Wow. This makes me believe that killzone ps3 can be done.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Those are all old. Sorry pal :Diammason
http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/gamespace/images.php?page=1&pid=928117&sid=6170226&part=rss&tag=gs_all_games&subj=6170226
Â
Woahoahoahoahhhh.....
Now this was what I was expecting from this new generation of consoles...glad to see it's not going to waste after all.
Can't wait for this game.
Â
these are prolly taken from a PC equipted with atleast an 8800GTS 640, maybe even the 8800 ultra in DX10.muscleserge
Â
For the sake of Unreal Tournament...I wonn't mind upgrading one bit.
It's the only FPS I get crazy about XD
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
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOWÂ
[QUOTE="muscleserge"]these are prolly taken from a PC equipted with atleast an 8800GTS 640, maybe even the 8800 ultra in DX10.verbalfilth
For the sake of Unreal Tournament...I wonn't mind upgrading one bit.
It's the only FPS I get crazy about XD
I'll see how my 7900gt handles it, if I like it then I probably won't upgrade.[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
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
and ya, the textures i can tell are from GeOWÂ
Are you joking? GeOW textures don't look half as good as this.This may be a dumb question consiering the title of this game...........but will this come out this year?
[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
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
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
[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
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
The game does not look like that. Go to a friends house and play gears- youll see
for example, in GeOW you can literally zoom in with the sniper against a brick wall and not see the tiny splots of color that make it up. They also have the nice bumpy thing. Â
Â
[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
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
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
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.Whoa! I doubt that the 360 and PS3 versions will look that hot though ; ; Prolly a $500 graphics card can get you there, but hey, here's to hoping - and thanks for the post man ^^Philosoma
They showed UT2007 for PS3 a long time ago.Â
[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
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
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
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
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
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
i cant even explain it any better- this game looks very ahievable on consoles. Same thing goes to Crysis.
If Mass Effect or Gears of War was a pc only title that would also not be possible on consoles.
Youve guys got to admit, hermits are ignorant when ti comes to whats possible on consoles graphically because they are probaly just defensive about the investment in a graphics card.
UT3 and even Crysis arent huge leaps from what consoles have been doing. 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
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.i cant even explain it any better- this game looks very ahievable on consoles. Same thing goes to Crysis.
If Mass Effect or Gears of War was a pc only title that would also not be possible on consoles.
Youve guys got to admit, hermits are ignorant when ti comes to whats possible on consoles graphically because they are probaly just defensive about the investment in a graphics card.
UT3 and even Crysis arent huge leaps from what consoles have been doing.
Educated_Gamer
Â
no Crysis is a huge leap from what all the Consoles have been doing....
Â
no only does it have far better graphics then any console game, but also has much better phisics, much larger, more detailed enviromnets, and a much larger view distance....Â
Show mw a game that even comes close. Crysis has fully destructable enviornments, and every object has physical properties, Crysis will have tornados and huricanes. Also keep in mind the scale.i cant even explain it any better- this game looks very ahievable on consoles. Same thing goes to Crysis.
If Mass Effect or Gears of War was a pc only title that would also not be possible on consoles.
Youve guys got to admit, hermits are ignorant when ti comes to whats possible on consoles graphically because they are probaly just defensive about the investment in a graphics card.
UT3 and even Crysis arent huge leaps from what consoles have been doing.
Educated_Gamer
UT3 isn't a big leap, but Crysis is.i cant even explain it any better- this game looks very ahievable on consoles. Same thing goes to Crysis.
If Mass Effect or Gears of War was a pc only title that would also not be possible on consoles.
Youve guys got to admit, hermits are ignorant when ti comes to whats possible on consoles graphically because they are probaly just defensive about the investment in a graphics card.
UT3 and even Crysis arent huge leaps from what consoles have been doing.
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
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
Alot of people seem to disregard a huge difference from pc/console other then specs and similar hardware and thats closed Architecture vs open Architecture.7thSINso you're saying that closed architecture will make up for the huge lack of CPu power and a huge lack of ram. We know consoles are more efficient, but efficiency only goes so far.
[QUOTE="7thSIN"]Alot of people seem to disregard a huge difference from pc/console other then specs and similar hardware and thats closed Architecture vs open Architecture.musclesergeso you're saying that closed architecture will make up for the huge lack of CPu power and a huge lack of ram. We know consoles are more efficient, but efficiency only goes so far. This is true. :D Those are defently PC shots.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment