WHo said Uncharted 2 doesnt look better then crysis this says different.

There is no difference between the character models in the cutscene to the actual gameplay they will look the exact same. Here is an interview someone did with naughty dog where they confirm that. http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/games/u/uncharted-2/naughty-dog-uncharted-2-teaser-real-time-$1252556.htmtransformer994

Richard: Thanks! Nope, the in game models are the exact same models that are used in the cutscenes. They also use the exact same textures. There really is no difference between them at all.

This should put an end to this discussion, let's move on.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

No.

wootasifwoot

you might just want to post the links because the images aren't showing.

here's your pics link:

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o1/ummDivine/Crysis2008-01-1515-35-28-31.jpg

and here's a pic of the scientist that you had to save:

edit: your pic seems to be working now.

This the pictuer you were talking bout? You can honestly look me in the face and tell me straight up that THAT looks better than the uncharted pics that were just posted? seriously... SERIOUSLY? Nathn's model looks SOOOO much more detailed than her's. Look at Nathan's shirt and then compair THAT with her shirt and "vest" (looks like a ripped piece of cloth or something). Look at the background in this pic, so blurred out and her hands, arm and face all have low textures. The "vest" is so out of proportion, random corners and curves, looks like someone just pasted that over her, lols. Seriously, you REALLY need to post some better pics to combat against Uncharted 2 cause with these pics, you ain't convincing anyone.

i'm looking you square in the eyes and i'm saying yes. hell yes this model look s better than drake. if you haven't notices, this scene takes place in a dark and small room with only a table lamp to illuminate it. but even still you could see the details of her shirt and fishing vest. but you want better pics? you got um:

[QUOTE="transformer994"]There is no difference between the character models in the cutscene to the actual gameplay they will look the exact same. Here is an interview someone did with naughty dog where they confirm that. http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/games/u/uncharted-2/naughty-dog-uncharted-2-teaser-real-time-$1252556.htmurdead18

Richard: Thanks! Nope, the in game models are the exact same models that are used in the cutscenes. They also use the exact same textures. There really is no difference between them at all.

This should put an end to this discussion, let's move on.

too bad for you it really doesn't. the dev just said that the game uses the same character model and textures. he didn't say that they haven't added special effects or better lighting or more AA.

The reason why Half Life 2 characters look so life like is because they are the first video game characters that look like they have souls and are alive transformer994

fix'd

The reason why Uncharted 2 characters look so life like is because they are the first video game characters that look like they have souls and are alive those crysis pictures look lifeless.transformer994

???????? wtf? souls? video games? someone is getting too emotionally attached to something that isn't real.

[QUOTE="urdead18"]

[QUOTE="transformer994"]There is no difference between the character models in the cutscene to the actual gameplay they will look the exact same. Here is an interview someone did with naughty dog where they confirm that. http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/games/u/uncharted-2/naughty-dog-uncharted-2-teaser-real-time-$1252556.htmShattered007

Richard: Thanks! Nope, the in game models are the exact same models that are used in the cutscenes. They also use the exact same textures. There really is no difference between them at all.

This should put an end to this discussion, let's move on.

"Patrick: The characters in Uncharted are some of the most impressive video game models to date. They look even more impressive up close in the cutscenes. Are the in-game models any different from the cutscene models?

Richard: Thanks! Nope, the in game models are the exact same models that are used in the cutscenes. They also use the exact same textures. There really is no difference between them at all.

Maybe you didn't catch that the first time around...

I'm not a fanboy, I'm just hearing what the devs, the people who know more about the game than we do, are saying.

RE5 looks better IMO.

[spoiler] " alt=" " /> [/spoiler]

Cowgrill you would understand if you played the first uncharted that you get attached to the characters more then you do any game cause they feel alive.transformer994

i could say mario on the nes looks better and id be right. theres no such thing as looks better since its all opinion. its all up to the individuals tastes.

better graphics is not subjective and has nothing to do with opinion on how it looks.

fact is no console game this gen can surpass or even match crysis' graphics on high or above. its an impossibility the hardware simply isnt there.

