 1600 dollars,loltormentos
I wasn't sure (even with "quid") that you were referring to pounds since you were responding to a poster who was using US dollars and you even mentioned the 2k in your post. 800 pounds is not that much cheaper than $2000 dollars, though I know you Brits have to deal with VAT and what not too which sucks and skews understanding of imported product prices and what not for those not in the UK. I found a great example. AMD 64 X2 6000+ In UK when launch was priced for 300 quid,while on US it was $459 dollars,going by this a $2000 dollar PC should cost like 1,400 quid or more and not 800 like he claimed,funny thing how he challenge my argument even that i put dollar signs on it and he is from UK,is not the first time he does that,the argument was not about a modest PC,but a high end one,which on 2006 on US did not cost less than $2000 for a high end one.can you provide a link for that cost because i just googled it and cannot find the launch price,and you do realise that the exchang rate to the dollar at the time was abot 1.8 dollars to a pound right? and i was talking the 3800 the 6000 wasn't released until 2007,lol the x2 3800 was only 400 dollars in 2005, you inflated the pricing using a CPU that didn't even exist at that time, i have heard of twisting the facts but that takes the biscuit. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/dual,review-1386.html
[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="PC_Otter"]I found a great example. AMD 64 X2 6000+ In UK when launch was priced for 300 quid,while on US it was $459 dollars,going by this a $2000 dollar PC should cost like 1,400 quid or more and not 800 like he claimed,funny thing how he challenge my argument even that i put dollar signs on it and he is from UK,is not the first time he does that,the argument was not about a modest PC,but a high end one,which on 2006 on US did not cost less than $2000 for a high end one.can you provide a link for that cost because i just googled it and cannot find the launch price,and you do realise that the exchang rate to the dollar at the time was abot 1.8 dollars to a pound right? and i was talking the 3800 the 6000 wasn't released until 2007,lol the x2 3800 was only 400 dollars in 2005, you inflated the pricing using a CPU that didn't even exist at that time, i have heard of twisting the facts but that takes the biscuit. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/dual,review-1386.html
I wasn't sure (even with "quid") that you were referring to pounds since you were responding to a poster who was using US dollars and you even mentioned the 2k in your post. 800 pounds is not that much cheaper than $2000 dollars, though I know you Brits have to deal with VAT and what not too which sucks and skews understanding of imported product prices and what not for those not in the UK.delta3074
In 2007 an Athlon X2 6000 was under $200. That fact remains Pc's are used more then just gaming which is why the prices are higher. even if a Pc did cost $2000 in 2006 it still kicked both consoles butts up and down the street ie.. A really high end pc in late 2006 "C2D 2-4gb ddr2, Geforce 8800GTX" was about $1200
when the ps3 first released here it was 500 pounds, 2 years later i bought a quad core phenom with 2 gb of RAM with an nvidia 8800 and 2 500gb SATA HDD's that smacks the ps3 round the face for 420 pounds and that included the keyboard, mouse and a HD monitor, trust me, in this country it is very nearly just as cheap to buy a more powerful PC that makes consoles look like weaksauce, i game on 360 over Pc for 2 reasons A: i prefer it and B: i can never get on the Pc because my wife is always on facebook playing crappy little Java games, saying that PC gaming is esponentially more expensive than console gaming is just a myth basically,it's just the same old excuse when PC gamers jump in and quite rightly state that no game on consoles will ever be graphics king and no game on consoles will ever be the most beutiful looking game.delta3074
The PS3 price in UK was 425 pound on launch for premium model dude not 500 pounds.
http://www.ps3vault.com/sony-uk-chief-reveals-launch-numbers-939
Also comparing prices of hardware with 2 years of difference is silly,more when you don't say what model of phenom you have or even what 8800 you have,that you try to picture lower prices for PC hardware in UK than every where else,when is a know fact that things in UK cost more than in US.
