TheSterls' forum posts

Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

I am a huge action adventure fan and I am really thinking about picking this up. I see the scores are around the mid 8 range from most crtics and this is my favorite genre. So my question to those who own it how awesome is it? It seems like most the fans who bought the game seem to be really pleased with it. I was thinking about picking it up with my best buy gift card today . Im a huge fan of DMC, NG and GOW so how does it compare with them.

Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="GTR2addict"][QUOTE="TheSterls"] It depends what there doing actually, when it comes to graphic rendering not so much. anshul89

It does not matter what it is doing, any i7 will anihilate an enormous amount of cells

Just don't bother with console gamers when it comes to raw power. These are the same people that think the PS3 is a "beast".

Um I have a pc with a I975 and GTx285 no im not just a console gamer. Facts are Facts when it comes to graphic processing alone it does not touch the cell . As far as general purpose processing yes it would destroy it.

Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"][QUOTE="GTR2addict"] :| an i7 965 with hyperthreading downclocked to 2 GHz will eat 10 cells in a row and not even use a napkinGTR2addict
It depends what there doing actually, when it comes to graphic rendering not so much.

It does not matter what it is doing, any i7 will anihilate an enormous amount of cells

The I7 sucks for graphic rendering purposes.

Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts
I wounder what will they say when they work on a PC game with more than 10x the power of PS3? ND is still an awesome dev thoughabuabed
They wont work on a pc game because they are owned by sony , the next thing they will probalby work on is a PS4 that will bring todays high end pc's to shame.
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="IDeadlyReconI"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] CryEngine 3 says Hi.ronvalencia

Crytek says Hi. "The PS3 is a powerful machine but a difficult one to get the best out of" "I don't think we've seen the best out of the PS3 at all, and I definitely think one of the best things about Crytek and the CryEngine is that we're now in the best position to get the most out of the hardware" "We know the PS3 can do amazing things, and no one has pushed it as far as it can go, but I think the CryEngine gives us a great head start on it." The PS3 has been proven to be more powerful then 360 quite a bit by devoplers and people in the gaming indstury. Really. if 360 was as powerful or more powerful the console is 4 years old I'll think we would already see games that look better then Killzone 2 and Uncahrted 2. Sony may be a bigger company, but Microsoft has more money which means they can make games built from the ground up and with big budgets.

From CryEngine3, Xbox 360 and PS3 is about the same.

Refer to http://www.crytek.com/fileadmin/user_upload/inside/presentations/2009/Light_Propagation_Volumes.pdf

Go to slide 28 and 29 for targeted scenes and benchmarks. As with any benchmark best practises, all platforms must run the same benchmarks. Actually, Xbox 360 is slightly faster i.e. complete frame time 30.3 ms vs 32.1 ms. Target render is 1280x720p @ ~30FPS. Unlike you, I posted actual benchmark numbers.

Comparing UC2 or Killzone2 against GoW is like comparing SPECINT vs DHRYSTONE benchmarks.The differences in art work would lead to subjective comparisons.

Your source link is http://www.develop-online.net/news/32590/PS3-technical-issues-hampered-Haze-development

There's nothing in Crytek UK's comments that states PS3 is better than Xbox 360. Are not going to see XBox 1/GC vs PS2 gaps in the generation.

Sorry but we already are, There is nothing on the 360 that holds a candle to UC2 from a visual perspective right now or KZ2 for that matter, GOW 3 will only widen that gap unless MIcrosoft shows something great this year.
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="Blazerdt47"]

God Of War III 'only possible on PS3'

Sony claims gorgeous-looking title could not have been developed on any other system

Time to feel all warm inside, PS3 owners - Sony has claimed that the super-powerful system is the only console that could handle God Of War III.

The hugely anticipated game, which is due to hit shelves in March, is set to become one of the biggest titles of 2010.

Many tip it as a 'system seller' for Sony - and now the firm has told CVG that the game takes full advantage of PS3 hardware.

UK product manager for GoW III, Claire Backhouse, told CVG today:

"The developers have worked hard to use the power of the PS3 to make GOW3 look amazing and have added features that are only possible with PS3.

"The dynamic lighting solution employed in GOW III is only feasible through the computing power provided by the Cell SPUs.

"For example, using the High Dynamic Range Lighting (HDRL) technology, the camera - when using Krato's sightline - will emulate the human retina, causing players to feel a sharp brightness when Kratos exits a dark area and enters a sunlit area, similar to how the human eye would need to adjust."

Check back on CVG later this week for the full interview.

LINK

MortalDecay

Well, there you have it. The engineer that created the Cell, and the 360 CPU is an idiotic 360 fanboy. He said both processors are pretty much equal, and it will come down to software that separates the two...But it's a good thing you set us straight. I mean, what does he know? He only created both CPUs...

In many areas they are equal but when it comes to rendering visuals and assisting the GPU the Cell stomps the 360s processor. Thats the way it was designed and do you honestly think the guy at IBM is going to come out and say one is far better then the other? Even John Carmack who said the PS3 is a pain to develope for has more potential when it comes to raw power.
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts
[QUOTE="alextherussian"][QUOTE="TheSterls"] You still dont make sense though. A games technical prowess especially in the pc industry is how well it runs on current hardware. Crysis warhead did not run well on hardware at the time of its release. You needed SLI to even run it at max settings at a smooth framerate and when 99% of the pc community does not have a rig to run it properly then that obviosuly becomes an issue. And if you want to comapre Crysis on medium settings ot MGS4 then it wins in some ways and loses in others. MGS4 to this date still has some of the most amazing character models and far superior AI then Crysis warhead on medium settings. In all honesty warhead on medium settings is really nothign special and even the console demo of it blows the medium settings out of the water.

