[QUOTE="zyrumtumtuggerm"][QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

Animation code is not really cpu intensive. Yeah you can offload onto a spe but I can't see how that is different to it being run on one of the hardware threads for the 360 cpu. Infact animation like that is quite comfortably done with any modern cpu, its just not something that is going to hit a cpu hard. If you were talking hundreds of animations (all different) then you would have a point with the cell and considering its vector math capabilities. But in the case of Uncharted 2 its not really a demonstration of the Cell's performance.

The quality of the animation seen in Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 can easily be done on the 360 or a C2D etc.

ToScA-

at me? Why?

Doesnt KZ2 on PC ruin the whole point of the game?SparkyProtocol

What is the point of the game and how does being on PC destroy it?

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

[QUOTE="zyrumtumtuggerm"] No, it's technically more easy to do on PS3, since animation can be offloaded to the SPE's. Killzone 2 did it too.zyrumtumtuggerm

Animation code is not really cpu intensive. Yeah you can offload onto a spe but I can't see how that is different to it being run on one of the hardware threads for the 360 cpu. Infact animation like that is quite comfortably done with any modern cpu, its just not something that is going to hit a cpu hard. If you were talking hundreds of animations (all different) then you would have a point with the cell and considering its vector math capabilities. But in the case of Uncharted 2 its not really a demonstration of the Cell's performance.

The quality of the animation seen in Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 can easily be done on the 360 or a C2D etc.

My missus says something like that when she doesnt have an answer :lol:

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

[QUOTE="zyrumtumtuggerm"] Actually, Uncharted's animation uses more keyframes than most other AAA games, which makes it's more fluid. Still, it's not that obvious.zyrumtumtuggerm

Oh yeah, I agree its outstanding but, its not something TC can really use to demonstrate teh powah of the PS3, its more to do with the high production values of the developer.

Animation code is not really cpu intensive. Yeah you can offload onto a spe but I can't see how that is different to it being run on one of the hardware threads for the 360 cpu. Infact animation like that is quite comfortably done with any modern cpu, its just not something that is going to hit a cpu hard. If you were talking hundreds of animations (all different) then you would have a point with the cell and considering its vector math capabilities. But in the case of Uncharted 2 its not really a demonstration of the Cell's performance.

The quality of the animation seen in Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 can easily be done on the 360 or a C2D etc.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

[QUOTE="chadwick1343"] Do it, Uncharted has much greater depth in its details and far better animation though.zyrumtumtuggerm

lol wut?

"depth in detail" - Crysis' models are rendered with much more polys. They are way more detailed and have much higher resolution textures, normal maping, specular maps etc. Crysis on its highest settings is waay more detailed.

"animation" - lol ok but animation is hardly ground breaking is it? I mean, its pretty much down to the motion capture studio that you use.

Oh yeah, I agree its outstanding but, its not something TC can really use to demonstrate teh powah of the PS3, its more to do with the high production values of the developer.

[QUOTE="Whiteblade999"]

Don't make me pull out the Crysis screenshots!

chadwick1343

lol wut?

"depth in detail" - Crysis' models are rendered with much more polys. They are way more detailed and have much higher resolution textures, normal maping, specular maps etc. Crysis on its highest settings is waay more detailed.

"animation" - lol ok but animation is hardly ground breaking is it? I mean, its pretty much down to the motion capture studio that you use.

Nah, I couldn't bare to see KZ2 downgraded

Chutebox

I was just about to go into a typical hermit long long rant about how if the game was built from the ground up on PC etc etc..

..lol good post :D

I didn't spend $60 on Bioshock either. I bought it for $40 on the PC. It's no coincidence that's the same price I'm willing to spend on Halo 3: ODST.

xDimMaK

Ok well whether the game is worth buying or not is a different debate and I respect that you have personal tastes. My argument is with people dismissing it as an expansion and a rip off purely because it was originally announced as an expansion and now its grown into a full game.

(I'm giving Bungie benefit of the doubt here and assuming a full length campaign, if its short like an expansion then I'm just plain wrong)

If Gears of War 2 had shipped at $60 with just a new campaign and Horde, but contained the original Gears of War multiplayer completely unchanged, I would fault it just the same. Halo 3: ODST is relying on content from the original Halo 3 (not just small assets; the entire multiplayer!) to justify its price tag. Not going to fly with me. For someone who already owns Halo 3, it is most certainly an overpriced standalone expansion.

xDimMaK

I'm just curious how you would classify games like Bioshock, games that hve no multiplayer at all or games where the multiplayer is just tacked on? What if this game had no multiplayer at all, would that make it a game in its own right like Bioshock?

Good thread TC! I've always been intrigued by this. Take Crysis and its graphics. It's not only graphics king but its also an open-world game with huge scale. Imagine all the polys, all the textures, lighting used to create one of those levels focussed on the small (relative to Crysis) urban levels of Killzone 2. Imagine all the resources Crysis uses interms of texture filtering and HDR etc but instead of rendering a large open scene with complex geometry such as trees etc and focus it all on a small corridor shooter!

I think you would really have a new graphics king!