New graphics king inbound? (Planetside 2. Yeah I said graphics king)

[QUOTE="CanYouDiglt"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

And your reasoning for that is?

Wasdie

Well I posted the pictures, so that's my evidence. I guess we'll ignore the entire premise of this post.

As for textures and detail, SOE has clearly stated that the textures are just placeholders for a lot of them. Though the game will not have the really small level detail that games like Gears of War and Uncharted have because of the massive scale. Crysis doesn't even have that level of detail on the small scale because the engine is rendering 1-2 kms out.

Planetside 2's draw distance is about 2 kms. I've seen roughly 30-40 tanks on my screen at any given time. Each single lighting sorce cast dynamic light on the environment, which produces some simpley remarkeable images btw. The fact that the game runs at 60fps with over 500 players in the vinicity, with 100+ of them being rendered at once also must be taken into consideration.

I could keep going.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"] Nice to see you answering like that. Wasdie, you are a mod and you must be an example. Treating people like cows/lems/sheep/hermits by mods isn't correct imo. There are other ways (and better) to end up an argument. [QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]However PS3 can do great graphics to despite what Hermits say. Giancar

Uncharted 3 is the graphics king, and if you think these look great you should see The Last of Us. It looks EVEN better!ShadowMoses900

I don't see what is wrong with Wasdie making a thread and expressing his opinion. I do it all the time, some people agree with it, other people do not. I don't see the big deal, especially in SW. Trying to be a "good example" here makes no sense, everyone here is biased, pretending to be otherwise is just lying.

As long as the mods don't go around swearing or insulting people I don't see the problem with them making threads in SW. And Wasdie is a user I respect more than others around here, because he doesn't act immature and insult people like so many others do. Doesn't mean I have to agree with his opinion though.

\ don't see what is wrong with Wasdie making a thread and expressing his opinion. I do it all the time, some people agree with it, other people do not. I don't see the big deal, especially in SW. Trying to be a "good example" here makes no sense, everyone here is biased, pretending to be otherwise is just lying.

As long as the mods don't go around swearing or insulting people I don't see the problem with them making threads in SW.

ShadowMoses900

Do corridor games count as 'graphics king'?

I would argue no, since the 'graphics' are based on in-game distance gimmicks.

Open world games are truly impressive, and can be directly compared to other open world games based on how well the engine/graphics create a 'world simulation'. Corridor based linear shooters like UC3 are simply reskinned games from 1999. The textures are nice in the bullshots, but on a PS3 they are abominable, and the levels are gimmick corridors.

UC3 sums up why a console can never have a graphics king, since you are just battling over wall skins in corridors.

[QUOTE="CanYouDiglt"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

And your reasoning for that is?

Wasdie

Well I posted the pictures, so that's my evidence. I guess we'll ignore the entire premise of this post.

As for textures and detail, SOE has clearly stated that the textures are just placeholders for a lot of them. Though the game will not have the really small level detail that games like Gears of War and Uncharted have because of the massive scale. Crysis doesn't even have that level of detail on the small scale because the engine is rendering 1-2 kms out.

Planetside 2's draw distance is about 2 kms. I've seen roughly 30-40 tanks on my screen at any given time. Each single lighting sorce cast dynamic light on the environment, which produces some simpley remarkeable images btw. The fact that the game runs at 60fps with over 500 players in the vinicity, with 100+ of them being rendered at once also must be taken into consideration.

I could keep going.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="CanYouDiglt"]Textures, detail, ect. What makes you think it should be since you are the one making the claim.CanYouDiglt

Well I posted the pictures, so that's my evidence. I guess we'll ignore the entire premise of this post.

As for textures and detail, SOE has clearly stated that the textures are just placeholders for a lot of them. Though the game will not have the really small level detail that games like Gears of War and Uncharted have because of the massive scale. Crysis doesn't even have that level of detail on the small scale because the engine is rendering 1-2 kms out.

Planetside 2's draw distance is about 2 kms. I've seen roughly 30-40 tanks on my screen at any given time. Each single lighting sorce cast dynamic light on the environment, which produces some simpley remarkeable images btw. The fact that the game runs at 60fps with over 500 players in the vinicity, with 100+ of them being rendered at once also must be taken into consideration.

I could keep going.

In the whole Uncharted vs. Halo debate there is a clear winner because so far none of the Halo games have been particularly beautiful. Other games on the consoles have had large environments and have looked better.