Exhibit A.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battlefield-3-Limited-PC-DVD/dp/B004MKM958
BF3 PC UK £49.99
http://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-3-Limited-Pc/dp/B002I0HJZO
BF3 PC US $59.95 At the current exchange rate you would pay for BF3 in dollars 80.2499 USD,that is $20 dollars more than we pay here,while we pay at current exchange rate 37.3697 GBP for the same game,everything in UK is more expensive is well know and documented,so if a PC cost $1,500 here that same PC probably at current currency exchange is like 900+ pounds or more in UK at the exchange.
Another example.
http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/blu-ray-players-and-recorders/samsung-bd-p1000-review-49284892/
Samsung Blu-Ray player BD-P1000 price in UK £900 at the current rate it cost $1,444.97 when in US it was $1,000,funny the PS3 was a better blu-ray player than that samsung,and did not cost half of 900 pounds when it was release,and it was a video game console with free online play.
can you provide a link for that cost because i just googled it and cannot find the launch price,and you do realise that the exchang rate to the dollar at the time was abot 1.8 dollars to a pound right? and i was talking the 3800 the 6000 wasn't released until 2007,lol the x2 3800 was only 400 dollars in 2005, you inflated the pricing using a CPU that didn't even exist at that time, i have heard of twisting the facts but that takes the biscuit. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/dual,review-1386.htmldelta3074
I never say the 6000+ was release on 2005,it was an example on pricing dudem,you apparently can't read.
The previous "starter chip" in the X2 family was the Athlon 64 X2 4200+. Even with best-deal single-unit costs of $560 or so, this is a chip in demand by the market - in fact, many retailers continue to charge $600 or more for this model. This not only set a new ceiling for AMD pricing, but is out of reach for most users. In fact, the top-of-the-line X2 4800+ goes for over $1,100! That's why we aired critical observations about cost in our initial X2 article - AMD has prospered in the past from its exceptional skills at balancing price and performance.
I inflated the price from your own damn link.lol you got serve by your own link.:D
The 3800 wasn't introduce until a later time,the chepest of the 64X2 CPU was the 4200 the 3800 was release after it,from your own link read what they say,in fact you just confimed my info even more,retailer were actually charging more than the MSR for it,$600 and $1,100 when the retail price was $1,000 and $560 set by AMD.
[QUOTE="delta3074"]when the ps3 first released here it was 500 pounds, 2 years later i bought a quad core phenom with 2 gb of RAM with an nvidia 8800 and 2 500gb SATA HDD's that smacks the ps3 round the face for 420 pounds and that included the keyboard, mouse and a HD monitor, trust me, in this country it is very nearly just as cheap to buy a more powerful PC that makes consoles look like weaksauce, i game on 360 over Pc for 2 reasons A: i prefer it and B: i can never get on the Pc because my wife is always on facebook playing crappy little Java games, saying that PC gaming is esponentially more expensive than console gaming is just a myth basically,it's just the same old excuse when PC gamers jump in and quite rightly state that no game on consoles will ever be graphics king and no game on consoles will ever be the most beutiful looking game.tormentos
The PS3 price in UK was 425 pound on launch for premium model dude not 500 pounds.
http://www.ps3vault.com/sony-uk-chief-reveals-launch-numbers-939
Also comparing prices of hardware with 2 years of difference is silly,more when you don't say what model of phenom you have or even what 8800 you have,that you try to picture lower prices for PC hardware in UK than every where else,when is a know fact that things in UK cost more than in US.
Exhibit A.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battlefield-3-Limited-PC-DVD/dp/B004MKM958
BF3 PC UK £49.99
http://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-3-Limited-Pc/dp/B002I0HJZO
BF3 PC US $59.95 At the current exchange rate you would pay for BF3 in dollars 80.2499 USD,that is $20 dollars more than we pay here,while we pay at current exchange rate 37.3697 GBP for the same game,everything in UK is more expensive is well know and documented,so if a PC cost $1,500 here that same PC probably at current currency exchange is like 900+ pounds or more in UK at the exchange.