Your missing the point or refusing to accept it. Yes Crysis is demanding, and you need expensive hardware to run it (in 2007 anyway) however what you have or what the average has, the graphical comparisons dont take average user into account, they take the technical proficiency of a game. They take the game the best it can be. Crysis Warhead, at its best, is better then MGS4, at its best. Stop, Do not pass go, the end. . What the the other poster was saying, was that just like you need a good graphics card to see Crysis in all its glory, so do you need a nice HDTV. Not everyone has an HDTV (more dont then do actually), not everyone has a top of the line graphics card. That is irrelevant though, because its not about the hardware that runs it, but the actual beauty of the game at its best...

I know exactly what hes saying its the same tired argument you hermits try to bring up everytime but it doesnt change the facts. A dev can make a game look as good as he wants if it does not run well on the hardware that is avalable at the time of its release then no it is not technically proficent. I dont see why that is so hard for you to grasp when you are making a game on a open platform that has no set limiations it must run well on the current hardware. The reason why i gave for Crysis warhead not winning best visuas is the exact reason the other websites didnt give it best visuals. If a dev wanted to he could make a game look like "Avatar the move right now but it wouldnt do anyone much good because you would need a $10,000 dollar rig to run it. And yet again comparing the HDTV to a video card yet again makes no sense. Becaue not only do you need a good video card to run Crysis in all its glory you also need a good monitor or HDTV as well. The display device is seprate and needed for both platforms . Anyone who has a PS3 has capable hardware to run MGS4 while only top of the line hardware could run Crysis at the time. Thats the same tired argument pc gamers use to justify console gaming is as expnsive as pc gaming by adding in the price of the HDTV when it has absoultely nothing to do with the equation.
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts
[QUOTE="warmachines"]am i alone on this?nervmeister
Probably not.

Then get it for a Blu-Ray player and play GOW3 . I dont see how you coul want a longtime Playstation IP and not want the PS3 it simply makes no sense. Thtas like me saying I love halo but I wont buy a xbox.
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]

the same problem you have with crysis and not being able to play it at its max settings is the same issue as not everybody that has a ps3 has it connected to an HDTV, let alone hooked up right. since the ps3 doesnt come with hdmi, and quite a few consumers are clueless

the point is that the limit of the end user does NOT take away its merits

btw, Crysis: Warhead is actually less demanding than Crysis

ogvampire

You have no point here. How does my display device have anything to do with how a game runs on current hardware? My HDTV for an example is the same one I use on my pc and my PS3 . Were not compariing monitors were comparing how a game runs on current hardware. And if you read why many people gave MGS4 best visuals it won because of the level of graphics it acheived were far beyond anything on any of the current platforms while Crysis brought expensive rigs to there knees. A dev can make a game look as great as he wantes but if 99% of the public cant run it then does it deserve any rewards? That dev simply did not do a good job at getting his game to run on the current hardware which is precisly why Crysis Warhead did not beat MGS4 on many of the websites last year.

lol... wow. not sure how you missed my point,

you said that not everybody can enjoy Crysis warhead at its best resolution cause most people's PC's cant handle it

you then said that EVERYBODY that played mgs4 on the ps3 'looked great'. my point was that NOT EVERYBODY has their console connected to an HDTV, so the same issue that you had with crysis applies here....NOT EVERYBODY gets the best picture

my point was the the limit of the end user, whether or not they can enjoy the game with the best possible picture, does not take away any merits from the game

anyway, what makes you think that crysis warhead on medium settings isnt more technically impressive than than MGS4?

You still dont make sense though. A games technical prowess especially in the pc industry is how well it runs on current hardware. Crysis warhead did not run well on hardware at the time of its release. You needed SLI to even run it at max settings at a smooth framerate and when 99% of the pc community does not have a rig to run it properly then that obviosuly becomes an issue. And if you want to comapre Crysis on medium settings ot MGS4 then it wins in some ways and loses in others. MGS4 to this date still has some of the most amazing character models and far superior AI then Crysis warhead on medium settings. In all honesty warhead on medium settings is really nothign special and even the console demo of it blows the medium settings out of the water.
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]

reason: wouldnt you think that sony, who kept pushing the ps3 as the most technologically advanced console on the market, would put extra work in the graphics to show off the 'superiority' of the ps3?

MS, on the other hand, never really cared about that...

if you look at the specs, the hardware is almost identical, its up to the devs on whether or not to spend all that extra time on graphics.

some people are just too easily fooled...

ogvampire

That is the most pathetic excuse i have heard. The 360 games dont look better because Microsoft doesnt care? Really? When Sony showed off the KZ2 trailer in 2005 Micrsoft said the 360 would be more capable of doing those visuals then the PS3. You dont see them making those comments anymore because they know its not possible not because they dont care. Having your console being known as the most technically advacned always wields some advantage over the competition especially if you compete for the same audience.

would you happen to have a quote more recent than 4 1/2 YEARS ago? seriously, i havent heard MS talk about graphics for a long time... even when Gears was released

if you want to talk about hardware, just look at the specs... you actually think the ps3 has some kind of 'hidden power'? :lol:

You havent seen them talk about it becaue they cant win it and they know that. And no its not about hidden power its about optimzing for something that was and always has been there. Devs have said for years the PS3 would produce better visuals then the 360 was capable of and you are starting to see it . So what do you do? You deny the proof eventhough its right in front of you an claim Microsoft doesnt care.