Carmack used to be a programmer god. That's a long time ago. Now I read he is working on RAGE for PC, PS3, and 360. It is probably a given that the PC version will look the best. However, what if RAGE on 360 doesn't look as good as Killzone 3 on PS3? That would mean the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 or Carmack is losing his programming touch. So far, no company can create a game on Xbox 360 that looks as good as Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2. If Carmack can't, then the PS3 must be significantly more powerful than the 360.
It already does look better than kz3 as do gears 3bigboss5ak
I think you are jumping the gun. RAGE and Gears 3 don't have a beta yet. Any non-beta video doesn't count as it can be doctored. Besides, chances are Killzone 3 will have a larger number of multiplayers, which would make Killzone 3's graphics even more impressive.
Why would you compare different platforms if you are interested in Carmack's skills? You should compare Rage PS3 vs Killzone 3.
KiZZo1
Because I believe the 360 is a the weak console, and if Carmack can make a 360 game look as good as Killzone 3, then Carmack is still the programing god.
Why would you compare different platforms if you are interested in Carmack's skills? You should compare Rage PS3 vs Killzone 3.
booniga
Because I believe the 360 is a the weak console, and if Carmack can make a 360 game look as good as Killzone 3, then Carmack is still the programing god. just so you know there are games that look better than killzone 2 so yeah
It depends on the type of game that's being made. Rage, for example, does a lot of stuff with megatexturing, which means that it'll be streaming textures in and out of RAM very, very quickly. Fast read speed on the disk will be very important for the game to look good, as will fast VRAM for good framerates. It's really not so simple as "X will look better than Y." 3D graphics is a very involved, very complicated area, and the tables can quickly turn depending on the type of 3D scene being drawn.
No because games already out prove 360 is as capable. RDR, Reach and Castlevania are some good examples of it. Also what i have seen of Gears3 seem to surpass anything currently on consoles.
No because games already out prove 360 is as capable. RDR, Reach and Castlevania are some good examples of it. Also what i have seen of Gears3 seem to surpass anything currently on consoles.
PAL360
What i have see of Gears 3 doesn't even surpass Uncharted 2 let alone Killzone 3.
No because games already out prove 360 is as capable. RDR, Reach and Castlevania are some good examples of it. Also what i have seen of Gears3 seem to surpass anything currently on consoles.
sts106mat
What i have see of Gears 3 doesn't even surpass Uncharted 2 let alone Killzone 3. how sad is this? your comparing games that aren't even out yet on five year old tech. why not get a PC if graphics is all that matter? First it was pal360 who say gears 3 look better than anything currently on consoles,so i told him that from what i have seen Gears 3 did not even beat Uncharted 2 graphically let alone Killzone 3,which by the way is not finish or released yet as gears 3. Second where did i say that graphics were all it matter quote please.
[QUOTE="Samvigote"][QUOTE="sts106mat"][QUOTE="Samvigote"] What i have see of Gears 3 doesn't even surpass Uncharted 2 let alone Killzone 3. how sad is this? your comparing games that aren't even out yet on five year old tech. why not get a PC if graphics is all that matter? First it was pal360 who say gears 3 look better than anything currently on consoles,so i told him that from what i have seen Gears 3 did not even beat Uncharted 2 graphically let alone Killzone 3,which by the way is not finish or released yet as gears 3. Second where did i say that graphics were all it matter quote please. Well, seriously, there is a very fine line between all three, I wouldn't say "doesnt beat this let alone that" because between those three games, you're talking about artstyle not graphics.
[QUOTE="ocstew"][QUOTE="Samvigote"][QUOTE="sts106mat"] how sad is this? your comparing games that aren't even out yet on five year old tech. why not get a PC if graphics is all that matter? First it was pal360 who say gears 3 look better than anything currently on consoles,so i told him that from what i have seen Gears 3 did not even beat Uncharted 2 graphically let alone Killzone 3,which by the way is not finish or released yet as gears 3. Second where did i say that graphics were all it matter quote please. Well, seriously, there is a very fine line between all three, I wouldn't say "doesnt beat this let alone that" because between those three games, you're talking about artstyle not graphics. Actually is not just artstyle on those games what you can debate,is much more but to be fair we have to wait and see more of gears 3 to actually make a more fair comparison,but is not just art style,is allot more on graphics that you can argue,like attention to details,which in Killzone 2 proved to be much more than on Gears 2,from what i see the gap look to be even bigger,but again until i see more i can't say completely.
Their working on 3 different platforms.. and the game is an open world running at 60fps, they have already beat killzone 3, also, anyone else think killzone 3 looks worse than killzone 2? in kz3 the gun models and environments look really messy..