Another example.
http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/blu-ray-players-and-recorders/samsung-bd-p1000-review-49284892/
Samsung Blu-Ray player BD-P1000 price in UK £900 at the current rate it cost $1,444.97 when in US it was $1,000,funny the PS3 was a better blu-ray player than that samsung,and did not cost half of 900 pounds when it was release,and it was a video game console with free online play.
[QUOTE="delta3074"]can you provide a link for that cost because i just googled it and cannot find the launch price,and you do realise that the exchang rate to the dollar at the time was abot 1.8 dollars to a pound right? and i was talking the 3800 the 6000 wasn't released until 2007,lol the x2 3800 was only 400 dollars in 2005, you inflated the pricing using a CPU that didn't even exist at that time, i have heard of twisting the facts but that takes the biscuit. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/dual,review-1386.htmltormentos
I never say the 6000+ was release on 2005,it was an example on pricing dudem,you apparently can't read.
The previous "starter chip" in the X2 family was the Athlon 64 X2 4200+. Even with best-deal single-unit costs of $560 or so, this is a chip in demand by the market - in fact, many retailers continue to charge $600 or more for this model. This not only set a new ceiling for AMD pricing, but is out of reach for most users. In fact, the top-of-the-line X2 4800+ goes for over $1,100! That's why we aired critical observations about cost in our initial X2 article - AMD has prospered in the past from its exceptional skills at balancing price and performance.
I inflated the price from your own damn link.lol you got serve by your own link.:D
The 3800 wasn't introduce until a later time,the chepest of the 64X2 CPU was the 4200 the 3800 was release after it,from your own link read what they say,in fact you just confimed my info even more,retailer were actually charging more than the MSR for it,$600 and $1,100 when the retail price was $1,000 and $560 set by AMD.
"It looks like AMD has taken this criticism to heart - in a big way. They now offer a new entry-level dual core model, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+, which is available for under $400 on the open market, with bottom-dollar pricing yet to be settled. This sounds much better to us already!" from my own damn link, nice try though mate:)
Uncharted 3 has some of the most beautiful and technically mind blowing scenes ever on consoles, not only that there are tons more wow moments than your typical Gears game. The Chateau, Yemen, Cruise level, Airplane level, the desert village, the Caravan canyon, the Atlantis of the sands and [spoiler] young Drake's level [/spoiler] are the pinnacle of what consoles can achieve this gen. I shall see what SSM would do next, they are the only one who might have a chance of topping it. gpukingExcept the story was underwhelming and kinda boring. Why didnt they ever bring back cutter or chloe after the middle of the game?
i am talking british pound stirling dude, 800 quid would have been about 1600 dollars,loldelta3074
On what planet Mate ?
Here it wont fetch more than a little under $ 1300 and a couple of years ago even less .
Read the article.One persons opinion does not speak on behalf of the entire world.
Steameffekt
Most of you should actually learn how to read.
It clearly says, one of the best looking games"ON CONSOLES". Read again if you don't get it.
Comparing UC3 with Witcher 2 maxed out is just being naive or borderline insane. Witcher 2 makes a total mockery out of UC3.
Can somebody please post some UC3 screenshots WITH HUD and not resized.
So how in gods name does Uncharted 3 beat this??
Oh wait, it doesn't.
Most of you should actually learn how to read.
It clearly says, one of the best looking games"ON CONSOLES". Read again if you don't get it.
Comparing UC3 with Witcher 2 maxed out is just being naive or borderline insane. Witcher 2 makes a total mockery out of UC3.
Can somebody please post some UC3 screenshots WITH HUD and not resized.
fireballonfire
Comparing PC games to consoles one is silly,instead of downplaying Uncharted 3 it just say how impressive the game is,when gamers had to resort to PC game that run on top of the line card and PC.
So how in gods name does Uncharted 3 beat this??
Oh wait, it doesn't.
marq4porsche
It doesn't have to.
What PC lovers fail to see is that those games coming from great PC with top of the line cards,are not that impressive coming from PC,now Uncharted 3 is impressive coming from the PS3,this is something people ignore.
