Killzone 3 & 2 doesn't have unstable framerate, Infamous 2 is open world and I don't think anyone claims it's graphics king, same for UDF and GT5.Infamous 2 also has no AA... And a unstable framerate...
Killzone 2and 3 have unstable framerates.
Uncharted 1 has screen tearing
GT5. The biggest and highest selling exclusive on the PS3 has framerate drops, pop in, and crazy screen tearing.
I can do this all day.
CorbraMax
Cow4ever's forum posts
Crysis 2 was only graphics bum, not close to king.gears 3 just dethroned crysis 2 as the new console grahics king, but of course, it's no surprise that cows don't want to admit it.
MozartXVI
[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]
Eh no. people debated about Crysis 2 (which I do have) and it's a really REALLY ugly game.T-razor1
[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]Awful? Are you kidding me? It looks way better this close than gears from far away! Gears 3 textures are just a solid color. And The reason jaggies are apparent(not a surprise since it's very close) is because it uses the same AA implementation as Gears 3 which is... none lol! The SP on the other hand uses MLAA which Gears can't touch. You're name fits your personality very well :) BTW, that third pic made me lol :lol: lol why you think that? :P It looks ugly, that map is ugly but you can't deny it's very detailed textures.[QUOTE="Bretter2200"]
What game is that? Glad it's not Gears 3, textures look awful. And jaggies are very, very apparent.
Funconsole
There are no bloom or DoF I think. Yes it doesn't have AA I mentioned it previously. I disagree the ground is of very high detail and the grass are sprites just like in every game but these ones are pretty decent.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="BPoole96"]
Its Uncharted 2 but whoever did the shots went into the theatre mode and played around with some of the setting likes bloom and DoF. The MP in Uncharted 2 doesn't have any AA which is why there are so many jaggles. I think the textures in the second pic look pretty good though, but the grass and ground texture in the 3rd pic are pretty atrocious
BPoole96
The second picture has some bloom applied to it and the last picture definitely has a super low DoF to get that blur effect in the background. The game does not look like that when you play it, otherwise anything 5 feet in front of you would be so blurry that you wouldn't even be able to see
I don't think that's bloom. You can't add bloom with the tweaker. but yeah maybe the last has low DoF but the point is not the lightning or DoF but the great texturesWell I'm going to bed now boys. Happy debating
Eh no. people debated about Crysis 2 (which I do have) and it's a really REALLY ugly game. Yes IMO also Gears looks at least 10X than that mess. The pictures are from U2 MP And that video I really think both looked equally bad. But TBH I can't really see jaggies on utube very easily. Crysis 2 looked good on utube but playing it you see all the horrible jaggies.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]
[QUOTE="Bretter2200"]
Not close. Obviously it's pretty close considering a group of people agree and debate such. I've got UC2, which I can prove. And Gears of war 3 looks miles superior and is more consistant. I'll wait to play UC3 though to decide, though you've still yet to awnswer where those pictures are from?
romans828_2002
Crysis 2 looks fantastic, especially the outdoor parts. There's somebody on this forum who swears it's the ugliest game ever, and then you claim it's really ugly. It isn't perfect graphically, but it's a great looking game, probably still the best on consoles to date.
In other news, I really think XBox 360 fans are way overplaying their hand, as PS3 fans did before them. Gears is up there with the best. It doesn't blow anything away. It isn't perfect graphically. I'm not impressed with the lighting. It does have some jaggy issues in some places, which honestly, was the first thing I noticed. That's not to say that it's ugly. On the contrary, it looks fantastic, but there's nothing that makes it clearly better than other titles. It's even, but not better.
I seriously doubt there will be a game that's clearly head and shoulders above the competition for the rest of this generation. I do think that Gears 3, Crysis 2, Uncharted 3, Rage, God of War 3, Killzone 3, etc. are about as good as possible from this batch of hardware. I think there will be minor bumps graphically, but not major improvements. Time to put the whole graphics king discussion to rest.
Not even close. It's not even in top 15. Terrible AA, framerate, screen tearing, animations, blur, draw distance. Textures are decent but not close to the top. Only thing it got going for it are the lightning. Oh and sub HD and bad AF on the 360 version.Tell me it's racist when they ban Niqabs, Minarets and calls to prayer as Europe does. Then we can talk about racism. And we're already having an extensive discussion about land ownership.It is unfortunate the US supports a country like Israel. I'm no expert on the subject, but they have no right to build on lands that aren't theirs. Also add the fact that they are pretty racist country from what I can see. I'm not talking about the people, but really the government.
sherman-tank1
thing is, all of those powers the Queen in the UK has , is mostly just on paper, yes , she can refuse to sign a law, but that as far as I know, has not happend. she is the head of the armed forces, but I can assure you thats ceremonial , the control rests with the government. and yes, she can dissolve parliament, but the prime minister has to request that. in Jordan , the king takes a much more active role in politics, he is not watching from the side, and he really does involve himself in all matters, including military ones. ie, whats written on paper, doesn't always happen.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
I can't comment on Syria's government. Admittedly I know little about it. But we consider the United Kingdom a democracy, yet the Monarch retains the power to refuse to sign bills passed by Parilement into law. The Monarch has the power to dismiss and appoint the Prime Minster, to dismiss members of Parliment, to dissolve the Parliment itself. The Monarch commands the armed forces, has the power to declare war, the power to make treaties with other nations, to issue and revoke passports, and the power to create corporations.
worlock77
That the current Monarch has not chosen to exrecise those powers does not mean that she does not have them.
UK=theoretically a dictatorship, Jordan=theoretically and practically a dictatorshipI agree that according to the Hague convention this is an occupation but so would any land taken by force be, which means a country can occupy its own territory. But nevertheless there is no law forbidding "settlements" from what I've seen. Well I agree somewhat that permanent borders should be settled at the negotiation table. But in cases such as of the Golan it's another matter IMO. Syria launched two wars before Israel took it. It holds great strategic advantage to any country that holds it. In no way do I think Israel should compromise on this territory, especially considering Syria being a brutal dictatorship. Frankly I think "peace" is not the most desired state always. Peace is a piece of paper and give away such a territory to a state that has attacked you twice in exchange for a fragile peace is simply not worth it. In this case a long term status quo is actually better. Of course I wouldn't object a peace with Israel keeping Golan. Point is as you say it depends on the situation, with the palestinians I support giving most of the west bank. But probably we have different situations.Occupation isn't necessarily illegal, but the building of settlements on occupied land by the occupying power is illegal. And as far as what I think about a country getting its land back after launching a war of aggression - it depends entirely on the situation. But the most important thing in my view, is that the annexation of land and the redrawing of borders is something that has to be done at the negotiation table, not on the battlefield.
-Sun_Tzu-
Log in to comment