Cowgrill you would understand if you played the first uncharted that you get attached to the characters more then you do any game cause they feel alive.transformer994

still seems unnatural.

[QUOTE="transformer994"]Cowgrill you would understand if you played the first uncharted that you get attached to the characters more then you do any game cause they feel alive.cowgriller

still seems unnatural.

What's unnatural is dating sims.

i could say mario on the nes looks better and id be right. theres no such thing as looks better since its all opinion. its all up to the individuals tastes.

better graphics is not subjective and has nothing to do with opinion on how it looks.

fact is no console game this gen can surpass or even match crysis' graphics on high or above. its an impossibility the hardware simply isnt there.

washd123

and this is the comment that should /thread

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="transformer994"]Cowgrill you would understand if you played the first uncharted that you get attached to the characters more then you do any game cause they feel alive.urdead18

still seems unnatural.

What's unnatural is dating sims.

right but then you should realize that it's all fake and no one actually died (unless it's a movie based on true events.)

[QUOTE="washd123"]

i could say mario on the nes looks better and id be right. theres no such thing as looks better since its all opinion. its all up to the individuals tastes.

better graphics is not subjective and has nothing to do with opinion on how it looks.

fact is no console game this gen can surpass or even match crysis' graphics on high or above. its an impossibility the hardware simply isnt there.

cowgriller

and this is the comment that should /thread

You call me ignorant about optimization techniques then you seem to think devs can get the same amount of optimization off a PC as they can a console.urdead18

I'll stop you right there because now you are putting words in my mouth, I made no such claim or even the suggestion that was what I am saying. You on the other hand clearly believe in magic, because you are arguing that the utilization advantage of fixed hardware enables the PS3 to produce Crysis level visuals.

"Optimization magically makes anything run on anything" is a consolite mentality that you shouldn't be demonstrating, you should know that all the optimization in the world isn't going to make old hardware perform superior/on par to new hardware that is generations ahead. In short, optimization won't fit more than 256mb worth of information into 256mb of memory. You cannot make hardware perform higher than its peak theoretical performance, optimization isn't an infinite well of performance you can keep tapping from.

[QUOTE="urdead18"] You call me ignorant about optimization techniques then you seem to think devs can get the same amount of optimization off a PC as they can a console.AnnoyedDragon

I'll stop you right there because now you are putting words in my mouth, I made no such claim or even the suggestion that was what I am saying. You on the other hand clearly believe in magic, because you are arguing that the utilization advantage of fixed hardware enables the PS3 to produce Crysis level visuals.

"Optimization magically makes anything run on anything" is a consolite mentality that you shouldn't be demonstrating, you should know that all the optimization in the world isn't going to make old hardware perform superior to new hardware that is generations ahead. In short, optimization won't fit more than 256mb worth of information into 256mb of memory. You cannot make hardware perform higher than its peak theoretical performance, optimization isn't an infinite well of performance you can keep tapping from.

While I do agree, "Crysis level visuals" is subjective. Uncharted 2's levels aren't as large as Crysis's (besides the aircraft carrier, which is pretty small and I don't know why it didn't look amazing) so they can achieve higher visual fidelity.

It's agreed upon that Crysis is a rather unoptimized and poorly coded game, and if it were to be optimized and coded better and the levels weren't as large, then it would blow Uncharted 2 out of the water. Because, of course, a GTX 275 or a 4890 is worlds and worlds ahead of the console's video cards.