It's not just map size. It's the fact the graphics look fantastic, sans the small details, and yet are rendering environments the size you see in PS2. There is a reason why people still believe Crysis to be the better looking game than games like Metro 2033 and Battlefield 3. It's all about overall quality.

When you look at Gears 3 or Uncharted 3, you're always looking at a very small environment with very defined boundaries. While the ending result is a very good looking picture, the scale of everything is pretty unimpressive. When you look at Crysis or PS2, you see a very beautiful game with a massive draw distnace.

If we were going purly off of scale of the map, ArmA 2 would be the winner. I've render at 15km draw distnace in ArmA 2. However the graphics overall look just alright. Sometimes they can look really good, but most of the time it's pretty bad despite the draw distance.

Planetside 2 looks great considering it's scale, but I believe the next graphics king will be Rome II: Total War:

Do corridor games count as 'graphics king'?

I would argue no, since the 'graphics' are based on in-game distance gimmicks.

Open world games are truly impressive, and can be directly compared to other open world games based on how well the engine/graphics create a 'world simulation'. Corridor based linear shooters like UC3 are simply reskinned games from 1999. The textures are nice in the bullshots, but on a PS3 they are abominable, and the levels are gimmick corridors.

UC3 sums up why a console can never have a graphics king, since you are just battling over wall skins in corridors.

haberman13

This is kind of a dumb approach too.

I think that Planetside 2 looks better than Uncharted 3 even at the small scale, only it lacks the environmental diversity because it is an open world game. That's where open world games kind of fall behind. The environments often have a lot of recycled objects/textures becuase even on the PC games have a memory limit.

Though I would say I'm more impressed with open world games, hense why I think Planetside 2 is a contender for the best looking game ever. That said, most developers would believe it's about the end result rather than the methods.

Planetside 2 looks great considering it's scale, but I believe the next graphics king will be Rome II: Total War:

RyuRanVII

Ah crap. I think you got me there.

We'll see how it looks when it actually comes out. Unlike PS2, I can't play Rome 2 right now.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="verbtex"]

Does anyone else see the irony in this post?

Bias? Yes. However Uncharted 3 is the best looking game I have ever played. I have never played PlanetSide 2 before, but based off of those screenshots Wasdie took and what I have seen of the game in gameplay videos, it does not look better than Uncharted 3. Only games that do are The Last of Us and God of War Acension

Jonwh18

My responses in bold.

No. Those just happen to be the best looking games ever made. Nothing on 360 looks as good as those games do and you know it, they rival some PC games, but hermits will never admit that.

These images rival many PC games and look just as good, if not better, than Planet Side 2. Great graphics is part of the reason why I prefer PS3. If 360 could do these graphics instead I would be calling it graphics powerhouse too, but the 360 never will be able to do these kinds of graphics.

The 720 might though, which comes out next year.Only downside of that is, MS doesn't support their systems once they launch the new one. So you will have no choice but to buy the new Xbox, so make sure you save up some money from now to 2013 holiday season.

Planetside 2 looks great considering it's scale, but I believe the next graphics king will be Rome II: Total War:

RyuRanVII

Wow. That is all I have to say.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]\ don't see what is wrong with Wasdie making a thread and expressing his opinion. I do it all the time, some people agree with it, other people do not. I don't see the big deal, especially in SW. Trying to be a "good example" here makes no sense, everyone here is biased, pretending to be otherwise is just lying.

As long as the mods don't go around swearing or insulting people I don't see the problem with them making threads in SW.

Giancar

I do not care if he calls me an ignorant cow, that does not hurt my feelings.

When did I say I didn't respect his opinion?

[QUOTE="CanYouDiglt"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Well I posted the pictures, so that's my evidence. I guess we'll ignore the entire premise of this post.

As for textures and detail, SOE has clearly stated that the textures are just placeholders for a lot of them. Though the game will not have the really small level detail that games like Gears of War and Uncharted have because of the massive scale. Crysis doesn't even have that level of detail on the small scale because the engine is rendering 1-2 kms out.

Planetside 2's draw distance is about 2 kms. I've seen roughly 30-40 tanks on my screen at any given time. Each single lighting sorce cast dynamic light on the environment, which produces some simpley remarkeable images btw. The fact that the game runs at 60fps with over 500 players in the vinicity, with 100+ of them being rendered at once also must be taken into consideration.

