This topic is locked from further discussion.
you call that a serious graphics analysis? that has to be the worst analysis i have ever seen, besides, you are totally biased towards the Ps3 so i am not even going to take this remotely seriously.[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="drakekratos"]
Uncharted 3 vs Gears 3
Character Models - Uncharted offers realistic and detailed characters that are almost life like. Gears has clumsy oveersized characters that overdosed on Barry Bonds HGH supplments and Locust that look like confused Dinosuars.
Winner- Uncharted 3 easily
Environments - Uncharted has way, way more variety. Expect to see desert, jungles, realistic urban cities, ocean, vehicles, ice caves, epic skylines, etc. Meanwhile Gears is pretty much limited to only broken down buildings. Uncharted also has much more detail since everything is hand drawn, while Gears re-uses assets from previous games.
Winner - Uncharted 3 easily
Special Effects - Uncharted 3 has better HDR effects. Better blurring. Better water. Better sand. However, when people think about special effects, they think about fire, smoke, and explosions.... and that is one area where Gears is better than Uncharted. Infact, it's probably the ONLY area that gears excels in when compared to Uncharted.
Winner - Gears 3
Lighting - Gears has nice lighting, but Uncharted has better lighting. Period. Watching Nathan Drake walk through the dimly lit cruise ship in the E3 demo was nice, and once he walked under a bright light it was eerily realistic abd became evident that Gears lighting is no match for Uncharted's.
Winner - Uncharted 3, but Gears also has nice lighting
Colors - Do you even need an explanation? This is the one area where Uncharted has always killed Gears. While Gears sticks to monotone grey/beige coloring, Uncharted has always flaunted greens, red, and blues. Uncharted uses colors better than any other game. Period.
Winner - Uncharted 3 easily.
Realism - Uncharted has perfectly proportioned characters and environments. Gears does not. It's also harder for artists to have a realistic look in there games, and Naughty Dog achieves that. Unreal Engine also gives everything a weird slimy/greasy look to it.
Winner - Uncharted 3 easily
Frame Rate - Out of all the Graphical powerhouses, Uncharted has always had the most solid frame rate. Even Killzone and Crysis dont compete with Uncharted when it comes to Frame Rate. You know when U3 comes out, it will be locked in at a silky smooth 30fps. On the other hand, Gears 3 demo at E3 looked choppy and previous games have had frame rate hiccups.
Winner - Uncharted 3
Animation - Another area where Uncharted is King. Uncharted 2 still has the best animations of any game on console. While Gears has canned and repetitive animations, Uncharted dynamically blends different animations for different body parts. Every time you take cover in Uncharted, there is always a different combination of animations going on between upper body and lower body. There are different running/walking animations depending on the situation in Uncharted. Meanwhile everything in Gears only has one animation.
Winner - Uncharted 3, easily
Destruction - Uncharted 3 has shown impressive destructability. While it probably isnt as good as Battlefield's, it still looks great and will add new ways to kill enemies in Uncharted. Gears on the other hand does not feature any destructability.
Winner - Uncharted 3 by default
Conclusion - Uncharted 3 has better graphics and performs better in every way imaginable except for fire/smoke effects. From a pure eye candy perspective, to a technical perspective, Uncharted 3 reigns supreme over Gears of War 3.
epicstory
Agreed. Fail thread.
nice to see how this thraed completely turned against the tc :lol:
[QUOTE="drakekratos"]
Dont be jealous bro.
Haters gonna hate.
balfe1990
That is not gameplay!!
So how is that relevant in a "graphics thread"?
You're grasping at straws now bud.
call me a fanboy, call me biased, call me anything you want but IMO all I am seeing is scripted sequences. Great if you like the look of scripted sequences but it's not representative of gameplay.[QUOTE="balfe1990"]
[QUOTE="drakekratos"]
Dont be jealous bro.
Haters gonna hate.
CwlHeddwyn
That is not gameplay!!
So how is that relevant in a "graphics thread"?
You're grasping at straws now bud.
call me a fanboy, call me biased, call me anything you want but IMO all I am seeing is scripted sequences. Great if you like the look of scripted sequences but it's not representative of gameplay. Also, what the hell is wrong with the lighting under the table? Obvious failure of pre-baked lighting.
