Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
3 new screens of Unreal Tournament 3
This topic is locked from further discussion.
These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
drsports1980
[QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
muscleserge
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOWÂ
[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
Educated_Gamer
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOW
Well if you can show me a game with the same amount of detail, physics, draw distance on any of the consoles with fast paced action, I will eat my words. BTW Consoles are fundamentally PCs, 512mb of ram is 512mb of ram, and streaming probably won't help ou tmuch in this game.[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
Educated_Gamer
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOWÂ
Are you joking? GeOW textures don't look half as good as this.[QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
Â
drsports1980
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOW
Are you joking? GeOW textures don't look half as good as this.have you ever played gears of war? i see lots of similarities
[QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
Â
muscleserge
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOW
Well if you can show me a game with the same amount of detail, physics, draw distance on any of the consoles with fast paced action, I will eat my words. BTW Consoles are fundamentally PCs, 512mb of ram is 512mb of ram, and streaming probably won't help ou tmuch in this game.no, consoles are not basically pcs. You need a lot more ram for pcs because its a computer and does more than just game. Heck, vista eats up a gig by itselfÂ
Here is one of the best pics of gears of war. Do you see the difference between this game's textures compared to gears of war. I sure do.
[QUOTE="drsports1980"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
Â
Educated_Gamer
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOW
Are you joking? GeOW textures don't look half as good as this.have you ever played gears of war? i see lots of similarities
That's because Gears was designed using the Unreal engine..but you have to be seriously way out of your mind to even compare these screenshots with Geow....you can say they look similar in terms of architecture, but graphically ...no just no.
Here is one of the best pics of gears of war. Do you see the difference between this game's textures compared to gears of war. I sure do.drsports1980
Â
gears looks much better than thatÂ
[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
Educated_Gamer
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOW
Well if you can show me a game with the same amount of detail, physics, draw distance on any of the consoles with fast paced action, I will eat my words. BTW Consoles are fundamentally PCs, 512mb of ram is 512mb of ram, and streaming probably won't help ou tmuch in this game.no, consoles are not basically pcs. You need a lot more ram for pcs because its a computer and does more than just game. Heck, vista eats up a gig by itself
Well you've got CPUs, GPUs, Ram, chipsets, memory buses, and all do the same thing the do in a PC, unless in a console the CPU does the graphics, while the GPU does AI and physics. PCs have pagefile. All the os functions are mostly moved to it while I game, so than I have all of my ram free. Unless a console can fit in more stuff into 512mb of ram than a pc into 2gb of ram, those textures won't be in the console verions.[QUOTE="drsports1980"]
Here is one of the best pics of gears of war. Do you see the difference between this game's textures compared to gears of war. I sure do.Huxley_00
Â
gears looks much better than thatÂ
I played the game, it doesn't look comparable to this game.[QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
muscleserge
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOW
Well if you can show me a game with the same amount of detail, physics, draw distance on any of the consoles with fast paced action, I will eat my words. BTW Consoles are fundamentally PCs, 512mb of ram is 512mb of ram, and streaming probably won't help ou tmuch in this game.no, consoles are not basically pcs. You need a lot more ram for pcs because its a computer and does more than just game. Heck, vista eats up a gig by itself
Well you've got CPUs, GPUs, Ram, chipsets, memory buses, and all do the same thing the do in a PC, unless in a console the CPU does the graphics, while the GPU does AI and physics. PCs have pagefile. All the os functions are mostly moved to it while I game, so than I have all of my ram free. Unless a console can fit in more stuff into 512mb of ram than a pc into 2gb of ram, those textures won't be in the console verions.apparently you cant comprehend- they are different. And a pc doesnt convert all of its power to the game- it runs everything else and the game over it (reason why it you do a task manage itll show that more power is being used versus just on the game)
RARE's games and GeOW has textures on that level. Play them and stare at walls if you dont believe. And according to the logic your using, Conker and Riddick shouldnt have had textures on the xbox that good. Â
[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
Educated_Gamer
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOW
Well if you can show me a game with the same amount of detail, physics, draw distance on any of the consoles with fast paced action, I will eat my words. BTW Consoles are fundamentally PCs, 512mb of ram is 512mb of ram, and streaming probably won't help ou tmuch in this game.no, consoles are not basically pcs. You need a lot more ram for pcs because its a computer and does more than just game. Heck, vista eats up a gig by itself
Well you've got CPUs, GPUs, Ram, chipsets, memory buses, and all do the same thing the do in a PC, unless in a console the CPU does the graphics, while the GPU does AI and physics. PCs have pagefile. All the os functions are mostly moved to it while I game, so than I have all of my ram free. Unless a console can fit in more stuff into 512mb of ram than a pc into 2gb of ram, those textures won't be in the console verions.apparently you cant comprehend- they are different. And a pc doesnt convert all of its power to the game- it runs everything else and the game over it (reason why it you do a task manage itll show that more power is being used versus just on the game)
RARE's games and GeOW has textures on that level. Play them and stare at walls if you dont believe. And according to the logic your using, Conker and Riddick shouldnt have had textures on the xbox that good.