I could keep going.

Wasdie

In the whole Uncharted vs. Halo debate there is a clear winner because so far none of the Halo games have been particularly beautiful. Other games on the consoles have had large environments and have looked better.

It's not just map size. It's the fact the graphics look fantastic, sans the small details, and yet are rendering environments the size you see in PS2. There is a reason why people still believe Crysis to be the better looking game than games like Metro 2033 and Battlefield 3. It's all about overall quality.

When you look at Gears 3 or Uncharted 3, you're always looking at a very small environment with very defined boundaries. While the ending result is a very good looking picture, the scale of everything is pretty unimpressive. When you look at Crysis or PS2, you see a very beautiful game with a massive draw distnace.

If we were going purly off of scale of the map, ArmA 2 would be the winner. I've render at 15km draw distnace in ArmA 2. However the graphics overall look just alright. Sometimes they can look really good, but most of the time it's pretty bad despite the draw distance.

[QUOTE="Jonwh18"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

My responses in bold.

ShadowMoses900

No. Those just happen to be the best looking games ever made. Nothing on 360 looks as good as those games do and you know it, they rival some PC games, but hermits will never admit that.

These images rival many PC games and look just as good, if not better, than Planet Side 2. Great graphics is part of the reason why I prefer PS3. If 360 could do these graphics instead I would be calling it graphics powerhouse too, but the 360 never will be able to do these kinds of graphics.

The 720 might though, which comes out next year.Only downside of that is, MS doesn't support their systems once they launch the new one. So you will have no choice but to buy the new Xbox, so make sure you save up some money from now to 2013 holiday season.

Yeah they rival PC games because they are down-resed bullshots. Not actual in-game rendering.

Here comes the "prove me wrong" bullcrap.

I'll prove you wrong the second those games come out and I get direct-feed shots. Not developer photoshoped and downresed pictures.

A graphics king thread? Not you too Wasdie. No. You're better than this :(

A graphics king thread? Not you too Wasdie. No. You're better than this :(

AdobeArtist

Apparently not.

Apparently everybody takes the whole "graphics king" crap literal around here. That's kind of sad.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="Jonwh18"] how convenient that those also happen to be PS3 games. Whichconveniently happens to the the piece of plastic you worship.

Wasdie

No. Those just happen to be the best looking games ever made. Nothing on 360 looks as good as those games do and you know it, they rival some PC games, but hermits will never admit that.

These images rival many PC games and look just as good, if not better, than Planet Side 2. Great graphics is part of the reason why I prefer PS3. If 360 could do these graphics instead I would be calling it graphics powerhouse too, but the 360 never will be able to do these kinds of graphics.

The 720 might though, which comes out next year.Only downside of that is, MS doesn't support their systems once they launch the new one. So you will have no choice but to buy the new Xbox, so make sure you save up some money from now to 2013 holiday season.

Yeah they rival PC games because they are down-resed bullshots. Not actual in-game rendering.

Here comes the "prove me wrong" bullcrap.

I'll prove you wrong the second those games come out and I get direct-feed shots. Not developer photoshoped and downresed pictures.

I trust the devs, they make the games, they know what they look like. You capturing an image on your TV screein is not accurate, or from a GS live stream, too many variables like low quality camera, bad lighting/glare/angle, resolution upload problems etc....

The devs know what the real game looks like, those images were captured in gameplay, you can watch the gameplay demo yourself, they look THAT good.

God of War Ascension - Multiplayer Gameplay - E3 2012 - God of - IGN

Extended Demo - The Last of Us (PS3) - IGN Video

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="Jonwh18"] how convenient that those also happen to be PS3 games. Whichconveniently happens to the the piece of plastic you worship.

Wasdie

No. Those just happen to be the best looking games ever made. Nothing on 360 looks as good as those games do and you know it, they rival some PC games, but hermits will never admit that.

These images rival many PC games and look just as good, if not better, than Planet Side 2. Great graphics is part of the reason why I prefer PS3. If 360 could do these graphics instead I would be calling it graphics powerhouse too, but the 360 never will be able to do these kinds of graphics.

The 720 might though, which comes out next year.Only downside of that is, MS doesn't support their systems once they launch the new one. So you will have no choice but to buy the new Xbox, so make sure you save up some money from now to 2013 holiday season.

Yeah they rival PC games because they are down-resed bullshots. Not actual in-game rendering.

Here comes the "prove me wrong" bullcrap.

I'll prove you wrong the second those games come out and I get direct-feed shots. Not developer photoshoped and downresed pictures.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

No. Those just happen to be the best looking games ever made. Nothing on 360 looks as good as those games do and you know it, they rival some PC games, but hermits will never admit that.

These images rival many PC games and look just as good, if not better, than Planet Side 2. Great graphics is part of the reason why I prefer PS3. If 360 could do these graphics instead I would be calling it graphics powerhouse too, but the 360 never will be able to do these kinds of graphics.

The 720 might though, which comes out next year.Only downside of that is, MS doesn't support their systems once they launch the new one. So you will have no choice but to buy the new Xbox, so make sure you save up some money from now to 2013 holiday season.

RyuRanVII

Yeah they rival PC games because they are down-resed bullshots. Not actual in-game rendering.

Here comes the "prove me wrong" bullcrap.

I'll prove you wrong the second those games come out and I get direct-feed shots. Not developer photoshoped and downresed pictures.

Ha. Nothing like the bullshots.

I trust the devs, they make the games, they know what they look like. You capturing an image on your TV screein is not accurate, or from a GS live stream, too many variables like low quality camera, bad lighting/glare/angle, resolution upload problems etc....

The devs know what the real game looks like, those images were captured in gameplay, you can watch the gameplay demo yourself, they look THAT good.

ShadowMoses900

Read what he said moron. Direct-feed is a capture from the framebuffer, not an off-TV picture or screen grab from a stream.

So both games are now 640x360 in resolution? Pathetic.

can hardly see anything on the first few pics, they are too dark but based on the last 2 I don't think so. Battlefield 3 looks way better than this and Arma too.

can hardly see anything on the first few pics, they are too dark but based on the last 2 I don't think so. Battlefield 3 looks way better than this and Arma too.

Gue1

BF3 I can see, ArmA 2 no.

Looks sexy.

I wanna play it! :cry:

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

No. Those just happen to be the best looking games ever made. Nothing on 360 looks as good as those games do and you know it, they rival some PC games, but hermits will never admit that.

These images rival many PC games and look just as good, if not better, than Planet Side 2. Great graphics is part of the reason why I prefer PS3. If 360 could do these graphics instead I would be calling it graphics powerhouse too, but the 360 never will be able to do these kinds of graphics.

The 720 might though, which comes out next year.Only downside of that is, MS doesn't support their systems once they launch the new one. So you will have no choice but to buy the new Xbox, so make sure you save up some money from now to 2013 holiday season.

RyuRanVII

Yeah they rival PC games because they are down-resed bullshots. Not actual in-game rendering.

Here comes the "prove me wrong" bullcrap.

I'll prove you wrong the second those games come out and I get direct-feed shots. Not developer photoshoped and downresed pictures.

This image is fake. I already proved it wrong before, this is Rocker's fake fanboy image.

The devs know more about games than anyone here does, they made the game, did you make it? No. Do you make games? No. So how do you know what the game really looks like then? You don't. So obviously you should listen to the devs since they know more than you do.

IGN also has real images too. I post real images only.

This image is fake. I already proved it wrong before

ShadowMoses900

No you didn't.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

This image is fake. I already proved it wrong before

ChubbyGuy40

No you didn't.

I second this.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Uncharted 3 still looks better. The Last of Us is going to be the real graphics king next year.

verbtex

Hahaha. I'm probably the most cowish of the mods, and not even I will say something like that.

You're joking right? If not...well then....:|.

why you sound so surprised? He always been like this and is not like he is a new user either....

Wow...i keep expecting something to give God of War 3, the current graphics king, a run for its money, but those pics dont even come close. GoW3 remains king.ispeakfact

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

This image is fake. I already proved it wrong before

ChubbyGuy40

No you didn't.

Yes I did. Here, you can see all the real images: The Last of Us

You can also see them here: The Last of Us - PlayStation 3 - IGN

Two respected and professional sources. That is all the proof you need.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

This image is fake. I already proved it wrong before

ShadowMoses900

No you didn't.

Yes I did. Here, you can see all the real images: The Last of Us

You can also see them here: The Last of Us - PlayStation 3 - IGN

Two respected and professional sources. That is all the proof you need.