[QUOTE="Vadamee"]Proven where? By angry lems? I'll take Gears PC in DX10 anyday. And yes, I do own Gears 2 on 360 so I have seen both versions. More AI? Does that mean Koei games are better because they have a ton of AI on screen at once? Resolution, textures, lighting, everything looks better. And resolution makes a huge difference. People who say it doesn't make that big of a difference need their vision tested.ChubbyGuy40No, it was proven by logical ones. Also, I don't recall ever saying that resolution didn't make a huge difference, so I think its you who is in need of an optometrist.
[QUOTE="opex07"]While the PC version has the obvious additions of resolution, and textures, and framerate, it is still using the same assets for character models, world geometry and lighting that is present in gears of war 1 for the 360. While Gears of War PC looks good, it falls behind Gears of war 2 in several areas, some of these being character models, gears of war character models clearly boast more polygons demanding more resources in game a clear and easy example of this is simply looking at the burmak designs of the two games you can clearly see alot of the characters details are simply textured on instead of having actual geometry like in the case of gears of war 2, most notable the chains. Also gears of war 1 PC relies almost entirely of static lighting and does not feature as much dynamic lights as gears of war 2. Another large difference is the levels and what is actually going on in them, gears of war 1 is very linear and for the most part will only be rendering a handful of enemies on screen, while gears of war 2 is still a very linear experience it still boasts much larger draw distances, while incorporating more enemies at once. Gears of war 2 also boasts some of the additions added to the Unreal engine for its release this video clearly shows some of the additions of gears of war 2, While the PC version is a good looking game it is still a console port at heart.ChubbyGuy40While Gears 2 did have obvious upgrades in UE3, I believe it still didn't look better. It kinda feels like the situation with Crysis 2. While CE3 has the much better tech, the game created still doesn't look as great as its predecessor and not as good as it should've been. It had the ability to be better, but it was rushed and wasn't able to do much more. Only difference with the Brumak was what you said, the chains. They wern't painted on as they were in Gears 1 PC. And I'm not sure what version of UE3 that Gears PC and Gears 2 used. I only know Gears PC wasn't the same as the 360 version and was newer (Do to obvious DX10 and higher quality assets and they couldn't port over the exclusive content to 360.)But yeah, it was a port. It would've been a damn good port if it wasn't for the scourge GFWL. Wish Microsoft would dump that software already and stop forcing it on its developers for PC. How it looks is subjective. 100% your opinion. My 4 year old niece thinks Kinectimals looks better than Gears of War 2 and shes no more incredulous than you are. Fact of the matter is that Gears 2 is technically superior to Gears of War on either platform because of the advancements to the Unreal Engine 3 And before you use this "DX10 is so superior to DX9 argument" you should realize that DX10 only makes the game run more efficient on comparable hardware; it doesn't look much different from DX9:
HardOCP on Gears of War PC: DX9 v. DX10 We looked very closely at texture and shader quality between both options and also found absolutely no image quality differencesHardOCP
We found absolutely no differences in shadow quality between these two options, the edges of the shadow looked exactly the same and the shadows dynamic nature was cast onto all objects with the same image quality.HardOCP
Here are some full screen images that have been cropped and put side-by-side to compare DX10 "Off" with DX10 "On" at the highest settings. If you can't see any differences in image quality between both comparisons it is not just you, we aren't seeing any differences in image quality either in any of these screenshots. Not one single shred of difference in texture quality, or shadows, or lighting or anything. Let's look at some specific graphical effects to see if there is anything different.HardOCP[quote="HardOCP"] The Bottom Line We found no image quality differences inherent to enabling DX10 mode, but we did find a large performance drop on every video card. Simply put there is no reason to run this game in DX10 unless you have a powerful enough video card to handle 4X AA with this mode enabled. For the best performance run this game with DX10 "Off" and crank up the resolution with maximum in-game settings for a very fun, fast paced, action game. Source: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2007/11/05/gears_war_pc_performance_iq/6 For even more proof that Gears 2 is technically superior to Gears PC, just look at the chains around this Brumak's neck:
Gridlock in multiplayer: 
Like I said earlier... How something "looks" is your opinion of which I will say "cool story bro." The only advantage Gears PC has that effects graphics is resolution and resolution is not the only factor that effects graphics. You have things like lighting, shaders, and geometry all of which Gears 2 on 360 is superior and Gears 3 looks noticably better than 2 due to the improvements to the underlying engine. 
Log in to comment