It is wierd, I thought that both the 360 and PS3 had OSes running in the backround, the PS3 even dedicates a n SPE to the OS. Conker and Riddick looked good, but not as early in the xboxes life cycle, I believe both games are from 2005.[QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
muscleserge
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOW
Well if you can show me a game with the same amount of detail, physics, draw distance on any of the consoles with fast paced action, I will eat my words. BTW Consoles are fundamentally PCs, 512mb of ram is 512mb of ram, and streaming probably won't help ou tmuch in this game.no, consoles are not basically pcs. You need a lot more ram for pcs because its a computer and does more than just game. Heck, vista eats up a gig by itself
Well you've got CPUs, GPUs, Ram, chipsets, memory buses, and all do the same thing the do in a PC, unless in a console the CPU does the graphics, while the GPU does AI and physics. PCs have pagefile. All the os functions are mostly moved to it while I game, so than I have all of my ram free. Unless a console can fit in more stuff into 512mb of ram than a pc into 2gb of ram, those textures won't be in the console verions.apparently you cant comprehend- they are different. And a pc doesnt convert all of its power to the game- it runs everything else and the game over it (reason why it you do a task manage itll show that more power is being used versus just on the game)
RARE's games and GeOW has textures on that level. Play them and stare at walls if you dont believe. And according to the logic your using, Conker and Riddick shouldnt have had textures on the xbox that good.
It is wierd, I thought that both the 360 and PS3 had OSes running in the backround, the PS3 even dedicates a n SPE to the OS. Conker and Riddick looked good, but not as early in the xboxes life cycle, I believe both games are from 2005.thinks about it though.
Remember what early console games looked like compared to mid point console games.- basically 1.5x graphics, not a full 2. Riddick and Conker were said to be impossible to be done on the xbox, particularly by Hermits. So was KOTOR even or anything above this http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/driving/tokyoxtremeracerdrift2/images.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gsimage&tag=images;img;2
no joke, every single console generation hermits say that anything above the current best looking game is impossible on consoles. Its happening again with Crysis and the like. I will guarentee you, consols will have a game that looks better than Crysis by mid 2008.
The truth is, although this game is a step up from whats out on consoles now, not so much- gears of war was a bigger step up than this is
[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
Educated_Gamer
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOW
Well if you can show me a game with the same amount of detail, physics, draw distance on any of the consoles with fast paced action, I will eat my words. BTW Consoles are fundamentally PCs, 512mb of ram is 512mb of ram, and streaming probably won't help ou tmuch in this game.no, consoles are not basically pcs. You need a lot more ram for pcs because its a computer and does more than just game. Heck, vista eats up a gig by itself
Well you've got CPUs, GPUs, Ram, chipsets, memory buses, and all do the same thing the do in a PC, unless in a console the CPU does the graphics, while the GPU does AI and physics. PCs have pagefile. All the os functions are mostly moved to it while I game, so than I have all of my ram free. Unless a console can fit in more stuff into 512mb of ram than a pc into 2gb of ram, those textures won't be in the console verions.apparently you cant comprehend- they are different. And a pc doesnt convert all of its power to the game- it runs everything else and the game over it (reason why it you do a task manage itll show that more power is being used versus just on the game)
RARE's games and GeOW has textures on that level. Play them and stare at walls if you dont believe. And according to the logic your using, Conker and Riddick shouldnt have had textures on the xbox that good.
It is wierd, I thought that both the 360 and PS3 had OSes running in the backround, the PS3 even dedicates a n SPE to the OS. Conker and Riddick looked good, but not as early in the xboxes life cycle, I believe both games are from 2005.thinks about it though.
Remember what early console games looked like compared to mid point console games.- basically 1.5x graphics, not a full 2. Riddick and Conker were said to be impossible to be done on the xbox, particularly by Hermits. So was KOTOR even or anything above this http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/driving/tokyoxtremeracerdrift2/images.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gsimage&tag=images;img;2
no joke, every single console generation hermits say that anything above the current best looking game is impossible on consoles. Its happening again with Crysis and the like. I will guarentee you, consols will have a game that looks better than Crysis by mid 2008.
The truth is, although this game is a step up from whats out on consoles now, not so much- gears of war was a bigger step up than this is
Â
I think you are forgetting the fact that riddick looked a lot worse on the Xbox then it did on the PC....Â
[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
Educated_Gamer
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOW
Well if you can show me a game with the same amount of detail, physics, draw distance on any of the consoles with fast paced action, I will eat my words. BTW Consoles are fundamentally PCs, 512mb of ram is 512mb of ram, and streaming probably won't help ou tmuch in this game.no, consoles are not basically pcs. You need a lot more ram for pcs because its a computer and does more than just game. Heck, vista eats up a gig by itself
Well you've got CPUs, GPUs, Ram, chipsets, memory buses, and all do the same thing the do in a PC, unless in a console the CPU does the graphics, while the GPU does AI and physics. PCs have pagefile. All the os functions are mostly moved to it while I game, so than I have all of my ram free. Unless a console can fit in more stuff into 512mb of ram than a pc into 2gb of ram, those textures won't be in the console verions.apparently you cant comprehend- they are different. And a pc doesnt convert all of its power to the game- it runs everything else and the game over it (reason why it you do a task manage itll show that more power is being used versus just on the game)
RARE's games and GeOW has textures on that level. Play them and stare at walls if you dont believe. And according to the logic your using, Conker and Riddick shouldnt have had textures on the xbox that good.
It is wierd, I thought that both the 360 and PS3 had OSes running in the backround, the PS3 even dedicates a n SPE to the OS. Conker and Riddick looked good, but not as early in the xboxes life cycle, I believe both games are from 2005.thinks about it though.
Remember what early console games looked like compared to mid point console games.- basically 1.5x graphics, not a full 2. Riddick and Conker were said to be impossible to be done on the xbox, particularly by Hermits. So was KOTOR even or anything above this http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/driving/tokyoxtremeracerdrift2/images.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gsimage&tag=images;img;2
no joke, every single console generation hermits say that anything above the current best looking game is impossible on consoles. Its happening again with Crysis and the like. I will guarentee you, consols will have a game that looks better than Crysis by mid 2008.
The truth is, although this game is a step up from whats out on consoles now, not so much- gears of war was a bigger step up than this is
Are you implying that Riddic looked the smae on the Xbox as PC? Crysis is too detailed for this gen consoles. Remember Farcry, the PC version was way better, and did the xbox have anything compared to FarCry PC, no. Even if the games were ported or even multiplat. the PC versions were always supperior looking.[QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
cobrax75
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOW
Well if you can show me a game with the same amount of detail, physics, draw distance on any of the consoles with fast paced action, I will eat my words. BTW Consoles are fundamentally PCs, 512mb of ram is 512mb of ram, and streaming probably won't help ou tmuch in this game.no, consoles are not basically pcs. You need a lot more ram for pcs because its a computer and does more than just game. Heck, vista eats up a gig by itself
Well you've got CPUs, GPUs, Ram, chipsets, memory buses, and all do the same thing the do in a PC, unless in a console the CPU does the graphics, while the GPU does AI and physics. PCs have pagefile. All the os functions are mostly moved to it while I game, so than I have all of my ram free. Unless a console can fit in more stuff into 512mb of ram than a pc into 2gb of ram, those textures won't be in the console verions.apparently you cant comprehend- they are different. And a pc doesnt convert all of its power to the game- it runs everything else and the game over it (reason why it you do a task manage itll show that more power is being used versus just on the game)
RARE's games and GeOW has textures on that level. Play them and stare at walls if you dont believe. And according to the logic your using, Conker and Riddick shouldnt have had textures on the xbox that good.