Develper's website. That's not disproving, that's actually backing up the fact that the developers are putting out bullshots like the alway do.

You already said you "trust" the developers, which compeltely undermines any arugment you may have. Developers of all types are completely guilty of bullshots. This is a known fact, one you cannot argue against.

So unless you have some actual evidence that the shot thatRyuRanVII posted is in-fact fake, you hvae nothing. Absolutly nothing. Posting links to the developer's website is not proof.

Oh, here's a picture from IGN...

Have fun arguing now.

Yes I did. Here, you can see all the real images: The Last of Us

You can also see them here: The Last of Us - PlayStation 3 - IGN

Two respected and professional sources. That is all the proof you need.

ShadowMoses900

The only thing that proves is that you're an idiot and can't accept how the game really looks because it's running on ancient tech.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

This image is fake. I already proved it wrong before

ShadowMoses900

No you didn't.

Yes I did. Here, you can see all the real images: The Last of Us

You can also see them here: The Last of Us - PlayStation 3 - IGN

Two respected and professional sources. That is all the proof you need.

A graphics king thread? Not you too Wasdie. No. You're better than this :(

AdobeArtist

Not for me. I prefer straight up good graphics regardless of scale. Still yet to see a game that looks better than Crysis. BF3 is close though.FPSfan1985

[QUOTE="ispeakfact"]Wow...i keep expecting something to give God of War 3, the current graphics king, a run for its money, but those pics dont even come close. GoW3 remains king.GamingVengeance

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

No you didn't.

Wasdie

Yes I did. Here, you can see all the real images: The Last of Us

You can also see them here: The Last of Us - PlayStation 3 - IGN

Two respected and professional sources. That is all the proof you need.

Develper's website and IGN reposting the developer's pictures. That's not disproving, that's actually backing up the fact that the developers are putting out bullshots like the alway do.

Developers make the games, are you suggesting you know more about games than they do? I don't think so....

Those prove my point. People don't want to accept it because it doesn't support their favorite system. TLOU will win Best Graphics of 2013, along with GOWA.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

No you didn't.

mems_1224

Yes I did. Here, you can see all the real images: The Last of Us

You can also see them here: The Last of Us - PlayStation 3 - IGN

Two respected and professional sources. That is all the proof you need.

Proof?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Yes I did. Here, you can see all the real images: The Last of Us

You can also see them here: The Last of Us - PlayStation 3 - IGN

Two respected and professional sources. That is all the proof you need.

ShadowMoses900

Develper's website and IGN reposting the developer's pictures. That's not disproving, that's actually backing up the fact that the developers are putting out bullshots like the alway do.

Developers make the games, are you suggesting you know more about games than they do? I don't think so....

Those prove my point. People don't want to accept it because it doesn't support their favorite system.

Developer's make the game but the PR department makes the website.

Again...

IGN picture. Direct feed.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

This image is fake. I already proved it wrong before

ChubbyGuy40

No you didn't.

Don't bother arguing buddy, Shadow is as dense as it gets when it comes to things like "the truth" and whatnot. :P

Having played the beta. No way in hell is this graphics king or even close. I mean really?

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Yes I did. Here, you can see all the real images: The Last of Us

You can also see them here: The Last of Us - PlayStation 3 - IGN

Two respected and professional sources. That is all the proof you need.

ShadowMoses900

Proof?

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Develper's website and IGN reposting the developer's pictures. That's not disproving, that's actually backing up the fact that the developers are putting out bullshots like the alway do.

Wasdie

Developers make the games, are you suggesting you know more about games than they do? I don't think so....

Those prove my point. People don't want to accept it because it doesn't support their favorite system.

Developer's make the game but the PR department makes the website.

Again...

IGN picture. Direct feed.

Those were captured at the E3 play stream, not the backstage exclusive demo that ONLY IGN was allowed to see, because IGN is the best. But even the best make some mistakes, this photo is clearly not a very well captured one.

I suggest you look at some of the other images, the one's I posted are all real, I know what real one's look like. So I will tell you if they are accurate or not.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="mems_1224"] :lol: at ign being a respectable source. they are some of the biggest ps3 fanboys on the planetmems_1224

Proof?

What? What does that mean? I asked for proof, that is not proof.

I suggest you look at some of the other images, the one's I posted are all real, I know what real one's look like. So I will tell you if they are accurate or not.

ShadowMoses900