shadownetsam's forum posts

Avatar image for shadownetsam
shadownetsam

60

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 shadownetsam
Member since 2010 • 60 Posts
[QUOTE="shadownetsam"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

I think people need a little reality check. The reason why cows went on such a rage about Alan Wake being sub HD is because it was touted as the 360's best looking game. The one that would finally beat UNC2 and KZ2 and any PS3 exclusive. First of all as great as it looks no its not better looking then any of those games and you take into account that it is indeed sub HD then that proves the point. All PS3's best looking exclusives are indded 720p UNC2, GOW3, KZ2 etc. As far as RDR goes it clealry looks better on the 360 but it by no means is in the running for best looking game on consoles.( best open world game maybe) but not overall.

Ninja-Hippo
Even if alan wake wasn't sub HD it still is far from console graphics king the textures look like ps2 textures and the lighting isn't perfect also has other flaws but anyway I'm just saying it's far from graphics king.

Nothing in Alan Wake looks like a PS2 game. Let's not be silly.

Look at the textures from close range not from a distance that paints another story buddy.
Avatar image for shadownetsam
shadownetsam

60

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 shadownetsam
Member since 2010 • 60 Posts

[QUOTE="shadownetsam"][QUOTE="mitu123"]

I blame devs and 3D to some extent, even Killzone 3 will be sub HD if you play it in 3D.

It seems most PS3 exclusives are in HD however.

mitu123

Wrong!!!Killzone 3 is comfirmed to be 720p with 3d and without it check the new eurogamer inverview the developers say it.

Then that polish site is wrong, not me.;)

lol they are huge in gamespot everyone knows eurogamer and they aren't the ones that said it was 720p the developers said it so you are dead wrong buddy. ;)
Avatar image for shadownetsam
shadownetsam

60

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 shadownetsam
Member since 2010 • 60 Posts

I think people need a little reality check. The reason why cows went on such a rage about Alan Wake being sub HD is because it was touted as the 360's best looking game. The one that would finally beat UNC2 and KZ2 and any PS3 exclusive. First of all as great as it looks no its not better looking then any of those games and you take into account that it is indeed sub HD then that proves the point. All PS3's best looking exclusives are indded 720p UNC2, GOW3, KZ2 etc. As far as RDR goes it clealry looks better on the 360 but it by no means is in the running for best looking game on consoles.( best open world game maybe) but not overall.

TheSterls
Even if alan wake wasn't sub HD it still is far from console graphics king the textures look like ps2 textures and the lighting isn't perfect also has other flaws but anyway I'm just saying it's far from graphics king.
Avatar image for shadownetsam
shadownetsam

60

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 shadownetsam
Member since 2010 • 60 Posts

I blame devs and 3D to some extent, even Killzone 3 will be sub HD if you play it in 3D.

It seems most PS3 exclusives are in HD however.

mitu123
Wrong!!!Killzone 3 is comfirmed to be 720p with 3d and without it check the new eurogamer inverview the developers say it.
Avatar image for shadownetsam
shadownetsam

60

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 shadownetsam
Member since 2010 • 60 Posts

This makes me laugh after all the crap Alan Wake got for being sub HD. Yet Alan Wake is still a incredibly good looking game.

RDR is an amazing game, and I guess sub hd should be acceptable now for cows, their graphic whore days should be behind them.

Franky-the-bat
Umm alan wake is ok looking not as good as alot of you make it look. Sub Hd is a problem no matter what system its on if it's not optimized to look like 720p then thats a big problem. Doesn't matter if a game is sub HD I will say it again as long as it's optimized to take full advantage. Look at tekken 6 the ps3 version it's sub HD and it looks sharper then the 720p 360 version why?? Because it's fully optimized and that really should be the only thing that matters.
Avatar image for shadownetsam
shadownetsam

60

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 shadownetsam
Member since 2010 • 60 Posts

sorry if old

mayceV
Damn this game looks like crap still. Epic sucks at graphics look at the pics they look horrible when zoomed in like the other gears looked like you can even tell the second screenshots is a bullshot. It's sad epic is a former shadow of itself. I really do hope they improve on this for the sake of all lemmings.
Avatar image for shadownetsam
shadownetsam

60

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 shadownetsam
Member since 2010 • 60 Posts
[QUOTE="shadownetsam"][QUOTE="CZVA"]

the guy basically admits KZ2 has control problems. serves the KZ2 defenders right. that game was destined to fail because of the "realism" controls. they should just go with the regular control scheme everyone goes with.

its nice how he goes all out on the details during the interview instead of avoiding questions.

Respawn-d
There is nothing wrong with the controls only noobs complain. I barely played killzone 2 and everytime I jumped in I always dominated and always had 1st place and rarely 2nd place the controls were fine to me it's all about skill. This is coming from someone who barely played and was use to the game controls.

The game has control problems. Like the lag between contolle input and movement

When the game first came out probably had problems but I played after they released the patch that made the guns feel less weighty. I had no problems with the controls they were fine to me and like I said I dominated all the time and I barely played I had no problem kicking butt with the way the controls worked. Only noobs complained vets never had any problems with the controls.
Avatar image for shadownetsam
shadownetsam

60

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 shadownetsam
Member since 2010 • 60 Posts

the guy basically admits KZ2 has control problems. serves the KZ2 defenders right. that game was destined to fail because of the "realism" controls. they should just go with the regular control scheme everyone goes with.

its nice how he goes all out on the details during the interview instead of avoiding questions.

CZVA
There is nothing wrong with the controls only noobs complain. I barely played killzone 2 and everytime I jumped in I always dominated and always had 1st place and rarely 2nd place the controls were fine to me it's all about skill. This is coming from someone who barely played and was use to the game controls.
Avatar image for shadownetsam
shadownetsam

60

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 shadownetsam
Member since 2010 • 60 Posts

As a gamer who started off on halo 1, I loved the halo franchise, halo 2 was better than halo 1 imo. Then halo 3 came out it was not as good as halo 2 (multiplayer wise) but it was still enjoyable and the most balanced shooter this generation which made it fun that you didn't have to deal with bs like noob tubes, planted grenades, claymores etc.

However, after playing the Halo reach beta I was very disappointed. From the sounds of it, it felt like it was going to be halo 1 style, it wasn't......

Let me list the problems: Ok the abilities. The abilities were a nice idea but didn't feel as if they were thought out, alot of them were not balanced at all (remember the whole reason halo is huge multiplayer wise is the balance and low% of bs)

Sprinting-It's promoting camping/ someone sprints out you with a melee weapon you can't counter at all (bloom plays into this). In halo 3 if someone camped you couldn't do much but you could counter if you knew what you were doing with the br like ghandi hopping and 4 shots, however in reach because you have to time your shots you're pretty much screwed if someone straight lines you while sprinting. No game should promote camping but reach has

Camo-This ability isn't so bad, i dont like how it messes the opponents radar because you're put in a position where you know theres a guy with camo around, however its useless to decipher if theres two camo guys, or a camo guy and one other shooter, and you're forced to gamble.

Jetpack-Ability is good however bumper jumper with jetpack is useless and really wish bungie would allow you to customize your controller setups

Armor lock-way broken, its basically a get out of jail free card if you put urself into shootings way, in addition the length is a little much. I realize what people are going to say "OH JUST WAIT TILL IT GOES OFF AND KILL HIM" well against higher skilled players you dont get that opportunity, in addition you can abuse armor lock and use it ever 3 seconds and be invulnerable 3/4 of the game.

RETICLE BLOOM-this ones huge, its actually a huge reason why this game is disappointing. Bloom isn't adding skill in halo like it should. It's limiting skiill and slowing down an already slow shooter (reach). its why you cant counter someone sprinting at you, with bloom theoretically someone can time their shots and still lose a pistol fight (that should never happen). 3 ways to fix it, either increase bloom so that can never happpen however the game would be so much slower than it already is, reduce bloom (best option imo) or eliminate it.

Then there's the obvious grenades, slower spartans, and shotgun registration.

I'm not saying its terrible, it wasn't, but compared to other halo games reach beta was just a huge disappointment for me. It has potential tho to be better than h3.

Just my 2 cents

Microsoft1234
Umm you do know this is a beta and the reason for betas is to improve on the game and fix whats broken.
Avatar image for shadownetsam
shadownetsam

60

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 shadownetsam
Member since 2010 • 60 Posts

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]The brew-ha-ha over Alan Wake was the wide spread claim that it would be the new graphics king (not to mention wide spread denials that it was in face sub-HD once it was revealed). Alan Wake is still a good looking game, but yes resolution certainly does matter when you shoot for the title of graphics king, console limited or otherwise. On the other hand, I didn't see a single Cow claiming RDR to be king. A few were perhaps claiming equality with 360 in which case they got pwned but that's a different matter to the situation with AW. Anybody with 1/2 a brain will know by now that most all multiplatforms are more targeted to the 360 than the PS3 and thus tend to look better on the 360.Snugenz

Now you're just making excuses for hypocritical behavior, sure people claimed AW would be graphics king, but alot of cows claim the PS3 is infinitely superior to the 360 in its graphics prowess.

Explain how multipats are targetted more toward the 360 than the PS3?

360 has more people who own it thats a fact so develpoers the majority use it as the lead platform and some of their engines are made for 360 and not optimized for ps3. So games are ported to ps3 from xbox and tend to look bad it has nothing to do with power anyone with a brain that knows about graphics can tell you that. Look at th epc for example the console ports look like crap and the pc is a monster when it comes to power the ports still look a tiny bit better then console versions but no where near the quality as it would look if it were made on pc first. Yeah ps3 is stronger then 360 the games proved it time and time gain even the developers keep saying 360 is maxed out. Example look at God of war 3 the game is the ps3 graphics king and only uses 50-60% of the system power that is insane. Yeah it looks even better then uncharted 2 I have both games and I can easily tell you why but thats not what this is about.