[QUOTE="jakehouston88"]

NGS2 is still better.

JetB1ackNewYear

Actually yes it is, if you read the review notice how he basically says its a game with improvements but its still a game thats over a year old. The fact is the standards go up vastly every year hence the reason why this game gotjudged a little harder.

i edited it

The xbox version of LP is still good. The PS3 version was the worst one of all 4, i know it from my big brother he sold his vesion. The PS3 version realy lagged a lot.

SLIisaownsystem

Except other then Crysis Uncharted 2 trounces about every 2 year old pc game on the market. And you posting the DX10 effects for LP shows how overhyped DX10 was in the first place. Why dont you go get banned again.

Crysis has open ended world and choose your own style of play... Uncharted 2 has linear levels with scripted events... gee.... and Crysis still looks better...yoshi_64

You need to read the review of UC2 before you blabber about crap you have never played. Its on IGn now.

It's because of a lack of effort, for the most part. Okay, I'll explain in an easy way. Resident Evil 4, for the gamecube, was considered one of the most beautiful looking games of the time. The Wii is supposed to be 2 times as powerful as the Gamecube. That means, there should be games with graphics twice as good as RE4's. The closest I've seen to this it The Conduit and SSBB. It's really a lack of effort.

turtlethetaffer

The Wii's power advantage it has over the Gamecube is about 2x more ram and a faster processor. What that means in terms of an actual performance boost is it can play gamecube quality graphics at 480p( 800x600) resolution while the gamecube ran games at 480i(640x480 res). The best looking wii games look how they should which is good looking gamecube games at a slightly higher res.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]

[QUOTE="adamosmaki"] In fact it runs all multiplat games at 1080p easilly. The only games you have to either compromise resolution or graphics quality are counted on the fingers of 1 hand aka 2 crysis games, stalker clear sky and Arma 2 other than those games every other game runs at 1680x1050 at either all max settings with abit of AA or at least mostly max settings without AA ( oh nooss the sacrifices) Gta 4 first is a bad port and second is greatly depend on CPU. For instance afast quad core paired with an 8800gt is faster in GTA4 than a mid end dual core wiith a gtx260 Finally the 8800gtx and the old version of 8800gts are almost 3years oldadamosmaki

Seriously how many games have you played on it? Because Assasins Creed had problems with it also running in 1080p. my point is i remember all the hermits that said there 7800 and 7900 series of cards would outdo the ps3 and 360 years ago. I told them they were clueless and guess what looks like im right as those cards struggle to run some of todays high end games even on minimum settings. You name one top end card from less then 3 years ago that needs a processor thats less then 3 years old. My point still stands.

Quite a few games including assasins creed and despite what you think it even runs at 1080p max settings on the poor 8800gt

9800gt assasins creed same card as 8800gt bench from one of the most trusted sites running AC at 1080p max details even with 4xAA

Whats your point? The 9800gt isnt even that old. You picked one card thats not evne 3 years old to help your argument and you missed the whole point of mine. Im glad they releaed some patches and made it run better but hte point is what happned to all those 7 series cards that were suppsoed to be so much better then the PS3?

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]

[QUOTE="adamosmaki"] In fact it runs all multiplat games at 1080p easilly. The only games you have to either compromise resolution or graphics quality are counted on the fingers of 1 hand aka 2 crysis games, stalker clear sky and Arma 2 other than those games every other game runs at 1680x1050 at either all max settings with abit of AA or at least mostly max settings without AA ( oh nooss the sacrifices) Gta 4 first is a bad port and second is greatly depend on CPU. For instance afast quad core paired with an 8800gt is faster in GTA4 than a mid end dual core wiith a gtx260 Finally the 8800gtx and the old version of 8800gts are almost 3years oldSLIisaownsystem

Seriously how many games have you played on it? Because Assasins Creed had problems with it also running in 1080p. my point is i remember all the hermits that said there 7800 and 7900 series of cards would outdo the ps3 and 360 years ago. I told them they were clueless and guess what looks like im right as those cards struggle to run some of todays high end games even on minimum settings. You name one top end card from less then 3 years ago that needs a processor thats less then 3 years old. My point still stands.

PS3 has just medium settings on AC and it even crashes i saw it by my brother

The crash bugged was fixed about a month after released. And no the texture settings and lighting settings were maxed on the PS3. Basically the pc version has higher resolutions and better draw distance and better framerate the rest of the game looks the same.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]

[QUOTE="washd123"]

even with no mods the textures are still better and the scale alone is enough. the character models are actually quite good. ill trust you played it. the lighting also is some of the best weve seen particularly indoors. not as good as crysis but better than pretty much everything else. animations play a small role in graphics. just because the animations are better in uncharted 2 doesnt mean it has better graphics.

and im not trying to discredit anything here. fact is GRAPHICALLY there are multiplats that can compare to both. they both are impressive. theres no one that would ever deney that. however it doesnt mean they come close or compare to the best. i named 3 pc exclusives that are the best. theres plenty of console games that beat other pc exclusives.

washd123

No the textures are not better then Uncharted 2 without mods. This is a classic example of people defending something without playing it. And no the char models look about equal to HL2. You are honestly going to argue they look as good as UC2 on a techincal lvl? They simply do not have the detail nor the polygons its obvious even if you played the beta. Yes Stalker has great lighting and scale but outside of that its nothing speical. And you want to tell me animations play a small role? Please some games you dont even want to put in third person because the character looks so awful when he moves it ruins it. Animations play a huge role in visuals in this is a area stalker gets stomped in.