Like Uncharted 2 the 3rd one would probably win several award for graphics,don't get mad PC games are basically no counted,and if the are the graphics are jodge from the platform they are coming from.
Comparing PC games to consoles one is silly,instead of downplaying Uncharted 3 it just say how impressive the game is,when gamers had to resort to PC game that run on top of the line card and PC.tormentosOnce people stop comparing their console game to a PC game then I will stop. If I make a comparison of a console game to a PC game it's in response to someone who is doing the same. If you are only talking about consoles then you are not who the post is directed to. I usually stick with multiplats for comparison especially the ones without much difference in game settings just to show how much a difference higher res and AA+AF can make. Like how Dead Space 1 looks much better with some AF+AA and high resolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JECHfnxf4rU
[QUOTE="fireballonfire"]
Most of you should actually learn how to read.
It clearly says, one of the best looking games"ON CONSOLES". Read again if you don't get it.
Comparing UC3 with Witcher 2 maxed out is just being naive or borderline insane. Witcher 2 makes a total mockery out of UC3.
Can somebody please post some UC3 screenshots WITH HUD and not resized.
tormentos
Comparing PC games to consoles one is silly,instead of downplaying Uncharted 3 it just say how impressive the game is,when gamers had to resort to PC game that run on top of the line card and PC.
Man said Uncharted 3 was graphics king. He opened himself up to PC ownage at that point. My card is no where near top of the line, heck it was midrange 2 years ago, but it can produce graphics that would burn both consoles. With that I'm running BF3 at mixed ultra through medium settings at over 30 fps, way higher than consoles can get. Even though the game does look great due to art design, technically speaking it is lacking in some areas. Textures are very flat for the geo their covering, the modeling while good could be more detailed. Rubble and stones look weird because there is no ambient occlusion to tie them properly into the environment. Overall the game needs better AA. That said Uncharted 3 does look gorgeous and I consider the series the only one I'm missing out on by not owning a PS3."It looks like AMD has taken this criticism to heart - in a big way. They now offer a new entry-level dual core model, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+, which is available for under $400 on the open market, with bottom-dollar pricing yet to be settled. This sounds much better to us already!" from my own damn link, nice try though mate:)delta3074
Spinning are we.?
Your own link say the prices,the problem here is that you say on 2005,the one abailable since early 2005,were the 4200 and up,the 3800 wasn't release until late 2005,so the majority of the chips sold where sold at more than $500.
That line did not really had and exntry level CPU,until late 2005 august i think,so my point still stand,oh by the way the 3800 was the cheapest and lowes performance wise,so no it doesn't fit the argument the other person was having with me,since he say high end,the high end CPU of that line was $1,100 by your own link.
[QUOTE="tormentos"]Comparing PC games to consoles one is silly,instead of downplaying Uncharted 3 it just say how impressive the game is,when gamers had to resort to PC game that run on top of the line card and PC.RyviusARCOnce people stop comparing their console game to a PC game then I will stop. If I make a comparison of a console game to a PC game it's in response to someone who is doing the same. If you are only talking about consoles then you are not who the post is directed to. I usually stick with multiplats for comparison especially the ones without much difference in game settings just to show how much a difference higher res and AA+AF can make. Like how Dead Space 1 looks much better with some AF+AA and high resolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JECHfnxf4rU
I don't know who compare Uncharted 3 to PC games,but you have to actually ignore him,is silly comparing consoles games to PC ones,the consoles will always loose,some people don't think before posting or get carry away,i don't compare those because is silly.
Man said Uncharted 3 was graphics king. He opened himself up to PC ownage at that point. My card is no where near top of the line, heck it was midrange 2 years ago, but it can produce graphics that would burn both consoles. With that I'm running BF3 at mixed ultra through medium settings at over 30 fps, way higher than consoles can get. Even though the game does look great due to art design, technically speaking it is lacking in some areas. Textures are very flat for the geo their covering, the modeling while good could be more detailed. Rubble and stones look weird because there is no ambient occlusion to tie them properly into the environment. Overall the game needs better AA. That said Uncharted 3 does look gorgeous and I consider the series the only one I'm missing out on by not owning a PS3.marq4porsche
It is the graphics king,since when PC games get counted here as consoles ones,the problem i see is that PC gamers get offended by this,when sites actually give graphics awards to a console game was because it was impressive coming from a console,PC games are basically ignore,or not seen as impressive.?
