Mass Effect isn't about graphics anyway. Although the detail and animation on the characters still looks amazing in cinematic view. R&C still looks gorgeous for a platformer however.tomarlyn

the latest one looks damn pretty. And they have a very distinct and colorful artstyle. The game looks good.

"WILLY WIM WHAM WAZZLE!!!...im gonna go lay down"-tell me who said that, and I'll give you a wi-fi High five :)

And yet Halo 3 will outsell CoD4 10 to 1. ;)

By the way, I think both games look great and will be purchasing both on their launch days. Yes it is hard to be gamer and not a fanboy, but I try.

eastside49er

as will I :) I hope to see you out there on the battlefield(s)!!!!

At least Halo 3 has a unique artstyIe about it and is not really comparable to every other shooter out there in terms of graphics. Call of Duty 4 looks just like every other Middle Eastern shooter (the new WWII) out there... and those square wheels in that one pic kind of scream "bad graphics" to me.foxhound_fox

I totally agree with you, but doesn't it take please in the balkan states as well as the middle east?

While this might have been another game for 360/PS3 owners to laugh at the Wii for not getting (look, i'm making it sysem wars compatible here, give me a break ;) ) it would appear that Bethesda think the original games were a 'bit silly':

http://kotaku.com/gaming/silly-billy/fallout-3-trying-to-avoid-silliness-290502.php

Do they not get it? The fact that Fallout was silly was what made it so fun. You know, stuff like finding the bridge keeper from monty python, the knights with their coconuts, the quest about the chicken coop and the giant eggs, becoming a fluffer in a porn movie, the zombies running the power plant and many many more.

What else will he think is 'silly'? Groin shots and eye shots have already gone and it looks like they want this to turn into more of a tactical Gears than a Fallout sequal :(.

My best guess as to why they are doing this is that errr Bluray read speeds are too slow to incorporate humor into the game and a lack of a standard HDD on the 360 means they couldn't fit groin shots onto the disk.

Stonin

actually...if you read the OXM hands on preview, they shoot a mutant in the eye and he falls to the ground and his eye rolls out.

There was also an article saying that they were fine with the first Fallout, and the sequel to that, but I believe the 3rd game was just too over the top. I'm not freaking out about it. The game will still be amazing. And it will still have some humor. Just not that "high brow" humor that you like :roll:

My anticipation for Halo 3 died when I saw how good Call of Duty 4 looked, and to top it off it's going to run at a silky smooth 60 frames per second in both the single player and multilplayer. I think it's laziness and a poor development by Bungie that they can't get Halo 3 to run at 60 frames per scond like Call of Duty 4, especially considering the graphics are not impressive by any means. Even a die hard Halo fan has to admit Call of Duty 4 is the better looking of the 2 games. If not, they're blind.

Just look at these "new" Halo3 screens to see how generic and Halo2.5 they look: http://www.thegamersgallery.com/image.php?sid=1901

That's really disappointing for Microsofts premiers franchise on a next generation console. ChiefFreeman

also, do you know for a fact that it is 30fps? because ive been reading every where that it will run at 720p at 60fps.

so if you could provided a link to that, that'd be awesome. :)

Also, since when do cows care about 30fps or 60fps?

remember the whole madden dispute? And even gamespot scored the games the same, although they did comment on the 360 being a bit smoother. But it still wasn't enough to change the 360 version's score, nor did it hinder th ps3's score.

I doubt it being at 30 fps will make a huge difference, if it is true. It would be nice for it to be at 60fps though. It certainly couldn't hurt.

My anticipation for Halo 3 died when I saw how good Call of Duty 4 looked, and to top it off it's going to run at a silky smooth 60 frames per second in both the single player and multilplayer. I think it's laziness and a poor development by Bungie that they can't get Halo 3 to run at 60 frames per scond like Call of Duty 4, especially considering the graphics are not impressive by any means. Even a die hard Halo fan has to admit Call of Duty 4 is the better looking of the 2 games. If not, they're blind.

Just look at these "new" Halo3 screens to see how generic and Halo2.5 they look: http://www.thegamersgallery.com/image.php?sid=1901

That's really disappointing for Microsofts premiers franchise on a next generation console. ChiefFreeman

you realize those pictures are from the MP? Even gamespot said that Halo 3 looked amazing, along with ign.

COD4 looks amazing, yeah. But I personally believe its because it has the mud effect to it. while halo 3 is actually colorful.

Did you see that blog on ign? it really puts it into perspective.

It costed me $1300 to upgrade my processor, RAM, HDD, and to put in an 8800GTX.

You're posting a cheap setup.

BioShockOwnz

how is that GTX working out? Im split between the gtx or ultra.

[QUOTE="Codename33"]

[QUOTE="VScalar"]Also, Oblivion didn't have 55 minutes of cutscenes for every 14 minutes of gameplay. Another reason the Oblivion argument fails!MGS9150

Maybe that's why MGS4 can't fit onto a DVD 9.

Funny how lemmings make fun of MGS when its confirmed exclusive and when there is a rumor that its going to be ported they praise it as the best thing ever.

where do you see anyone hating or praising it...? :|