[QUOTE="worknow222"] just so you know there are games that look better than killzone 2 so yeahgpuking
God of war 3 and Uncharted 2 are arguably better looking, what else am I missing? Crysis...[QUOTE="booniga"]Carmack used to be a programmer god. That's a long time ago. Now I read he is working on RAGE for PC, PS3, and 360. It is probably a given that the PC version will look the best. However, what if RAGE on 360 doesn't look as good as Killzone 3 on PS3? That would mean the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 or Carmack is losing his programming touch. So far, no company can create a game on Xbox 360 that looks as good as Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2. If Carmack can't, then the PS3 must be significantly more powerful than the 360. A cow conveniently excluding the PC in their arguement so that the PS3 can actually win something graphics wise? Colour me surprised.
[QUOTE="bigboss5ak"]It already does look better than kz3 as do gears 3booniga
I think you are jumping the gun. RAGE and Gears 3 don't have a beta yet. Any non-beta video doesn't count as it can be doctored. Besides, chances are Killzone 3 will have a larger number of multiplayers, which would make Killzone 3's graphics even more impressive. both gears 3 and Rage are in pre alpha with more than a year from release, If you follow epic you'd know that every month they add many significant features to the new UDK which is the engine used for gears 3. You also have to realize what direction they're taking the engine. The new engine is very very impressive tech not only for its rendering but also how effecient it is with little RAMeverything is beingimproved while making each aspect cost less. They implemented things such as a new distrubuted computing systme that better uses a CPU, basicly they way devs program the cell. tasks are spread out along a normal CPU and GPUs architicutre allowing a huge bump in processing power. Then there's thier new GI method (light mass) heck here just read the new link:
RAGE runs at 60fps which cannot be seen in screenshots (obviously), and this already gives it an advantage over KZ3/Gears3. Why is this always downplayed? The game is going to look amazing.
RAGE runs at 60fps which cannot be seen in screenshots (obviously), and this already gives it an advantage over KZ3/Gears3. Why is this always downplayed? The game is going to look amazing.
RawDeal_basic
We have to see the final game,it could run at 60 FPS,but in other parts the game can suffer we have to see,not even sony was able to put Killzone 2 at 60 FPS,the same with Kilklzone 3,so i think that if rage runs at 60FPS,Killzone 3 even probably killzone 2 will look better than Rage on consoles,not PC the PC version like always will look better than anything on consoles for sure.
RAGE runs at 60fps which cannot be seen in screenshots (obviously), and this already gives it an advantage over KZ3/Gears3. Why is this always downplayed? The game is going to look amazing.
Samvigote
We have to see the final game,it could run at 60 FPS,but in other parts the game can suffer we have to see,not even sony was able to put Killzone 2 at 60 FPS,the same with Kilklzone 3,so i think that if rage runs at 60FPS,Killzone 3 even probably killzone 2 will look better than Rage on consoles,not PC the PC version like always will look better than anything on consoles for sure.
RAGE runs at 60fps which cannot be seen in screenshots (obviously), and this already gives it an advantage over KZ3/Gears3. Why is this always downplayed? The game is going to look amazing.
Filthybastrd
We have to see the final game,it could run at 60 FPS,but in other parts the game can suffer we have to see,not even sony was able to put Killzone 2 at 60 FPS,the same with Kilklzone 3,so i think that if rage runs at 60FPS,Killzone 3 even probably killzone 2 will look better than Rage on consoles,not PC the PC version like always will look better than anything on consoles for sure.
KZ2 did not run at 60fps and neither will KZ3.
That is what i say that not even sony was able to put Killzone 2 or 3 on 60FPS with those graphics,so a trade in is in order for Rage to run at 60 fps,what can they trade.? Lower resolution,no AA,less details,smaller and more enclosed areas,are some of the things that can be trade of in order to get to the 60fps mark,which is what i want to see in the final version.what would be the trade in. Is like on PC where you lower resolution,turn off AA or lower detail to get more frames,sure you get them but at the cost of quality.
[QUOTE="Samvigote"] We have to see the final game,it could run at 60 FPS,but in other parts the game can suffer we have to see,not even sony was able to put Killzone 2 at 60 FPS,the same with Kilklzone 3,so i think that if rage runs at 60FPS,Killzone 3 even probably killzone 2 will look better than Rage on consoles,not PC the PC version like always will look better than anything on consoles for sure.Samvigote
KZ2 did not run at 60fps and neither will KZ3.
That is what i say that not even sony was able to put Killzone 2 or 3 on 60FPS with those graphics,so a trade in is in order for Rage to run at 60 fps,what can they trade.? Lower resolution,no AA,less details,smaller and more enclosed areas,are some of the things that can be trade of in order to get to the 60fps mark,which is what i want to see in the final version.what would be the trade in. Is like on PC where you lower resolution,turn off AA or lower detail to get more frames,sure you get them but at the cost of quality. Your mistake is using other games and devs to measure ID and Carmack against. Procedural Terrain and textures can be a big help, which Carmack is one of the leaders in developing further. Not to mention that RAGE uses the new MEGATexture technology he developed. It isnt the same as the methods currently in use, so your example would only apply in a limited scope. Also, not all devs are the same. Consoles are are more efficient than PC games since they have fixed resources to work with. It doesnt always translate into console game development.
Yep..used to be...be he isnt anymore. Doom3 on xbox failed to beat Riddick and Chaos Theory. I doubt Rage will look better than games like Gears3, KZ3,GOW3 or Bulletstorm. Aspecially since its going to run in 60fps. Perhaps Doom4 will have a shot (same engine but 30 fps).
That is what i say that not even sony was able to put Killzone 2 or 3 on 60FPS with those graphics,so a trade in is in order for Rage to run at 60 fps,what can they trade.? Lower resolution,no AA,less details,smaller and more enclosed areas,are some of the things that can be trade of in order to get to the 60fps mark,which is what i want to see in the final version.what would be the trade in. Is like on PC where you lower resolution,turn off AA or lower detail to get more frames,sure you get them but at the cost of quality. Your mistake is using other games and devs to measure ID and Carmack against. Procedural Terrain and textures can be a big help, which Carmack is one of the leaders in developing further. Not to mention that RAGE uses the new MEGATexture technology he developed. It isnt the same as the methods currently in use, so your example would only apply in a limited scope. Also, not all devs are the same. Consoles are are more efficient than PC games since they have fixed resources to work with. It doesnt always translate into console game development. Consoles are more efficient than PC,because they don't have to run a fat OS, but they are limited by the same rules,it has been always a trade in the console market more than any where else graphics for frame rates. Why do you think the majority of games run at 30 and not 60 fps.? Rage on PC will be the same as Crysis 1 and 2 megatextures or not want more frames lower your details,AA or resolution.
[QUOTE="booniga"]Carmack used to be a programmer god.Magik85
Yep..used to be...be he isnt anymore. Doom3 on xbox failed to beat Riddick and Chaos Theory. I doubt Rage will look better than games like Gears3, KZ3,GOW3 or Bulletstorm. Aspecially since its going to run in 60fps. Perhaps Doom4 will have a shot (same engine but 30 fps). See, thats where your mistake lies. Being an innovative, and creative programmer cant be judged by the way the game LOOKS. Sure it may allow resources to be freed that can be used for graphical operations, but that is almost never the aim with programmers. Carmack is STILL among the top PC and tech programmers in the world. You cant judge his prowess by how a game looks, especially when his engines and technology stretches across the industry and is used by so many devs. I can almost guarantee that Naughty Dog, GG, Epic Games, and Crytek developers have all been touched by the tech that was developed by Carmack in some way.
[QUOTE="Samvigote"] That is what i say that not even sony was able to put Killzone 2 or 3 on 60FPS with those graphics,so a trade in is in order for Rage to run at 60 fps,what can they trade.? Lower resolution,no AA,less details,smaller and more enclosed areas,are some of the things that can be trade of in order to get to the 60fps mark,which is what i want to see in the final version.what would be the trade in. Is like on PC where you lower resolution,turn off AA or lower detail to get more frames,sure you get them but at the cost of quality.Samvigote
Your mistake is using other games and devs to measure ID and Carmack against. Procedural Terrain and textures can be a big help, which Carmack is one of the leaders in developing further. Not to mention that RAGE uses the new MEGATexture technology he developed. It isnt the same as the methods currently in use, so your example would only apply in a limited scope. Also, not all devs are the same. Consoles are are more efficient than PC games since they have fixed resources to work with. It doesnt always translate into console game development. Consoles are more efficient than PC,because they don't have to run a fat OS, but they are limited by the same rules,it has been always a trade in the console market more than any where else graphics for frame rates. Why do you think the majority of games run at 30 and not 60 fps.? Rage on PC will be the same as Crysis 1 and 2 megatextures or not want more frames lower your details,AA or resolution.Ok, i can see i will get no further with you and this discussion, so ill end it here. I clearly said "would only apply in a limited scope" and i stand by my statement.
[QUOTE="booniga"]Carmack used to be a programmer god. That's a long time ago. Now I read he is working on RAGE for PC, PS3, and 360. It is probably a given that the PC version will look the best. However, what if RAGE on 360 doesn't look as good as Killzone 3 on PS3? That would mean the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 or Carmack is losing his programming touch. So far, no company can create a game on Xbox 360 that looks as good as Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2. If Carmack can't, then the PS3 must be significantly more powerful than the 360. Significantly? Hardly... The raw power of both are almost identical... In practise however they are clearly different due to their architecture and the nature of their programming... Just depends how the dev wants a game to look...
Ok, i can see i will get no further with you and this discussion, so ill end it here. I clearly said "would only apply in a limited scope" and i stand by my statement.navyguy21
Well is your opinion stand by it,the true is all the rules that apply to every developer apply to John Carmack and ID,and it has always been like that since ever,reason why PC games have graphics options not found on consoles games,since on consoles everything is the same on PC is not,so there is the option for you to down grade to your specs to run the game. On the consoles you will not get those options because the developer already downgraded and optimized the game for you,but consoles are bound by the same rules,more details and objects at once less frame rates,less details and less objects at once more frame rates,it has been like that always.
Log in to comment