A mid range card 2 years ago,is basically 2 or 3 generations ahead of what the PS3 and 360 had if not more.
The fact is that PC get not counte most of the time,because it gets new hardware all the time,you are not running BF3 on mid or max setting on a X1900 which is basically what the 360 has,you are running it on a far more advance GPU,even that it was mid range 2 years ago,and that is the reason PC games are not countend,and they probably never will.
[QUOTE="marq4porsche"]Man said Uncharted 3 was graphics king. He opened himself up to PC ownage at that point. My card is no where near top of the line, heck it was midrange 2 years ago, but it can produce graphics that would burn both consoles. With that I'm running BF3 at mixed ultra through medium settings at over 30 fps, way higher than consoles can get. Even though the game does look great due to art design, technically speaking it is lacking in some areas. Textures are very flat for the geo their covering, the modeling while good could be more detailed. Rubble and stones look weird because there is no ambient occlusion to tie them properly into the environment. Overall the game needs better AA. That said Uncharted 3 does look gorgeous and I consider the series the only one I'm missing out on by not owning a PS3.
tormentos
It is the graphics king,since when PC games get counted here as consoles ones,the problem i see is that PC gamers get offended by this,when sites actually give graphics awards to a console game was because it was impressive coming from a console,PC games are basically ignore,or not seen as impressive.?
A mid range card 2 years ago,is basically 2 or 3 generations ahead of what the PS3 and 360 had if not more.
The fact is that PC get not counte most of the time,because it gets new hardware all the time,you are not running BF3 on mid or max setting on a X1900 which is basically what the 360 has,you are running it on a far more advance GPU,even that it was mid range 2 years ago,and that is the reason PC games are not countend,and they probably never will.
I know the reasoning, but I believe that reasoning is flawed. If the game looks better it looks better. There is no denying that fact. PC games like BF3, TW2, C2 all came out this year and look better than anything on consoles. Just because the consoles have older hardware and are able to produce good but not great results doesn't mean they get the title of Graphics King. That title goes to the game that actually does improve and push the boundaries of gaming graphics overall. And that includes PC, consoles, handhelds, tablets, whatever. The way your logic goes means that we should consider 3DS games to be graphics king because they run on weaker hardware. Flawed logic huh.
[QUOTE="delta3074"] "It looks like AMD has taken this criticism to heart - in a big way. They now offer a new entry-level dual core model, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+, which is available for under $400 on the open market, with bottom-dollar pricing yet to be settled. This sounds much better to us already!" from my own damn link, nice try though mate:)tormentos
Spinning are we.?
Your own link say the prices,the problem here is that you say on 2005,the one abailable since early 2005,were the 4200 and up,the 3800 wasn't release until late 2005,so the majority of the chips sold where sold at more than $500.
That line did not really had and exntry level CPU,until late 2005 august i think,so my point still stand,oh by the way the 3800 was the cheapest and lowes performance wise,so no it doesn't fit the argument the other person was having with me,since he say high end,the high end CPU of that line was $1,100 by your own link.
how am i spinnig? you stated 2005, the CPU was available in 2005, wheres the spin? doesn't matter whether it was early or later you only stipulated 2005 dude and you don't need a high end CPU just a high end graphics card and plenty of RAM, you don't know much about PC architecture do you,any dual core would have beeen considerd adequate at the time for a high end PC,lol[QUOTE="marq4porsche"]Man said Uncharted 3 was graphics king. He opened himself up to PC ownage at that point. My card is no where near top of the line, heck it was midrange 2 years ago, but it can produce graphics that would burn both consoles. With that I'm running BF3 at mixed ultra through medium settings at over 30 fps, way higher than consoles can get. Even though the game does look great due to art design, technically speaking it is lacking in some areas. Textures are very flat for the geo their covering, the modeling while good could be more detailed. Rubble and stones look weird because there is no ambient occlusion to tie them properly into the environment. Overall the game needs better AA. That said Uncharted 3 does look gorgeous and I consider the series the only one I'm missing out on by not owning a PS3.
tormentos
It is the graphics king,since when PC games get counted here as consoles ones,the problem i see is that PC gamers get offended by this,when sites actually give graphics awards to a console game was because it was impressive coming from a console,PC games are basically ignore,or not seen as impressive.?