It is wierd, I thought that both the 360 and PS3 had OSes running in the backround, the PS3 even dedicates a n SPE to the OS. Conker and Riddick looked good, but not as early in the xboxes life cycle, I believe both games are from 2005.thinks about it though.
Remember what early console games looked like compared to mid point console games.- basically 1.5x graphics, not a full 2. Riddick and Conker were said to be impossible to be done on the xbox, particularly by Hermits. So was KOTOR even or anything above this http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/driving/tokyoxtremeracerdrift2/images.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gsimage&tag=images;img;2
no joke, every single console generation hermits say that anything above the current best looking game is impossible on consoles. Its happening again with Crysis and the like. I will guarentee you, consols will have a game that looks better than Crysis by mid 2008.
The truth is, although this game is a step up from whats out on consoles now, not so much- gears of war was a bigger step up than this is
Â
I think you are forgetting the fact that riddick looked a lot worse on the Xbox then it did on the PC....
i dont even know what riddick looked like on the pc- i never played it on that. Im basing it off the xbox version.Â
i think hermits tend to forget what console graphics actually look like and how much they improve Â
Â
[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
Educated_Gamer
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOW
Well if you can show me a game with the same amount of detail, physics, draw distance on any of the consoles with fast paced action, I will eat my words. BTW Consoles are fundamentally PCs, 512mb of ram is 512mb of ram, and streaming probably won't help ou tmuch in this game.no, consoles are not basically pcs. You need a lot more ram for pcs because its a computer and does more than just game. Heck, vista eats up a gig by itself
Well you've got CPUs, GPUs, Ram, chipsets, memory buses, and all do the same thing the do in a PC, unless in a console the CPU does the graphics, while the GPU does AI and physics. PCs have pagefile. All the os functions are mostly moved to it while I game, so than I have all of my ram free. Unless a console can fit in more stuff into 512mb of ram than a pc into 2gb of ram, those textures won't be in the console verions.apparently you cant comprehend- they are different. And a pc doesnt convert all of its power to the game- it runs everything else and the game over it (reason why it you do a task manage itll show that more power is being used versus just on the game)
RARE's games and GeOW has textures on that level. Play them and stare at walls if you dont believe. And according to the logic your using, Conker and Riddick shouldnt have had textures on the xbox that good.
It is wierd, I thought that both the 360 and PS3 had OSes running in the backround, the PS3 even dedicates a n SPE to the OS. Conker and Riddick looked good, but not as early in the xboxes life cycle, I believe both games are from 2005.thinks about it though.
Remember what early console games looked like compared to mid point console games.- basically 1.5x graphics, not a full 2. Riddick and Conker were said to be impossible to be done on the xbox, particularly by Hermits. So was KOTOR even or anything above this http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/driving/tokyoxtremeracerdrift2/images.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gsimage&tag=images;img;2
no joke, every single console generation hermits say that anything above the current best looking game is impossible on consoles. Its happening again with Crysis and the like. I will guarentee you, consols will have a game that looks better than Crysis by mid 2008.
The truth is, although this game is a step up from whats out on consoles now, not so much- gears of war was a bigger step up than this is
Â
I think you are forgetting the fact that riddick looked a lot worse on the Xbox then it did on the PC....
i dont even know what riddick looked like on the pc- i never played it on that. Im basing it off the xbox version.
Â
Â
yes, and now it all falls into place.....
Â
you have never played the PC version.....It looks much much better then the Xbox version.Â
[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
Educated_Gamer
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOW
Well if you can show me a game with the same amount of detail, physics, draw distance on any of the consoles with fast paced action, I will eat my words. BTW Consoles are fundamentally PCs, 512mb of ram is 512mb of ram, and streaming probably won't help ou tmuch in this game.no, consoles are not basically pcs. You need a lot more ram for pcs because its a computer and does more than just game. Heck, vista eats up a gig by itself
Well you've got CPUs, GPUs, Ram, chipsets, memory buses, and all do the same thing the do in a PC, unless in a console the CPU does the graphics, while the GPU does AI and physics. PCs have pagefile. All the os functions are mostly moved to it while I game, so than I have all of my ram free. Unless a console can fit in more stuff into 512mb of ram than a pc into 2gb of ram, those textures won't be in the console verions.apparently you cant comprehend- they are different. And a pc doesnt convert all of its power to the game- it runs everything else and the game over it (reason why it you do a task manage itll show that more power is being used versus just on the game)
RARE's games and GeOW has textures on that level. Play them and stare at walls if you dont believe. And according to the logic your using, Conker and Riddick shouldnt have had textures on the xbox that good.