(By the way, don't you love Crysis's water? Especially with Mster's Config, it looks infinitely better than any other water in a game I've seen)

No it shouldn't. PC hardware is extremely hard to optimize for, which makes all the difference. Crysis should be able to run fine on a 8800GT @ 1920x1080 if it was properly optimized, yet it lags on any single card out right now at that res. (Excluding the 295 and 4870x2)urdead18

i always laugh when poeple call crysis unoptimized. first off compared to what? what are you basing this claim on? the fact that it doesnt run perfect on hardware? thats not a good measure at all.

fact is crysis is well optimized. its pushing so much especially at higher resolutions and settings, more so than any other game out there pc or other wise. theres so far been no game that even touches crysis in the graphics department. not to mention hardware has been slow to evolve as well.

While I do agree, "Crysis level visuals" is subjective. Uncharted 2's levels aren't as large as Crysis's (besides the aircraft carrier, which is pretty small and I don't know why it didn't look amazing) so they can achieve higher visual fidelity.

It's agreed upon that Crysis is a rather unoptimized and poorly coded game, and if it were to be optimized and coded better and the levels weren't as large, then it would blow Uncharted 2 out of the water.

(By the way, don't you love Crysis's water? Especially with Mster's Config, it looks infinitely better than any other water in a game I've seen)

urdead18

So you have switched to friendly and subjective now? I know when someone is tired of arguing, fair enough.

While I do agree, "Crysis level visuals" is subjective. Uncharted 2's levels aren't as large as Crysis's (besides the aircraft carrier, which is pretty small and I don't know why it didn't look amazing) so they can achieve higher visual fidelity.

It's agreed upon that Crysis is a rather unoptimized and poorly coded game, and if it were to be optimized and coded better and the levels weren't as large, then it would blow Uncharted 2 out of the water. Because, of course, a GTX 275 or a 4890 is worlds and worlds ahead of the console's video cards.

(By the way, don't you love Crysis's water? Especially with Mster's Config, it looks infinitely better than any other water in a game I've seen)

urdead18

its only agreed upon by people who have no idea what theyre talking about and freak out if a program uses more hardware than they have. yeah it uses more doesnt mean its just wasting it.

the whole point of crysis is its open level design. eliminating that gives you a whole different game.

[QUOTE="urdead18"] No it shouldn't. PC hardware is extremely hard to optimize for, which makes all the difference. Crysis should be able to run fine on a 8800GT @ 1920x1080 if it was properly optimized, yet it lags on any single card out right now at that res. (Excluding the 295 and 4870x2)washd123

i always laugh when poeple call crysis unoptimized. first off compared to what? what are you basing this claim on? the fact that it doesnt run perfect on hardware? thats not a good measure at all.

fact is crysis is well optimized. its pushing so much especially at higher resolutions and settings, more so than any other game out there pc or other wise. theres so far been no game that even touches crysis in the graphics department. not to mention hardware has been slow to evolve as well.

Crysis wins.

[QUOTE="urdead18"]

While I do agree, "Crysis level visuals" is subjective. Uncharted 2's levels aren't as large as Crysis's (besides the aircraft carrier, which is pretty small and I don't know why it didn't look amazing) so they can achieve higher visual fidelity.

It's agreed upon that Crysis is a rather unoptimized and poorly coded game, and if it were to be optimized and coded better and the levels weren't as large, then it would blow Uncharted 2 out of the water.

(By the way, don't you love Crysis's water? Especially with Mster's Config, it looks infinitely better than any other water in a game I've seen)

AnnoyedDragon

So you have switched to friendly and subjective now? I know when someone is tired of arguing, fair enough.

alt="cafferty" width="1746" border="0" height="1352">

Crysis wins.

Maximus43

[QUOTE="urdead18"] You call me ignorant about optimization techniques then you seem to think devs can get the same amount of optimization off a PC as they can a console.AnnoyedDragon

I'll stop you right there because now you are putting words in my mouth, I made no such claim or even the suggestion that was what I am saying. You on the other hand clearly believe in magic, because you are arguing that the utilization advantage of fixed hardware enables the PS3 to produce Crysis level visuals.