A mid range card 2 years ago,is basically 2 or 3 generations ahead of what the PS3 and 360 had if not more.
The fact is that PC get not counte most of the time,because it gets new hardware all the time,you are not running BF3 on mid or max setting on a X1900 which is basically what the 360 has,you are running it on a far more advance GPU,even that it was mid range 2 years ago,and that is the reason PC games are not countend,and they probably never will.
system wars not console wars dude, and the title of graphics king goes to the games with the best graphics not graphics that push weaker hardware,lolhow am i spinnig? you stated 2005, the CPU was available in 2005, wheres the spin? doesn't matter whether it was early or later you only stipulated 2005 dude and you don't need a high end CPU just a high end graphics card and plenty of RAM, you don't know much about PC architecture do you,any dual core would have beeen considerd adequate at the time for a high end PC,loldelta3074People who spend their money wisely will never fall into his listing of prices. I never buy the newest high end hardware because it is usually overpriced and under utilized. My old Athlon 64 3200+ from an early 2004 PC build was keeping up with the early Athlon x2 CPUs back then because games still didn't take advantage of dual core CPUs as well as they should have. By the time my Athlon 64 was suffering in performance I could purchase a good Athlon x2 for around a 150 USD.
[QUOTE="delta3074"]how am i spinnig? you stated 2005, the CPU was available in 2005, wheres the spin? doesn't matter whether it was early or later you only stipulated 2005 dude and you don't need a high end CPU just a high end graphics card and plenty of RAM, you don't know much about PC architecture do you,any dual core would have beeen considerd adequate at the time for a high end PC,lolRyviusARCPeople who spend their money wisely will never fall into his listing of prices. I never buy the newest high end hardware because it is usually overpriced and under utilized. My old Athlon 64 3200+ from an early 2004 PC build was keeping up with the early Athlon x2 CPUs back then because games still didn't take advantage of dual core CPUs as well as they should have. By the time my Athlon 64 was suffering in performance I could purchase an Athlon x2 for around a hundred USD.i don't think he knows much about the architecture itself, just the prices, i cannot afford to upgrade that often so i wait until my PC is suffering to diplay new games at mid-high range before i upgrade.
Ppl who compare PC to PS3 don't understand technology, they are not in the same league.
It's like 90 pound guy vs sumo wrestler.
UC3 is doing things graphically that a console should not be able to do.
Nothing on PC right now is utilizing the hardware to its potential.
See...
Most (affordable) computer monitors today max out at 1080p
And the best TV's also max at 1080p.
A console tries to UPSCALE to 1080p and a PC often has a limitation of 1080p.
Combine this with console devs pushing the hardware to the wall, and you can understand why the difference is quite small.
Screenshots don't do this topic justice because screenshots are digital.
Human eyes are analog and the end result of "graphics" is also analog.
At the end of the day the result is a picture on a screen that /should/ be judged as what it is, an analog representation of something created digitally.
As an analog picture, UC3 rivals anything on PC.
And that's something that hermits are having a difficult time coming to grips with.
UC3 is doing things graphically that a console should not be able to do.ZombieKiller7thats a silly statement, it wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't capable of doing it, and nowhere in the artical did it say that the Ps3 was doing things it should not be able to do, and graphics king is awarded to the game that has the best graphics, it's as simple is that, stop complicating things, not just that but UC3 as an analog picture has jaggies, crysis, the witcher 2 and most other PC games do not,lol
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment