[QUOTE="omarissac"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] lolno X looks better And why was the game lagging?faizan_faizan

 explain to me why you think it looks better techically. i mean any body with a brain can see RDR has way more detail, much better lighting, alpha textures every where, while X lighting is static and the foilage is sprite based.

only a very small amount of  it, most of it is not, its uses alpha textures. yoy can read the details here http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-red-dead-redemption-face-off?page=2 digital foundry says the game has superb draw distants and the games uses alpha texures for foilage, some foliage is sprite based and it really jarring but thank fully its only a small amount.

[QUOTE="omarissac"]

its nice you think X look better, but when you consider the lighting is not dynamic, the foliage is sprite based, your posting blurry pics, its not proving anything about wiiu power, fact is RDR is techically more impressive, you can watch the trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afhcpsLIh_4 here if you watch the whole trailer you will see the different envoriments, not just the pics your posting.

Jag85

i think we need more footage to judge scale and draw distance cause i don't see what your talking about, and still the grass is more impressive then X cause its not sprite based, you think it looks better, thats fine but techically its not more impressive.

[QUOTE="omarissac"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] Well i won't judge X from one YT Compressed shot The gameplay i saw on YT looks better and has a bigger scale than RDR for comparison.faizan_faizan

here a trailer of RDR its honestly makes the x trailer look like crap http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afhcpsLIh_4, way more detail, way better lighting.

 explain to me why you think it looks better techically. i mean any body with a brain can see RDR has way more detail, much better lighting, alpha textures every where, while X lighting is static and the foilage is sprite based.

[QUOTE="omarissac"]

 

Jag85

its nice you think X look better, but when you consider the lighting is not dynamic, the foliage is sprite based, your posting blurry pics, its not proving anything about wiiu power, fact is RDR is techically more impressive, you can watch the trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afhcpsLIh_4 here if you watch the whole trailer you will see the different envoriments, not just the pics your posting.

his point was to use a biased comparison to make the wiiu version look way more superior, there are many multiplatform games on 360 that show a bigger jump then the ps3 version, then what need for speed wiiu is showing, compared to 360, yet sheep act like its doing 1080p or 6fps.

[QUOTE="omarissac"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] Bullshot compared to a Low Res Compressed Pic.faizan_faizan

sorry its not a bull shot, its much its better then the crappy pics jag85 provided, its the highest resolution shot of X on the net.

here a trailer of RDR its honestly makes the x trailer look like crap http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afhcpsLIh_4, way more detail, way better lighting.

Here pics of the pc version of need for speed on high settings vs 360, this will have better graphics then the wiiu version

[QUOTE="omarissac"]picfaizan_faizan

sorry its not a bull shot, its much its better then the crappy pics jag85 provided, its the highest resolution shot of X on the net.

pic

Its been the same 5 people defending the crap that is nintendo nowadays for years here, talk about dedicated fans. Fck nintendo they have forgotten how to make new and exciting ips, they just recycle the same garbage every gen and the sheep fall for it. They cant even release the same crap with current technology, you are forced to play the same old crap on last gen hardware 2 gens in a row now. Wake up people. Its a joke.

Advid-Gamer

lol the wiiu sales will prove that most nintendo fans with a brain have moved on.