It is wierd, I thought that both the 360 and PS3 had OSes running in the backround, the PS3 even dedicates a n SPE to the OS. Conker and Riddick looked good, but not as early in the xboxes life cycle, I believe both games are from 2005.thinks about it though.
Remember what early console games looked like compared to mid point console games.- basically 1.5x graphics, not a full 2. Riddick and Conker were said to be impossible to be done on the xbox, particularly by Hermits. So was KOTOR even or anything above this http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/driving/tokyoxtremeracerdrift2/images.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gsimage&tag=images;img;2
no joke, every single console generation hermits say that anything above the current best looking game is impossible on consoles. Its happening again with Crysis and the like. I will guarentee you, consols will have a game that looks better than Crysis by mid 2008.
The truth is, although this game is a step up from whats out on consoles now, not so much- gears of war was a bigger step up than this is
I think you are forgetting the fact that riddick looked a lot worse on the Xbox then it did on the PC....
i dont even know what riddick looked like on the pc- i never played it on that. Im basing it off the xbox version.
i think hermits tend to forget what console graphics actually look like and how much they improve
you also greatly underestimate how powerful PCs are, PC graphics evolution is much more rapid than that of consoles. PC always have better graphics and every year the gap grows very fast, way faster than console graphical improvements.[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Educated_Gamer"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="drsports1980"]These are PC shot. there is AF enebled, atleast 8x, as far as I know even GeOW had 0xAF. Plus look at the amount of detail, it can't posibly be done on the consoles with 512mb of ram.Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
Educated_Gamer
Because you know, consoles and pcs work the same way :roll:
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOW
Well if you can show me a game with the same amount of detail, physics, draw distance on any of the consoles with fast paced action, I will eat my words. BTW Consoles are fundamentally PCs, 512mb of ram is 512mb of ram, and streaming probably won't help ou tmuch in this game.no, consoles are not basically pcs. You need a lot more ram for pcs because its a computer and does more than just game. Heck, vista eats up a gig by itself
Well you've got CPUs, GPUs, Ram, chipsets, memory buses, and all do the same thing the do in a PC, unless in a console the CPU does the graphics, while the GPU does AI and physics. PCs have pagefile. All the os functions are mostly moved to it while I game, so than I have all of my ram free. Unless a console can fit in more stuff into 512mb of ram than a pc into 2gb of ram, those textures won't be in the console verions.apparently you cant comprehend- they are different. And a pc doesnt convert all of its power to the game- it runs everything else and the game over it (reason why it you do a task manage itll show that more power is being used versus just on the game)
RARE's games and GeOW has textures on that level. Play them and stare at walls if you dont believe. And according to the logic your using, Conker and Riddick shouldnt have had textures on the xbox that good.
It is wierd, I thought that both the 360 and PS3 had OSes running in the backround, the PS3 even dedicates a n SPE to the OS. Conker and Riddick looked good, but not as early in the xboxes life cycle, I believe both games are from 2005.thinks about it though.
Remember what early console games looked like compared to mid point console games.- basically 1.5x graphics, not a full 2. Riddick and Conker were said to be impossible to be done on the xbox, particularly by Hermits. So was KOTOR even or anything above this http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/driving/tokyoxtremeracerdrift2/images.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gsimage&tag=images;img;2
no joke, every single console generation hermits say that anything above the current best looking game is impossible on consoles. Its happening again with Crysis and the like. I will guarentee you, consols will have a game that looks better than Crysis by mid 2008.
The truth is, although this game is a step up from whats out on consoles now, not so much- gears of war was a bigger step up than this is
I'm not so sure. In past gens consoles were able to get a away with SD res. This gen they have to compete @ PC resolutions. Now that everything has to be in HD it will be interesting to see the difference between the best looking console and PC games at the end of the gen.Â
O.o You know thats not the best...or even one of the best.
Here is one of the best pics of gears of war. Do you see the difference between this game's textures compared to gears of war. I sure do.drsports1980
Log in to comment