"Optimization magically makes anything run on anything" is a consolite mentality that you shouldn't be demonstrating, you should know that all the optimization in the world isn't going to make old hardware perform superior/on par to new hardware that is generations ahead. In short, optimization won't fit more than 256mb worth of information into 256mb of memory. You cannot make hardware perform higher than its peak theoretical performance, optimization isn't an infinite well of performance you can keep tapping from.

1. The game examples they are using are not running at thier so called "holy grail" of 1080p rez.(memory available affects this)

2. Then there is the whole degree of Anti aliasing in those games which is either 2X or none. PC can be set way higher.(memory affects this)

3. What then of the level of Anisotropic filtering which can set be very high in PC games.(memory affects this)

So until I see the PS3 do all of the above at the max of AA and AF that it can do at 1080p with a game like Crysis (big levels, lots of stuff happening, high rez textures, lots of physics)then all I can do is laugh about those threads they make. And no the 360 cant do it either so.....

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="urdead18"] You call me ignorant about optimization techniques then you seem to think devs can get the same amount of optimization off a PC as they can a console.vaderhater

I'll stop you right there because now you are putting words in my mouth, I made no such claim or even the suggestion that was what I am saying. You on the other hand clearly believe in magic, because you are arguing that the utilization advantage of fixed hardware enables the PS3 to produce Crysis level visuals.

"Optimization magically makes anything run on anything" is a consolite mentality that you shouldn't be demonstrating, you should know that all the optimization in the world isn't going to make old hardware perform superior/on par to new hardware that is generations ahead. In short, optimization won't fit more than 256mb worth of information into 256mb of memory. You cannot make hardware perform higher than its peak theoretical performance, optimization isn't an infinite well of performance you can keep tapping from.

1. The game examples they are using are not running at thier so called "holy grail" of 1080p rez.(memory available affects this)

2. Then there is the whole degree of Anti aliasing in those games which is either 2X or none. PC can be set way higher.(memory affects this)

3. What then of the level of Anisotropic filtering which can set be very high in PC games.(memory affects this)

So until I see the PS3 do all of the above at the max of AA and AF that it can do at 1080p with a game like Crysis (big levels, lots of stuff happening, high rez textures, lots of physics)then all I can do is laugh about those threads they make. And no the 360 cant do it either so.....

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="washd123"]

i could say mario on the nes looks better and id be right. theres no such thing as looks better since its all opinion. its all up to the individuals tastes.

better graphics is not subjective and has nothing to do with opinion on how it looks.

fact is no console game this gen can surpass or even match crysis' graphics on high or above. its an impossibility the hardware simply isnt there.

urdead18

and this is the comment that should /thread

and yet, even with poor optimization, crysis is still graphics king 2 years running.

Hardware has been slow to evolve? The 8800GT launched in 2007, now we have monsters like the GTX 295 and the 4870x2. Crysis is poorly optimized, however much I love the game it's not hard to see. If they can pull something like Crysis 2 off on the consoles, which are clearly weaker than what's required to play Crysis on high, it sort of screams about how unoptimized the game really is. Crysis Warhead was a bit better, but I fully expect Crysis 2 and the new engine to be much better optimized. Didn't they say Crysis 2 will run better than Crysis? That's optimization.urdead18

the 8800gtx came out in 07 as did the hd2900xt

the next high end cards to be released were the 9800gtx and the hd3870 both had essentially the same hardware as the predecessor with a better drivers, some more abilities, ect.

next cards were the gtx2 and the hd4 series both were the first big leaps the high end market has seen.

thats what i meant by slow to evolve thats why it seems like high end hardware still cant run it. and on both the pc and consoles 1080p is still a high res. and forget about 2560x1600. theyre high resolutions, its really not surprising to see a game with crysis's tech not run so well on those resolutions at all.

and look at the graphics of the console version. mediumhigh 720p 30fps. you do realize even lowend hardware can pull that off like the 9500gt or the hd3670 can pull that off.

and look at the optimization done in warhead. they reduced the draw distance, decreased the volumetric effects in the environment and offloaded most of everything to the post processing. not to mention the game looks significantly weaker than crysis.

thats not optimization thats called a downgrade.

i expect the same thing from CE3 pretty much a downgrade without mods.

again the only people who call crysis unoptimized have no idea what theyre talking about

Im going to be laughing my ass off if Uncharted 2 does beat crysis in the graphics department on oct 13---transformer994

That's sig material, right there.

On what looks better is opinion. Gamers prefer different visual styles, which is why I prefer the visuals of GTA4 over Crysis (just using an example, not to flame). But what's better technically, on what's better in terms of technology and horsepower, anything not called Crysis is the wrong answer.mo0ksi

THIS IS THE RIGHT AND ONLY ANSWER

thank you at least theres someone reasonable here.

dead space looks better than crysis to me but crysis still has better graphics

Again, the difference in resolution is enough to deem a winner.

Crysis can be played in many resolutions above and beyond 720p. Uncharted 2 is only possible in 720p.

They are 2 different beasts althogether.

Nice alt acct OP ;)

yeah, between these two games, I have to give it to Naughty Dog. Uncharted 2 has raised the bar.TREY_FOR_LI4E

no crysis raised the bar in 07. since then no game has come close. not KZ2 not uncharted 2 not even STALKER CS

[QUOTE="TREY_FOR_LI4E"]yeah, between these two games, I have to give it to Naughty Dog. Uncharted 2 has raised the bar.washd123

no crysis raised the bar in 07. since then no game has come close. not KZ2 not uncharted 2 not even STALKER CS

those screens look nowhere near the level Crysis face have :]

Not only Uncharted2 doesn't have the details of Crysis, it also lacks it's scale

You're entitled to your opinion.TREY_FOR_LI4E

yeah guess what though its not a matter of opinion. graphics arent opinion theyre technical fact.

and theres no such thing as a visual bar since thats all opinion and the hypothetical bar means something different to everyone

[QUOTE="TREY_FOR_LI4E"] You're entitled to your opinion.washd123

yeah guess what though its not a matter of opinion. graphics arent opinion theyre technical fact.

and theres no such thing as a visual bar since thats all opinion and the hypothetical bar means something different to everyone

Wats with these looks better then crysis threads? You have to be a fool to think a console game looks better then a high powered PC game.

If you like to believe so.TREY_FOR_LI4E

this is the reason i support abortions.

its not a matter of what i believe or you believe.

facts are facts. graphics are tech. theyre the resolution, textures, AA, lighting, scale, ect. theyre boring as hell but theyre all quantifiable aspects of the game. you can see good textures. it either has HDR or it doesnt. the higher the quality the better the graphics.

Fact crysis has the best graphics that hasnt been touched and its doubtful it will soon. its also a fact that no game on these console will ever come close.

visuals are subjective. what looks good to you may not look good to me and vice versa. visuals are the art and design on top of the graphics. theres no objective way of comparing them

[QUOTE="TREY_FOR_LI4E"] If you like to believe so.washd123

this is the reason i support abortions.

its not a matter of what i believe or you believe.

facts are facts. graphics are tech. theyre the resolution, textures, AA, lighting, scale, ect. theyre boring as hell but theyre all quantifiable aspects of the game. you can see good textures. it either has HDR or it doesnt. the higher the quality the better the graphics.

Fact crysis has the best graphics that hasnt been touched and its doubtful it will soon. its also a fact that no game on these console will ever come close.

visuals are subjective. what looks good to you may not look good to me and vice versa. visuals are the art and design on top of the graphics. theres no objective way of comparing them

I could see how someone might believe that.TREY_FOR_LI4E

you could see how someone could believe a fact? are you one of those 'gravity isnt a fact its devine falling' people?

The PS3 doesn't have much Ram as the PC does. So Crysis is always going to look better then any PS3 game.