If you are a sucker for decent visuals and large scale with nice lighting then yes stalker looks good but dont sit here and tell me it looks better then all console games it simply doesnt.

again you love going back and forth between visuals (opinion) and graphics(fact)

yes overall the textures are better, the fact that theres a few bad ones here and there is offset by the scale.

and i didnt say the models were better i said they werent bad. other than the face textures the models themselves are on par with uncharted 2.

lighting is better in STALKER

and youve played uncharted 2 i wasnt aware the game was out yet must have missed it. as for the beta i watched it being played then got a chance to play it. and graphics has nothing to do with playing either. the only thing that really cant be conveyed by a video for graphics is scale.so the whole you havent played it thing would be irrelevent to this discussion even if i hadnt.

animations play a huge role in visuals no doubt. but were not discussing visuals were talking about graphics two different things. graphically animations do not matter much. you wouldnt say a game has bad graphics due to weak animations.

does it look better? idk thats asking an opinion.

does it have better graphics? yes

Yes I have played the multiplayer beta not the full game or single player experince which will probably look better.

But thats besides the point lets look at what your arguing and I will show you why you are wrong.You see graphics and visuals are the same thing you seem to be getting the definition confsued with Artistic design and technical design . They dont have a reward at the end of the year for best graphics and a seprate one for best visuals. Good animations , movements etc are a technical aspect of the design so lets stop trying to act like there not .

Lets start off with animations, the fact is yes great animations take alot of technical ablity on the system especially on the processor side. Its the reason why many large scale games feature horrible animations( Oblivion and stalker for an example) . So if im playing my game and the guy runs like he has a stick up his ass as opposedto moving like a real person yes that effects the actualy visual quality of game even on a technical lvl as it takes less processing power to run the animations.( some spu's on the cell are dedicated just to handle the animations in Uncharted 2.)

And yes playing the game does make a diffrence. How many times have you seen a game and it looks either better or worse in motion? You cant rely on screenshots and stale pictures to tell you how a game will look ESPECIALLY when your judging lighting the way it moves onobjects cannot be see in low quality vidoes or stale images. I also disagree with you that stalker beats uncharted in that area. In all honesty Uncharted meets are beats stalker in every conceviable area except for scale.

even WC3 looks better than all console games at least it runs at 60 frames and on 1080p if you unlock something in the regi

SLIisaownsystem

lmao wow.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]

[QUOTE="the_delta"]

I beg to differ. The 8800GT, being nearly three years old, will play both games at well above console settings just fine. This goes for most, if not all multiplats.

EDIT: Of course, I'm talking about the 8800GTX, not the GT.

adamosmaki

The 8800gt is not 3 years old. It came out nearly a year after the Xbox360 and no it doesnt play most high end games well above console settings it gets its teetch kicked in trying to run GTA4 for an example.

Seriously how many games have you played on it? Because Assasins Creed had problems with it also running in 1080p. my point is i remember all the hermits that said there 7800 and 7900 series of cards would outdo the ps3 and 360 years ago. I told them they were clueless and guess what looks like im right as those cards struggle to run some of todays high end games even on minimum settings. You name one top end card from less then 3 years ago that needs a processor thats less then 3 years old. My point still stands.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]Um no there was no trick there. but lets look at your statement. No Stalker does not have better graphics then Uncharted:2 sorry it doesnt. It has god awful character models , and without texture mods its simply ugly. It does have nice lighting effects and a large scale but lets add to that the horrible animations and Uncahrted two beats it in just about every category except for scale.

You seem to be in the category that wants to say just because this game is on pc it looks better but simply put thats not true. You want to discredit Uncahrted 2 and Killzone 2 by compariing it to other multiplats?Come on now.

washd123

even with no mods the textures are still better and the scale alone is enough. the character models are actually quite good. ill trust you played it. the lighting also is some of the best weve seen particularly indoors. not as good as crysis but better than pretty much everything else. animations play a small role in graphics. just because the animations are better in uncharted 2 doesnt mean it has better graphics.

and im not trying to discredit anything here. fact is GRAPHICALLY there are multiplats that can compare to both. they both are impressive. theres no one that would ever deney that. however it doesnt mean they come close or compare to the best. i named 3 pc exclusives that are the best. theres plenty of console games that beat other pc exclusives.

No the textures are not better then Uncharted 2 without mods. This is a classic example of people defending something without playing it. And no the char models look about equal to HL2. You are honestly going to argue they look as good as UC2 on a techincal lvl? They simply do not have the detail nor the polygons its obvious even if you played the beta. Yes Stalker has great lighting and scale but outside of that its nothing speical. And you want to tell me animations play a small role? Please some games you dont even want to put in third person because the character looks so awful when he moves it ruins it. Animations play a huge role in visuals in this is a area stalker gets stomped in.

If you are a sucker for decent visuals and large scale with nice lighting then yes stalker looks good but dont sit here and tell me it looks better then all console games it simply doesnt.