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

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#251 Posted by YuriSH (1803 posts) -

[QUOTE="YuriSH"]Sounds impressive but I wish it had more color to it.Wasdie

It has plenty of color. This is just what happens at night.

Does it feel like a 2000 player game to you or do you see maybe like 50 players at the most? Not sure how this game works.
#252 Posted by menes777 (2643 posts) -

You call THAT graphics king? LOL

Davekeeh

LOL could you be anymore jealous?:lol:

#253 Posted by mitu123 (154668 posts) -

It's up there and looks better than just about every PS3 exclusive, my pics for proof!

ajmdd0.png

33utn2q.png

24g6iqr.png

2m3sqpu.png

29nt4br.png

2m2ibea.png

#254 Posted by October_Tide (5396 posts) -

NC FO LIFE YO

I got to say, running the game on max settings looks pretty damn amazing. I love dem night fights.

#255 Posted by SolidTy (46301 posts) -

Planetside looks nice considering how big it is. I remember playing the first one oh so many years ago...

[QUOTE="GamingVengeance"][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.ispeakfact
I too have always thought gow 3 was the best looking console game. Even better then uncharted

Deleting my comments I see... Wasdie?

That was the 'ispeakfact' jelly straw that broke back Wasdie's Mountain? :shock:

[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administator] Sep 23, 2012 9:29 pm PT

:P

#256 Posted by the_bi99man (11062 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

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

Oh really? Does that mean you've played it? If not, how do you know what the accurate ones are?

I am a member of Naughty Dog forums and I have talked to the devs on there, they confirm that all those images are real and in game. Wadie is not posting accurate ones, he is posting it from when IGN did the E3 main demo, the images are low res and taken from the stream.

The backstage demo that only IGN had in game exclusive access to are accurate. My images are the only accurate one's in this thread.

That is a straight up lie. You have not talked to the devs, and they have not told you that those pics are real, unaltered, in game shots.

As for your Uncharted shots you posted on the first page, stop acting like you're the only person who's ever played the game. My roommate has a PS3. He plays the uncharted games. I have tried them out myself, as well. On a 42" 1080p TV. And, like everyone else who's actually played the games (including you), I know, from my own experience, with my own eyes, that they don't look like that. Not only is the lighting different, and clearly shopped, but the images are tiny. That alone is proof that they're downsized (hence the small size) to hide the aliasing. Not only are those images shopped, they were never even taken in game in the first place. They're PR bullshots, which is a common practice, done by literally every game publisher in the world. If you want to prove that Uncharted looks that good, show me a real screenshot. One that's in game, with the characters on screen, in the original resolution. Or better yet, a video. Not a 300x300 pixel GIF, a real f**king video.

Such things do not exist, because the Uncharted games have never looked as good as the obvious bullshots you constantly spam everywhere. They look good. They look great, in fact. But they do not look like that. It's about time you get it through your thick f**king skull that you're not the only one who's played them. No one is getting tricked by your "screens". The fact that your shots are fake isn't some secret, known only by you. We all know. The other fanboys who jump in to defend you when someone points this out also know. They're just also fanboys, like you. Everyone knows. Give it up. No one is "jelly". No one is "butthurt". Everyone is just pointing and laughing at the pathetic fanboy every time you post them.

#257 Posted by mitu123 (154668 posts) -

because the Uncharted games have never looked as good as the obvious bullshots you constantly spam everywhere.

the_bi99man

So true, those games never had perfect AA and AF, plus the AF is crappy in those games.:lol:

2019068-u4.jpg

#258 Posted by ultraking (6904 posts) -
This game on high settings is insane! Damn you bolt snipers!!
#259 Posted by DraugenCP (8480 posts) -

Wasdie using the term 'graphics king'. :( The end is nigh...

#260 Posted by Wasdie (50840 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="YuriSH"]Sounds impressive but I wish it had more color to it.YuriSH

It has plenty of color. This is just what happens at night.

Does it feel like a 2000 player game to you or do you see maybe like 50 players at the most? Not sure how this game works.

Depends on where you are. Since there are 3 teams on the battlefield, each side has 666 players spread over a pretty long line. I've seen 50+ tanks with probably 200 infantry + 30-50 aircraft in one area. It's never so much where it's not manageable, but it always feels absolutely massive.

The persistance adds to that feeling too. Knowing that your flanks are being engaged by other players while you're attacking your objective and then watching the map change over time really adds to the scale.

The game isn't round based like CoD or BF3. It's persistent. The battle never stops fighting. The line is constantly moving and the battles are constantly changing. This means there is a lot of logistics to worry about so you're not always fighting, so that turns away a lot of the CoD/BF crowd right there.

It's a very fun game that gets better with each patch.

The graphics, considering the scale, are just amazing.

#261 Posted by parkurtommo (28094 posts) -
[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

Huh? :? I disagree. But sadly I don't think my rig could handle anything even near max settings, at least in the beta, performance might get better later on.

I'm getting just about 60 fps now with a mixture of medium and high settings.

clyde46
As much as the game would be pretty to look at, I think you'd be more preoccupied with fighting th other players.

I know right, graphics isn't really my priority while playing planetside 2, but tbh it does help the atmosphere and the scale of battles. If it were to look insanely bad then it wouldn't be quite as impressive now would it.
#262 Posted by Wasdie (50840 posts) -

Wasdie using the term 'graphics king'. :( The end is nigh...

DraugenCP

I can't believe people take the term "graphics king" so seriously around here. Considering what I said I'm never using it again.

#263 Posted by menes777 (2643 posts) -

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

Wasdie using the term 'graphics king'. :( The end is nigh...

Wasdie

I can't believe people take the term "graphics king" so seriously around here. Considering what I said I'm never using it again.

System wars is serious business. ;)

How would fanboys cope without knowing that their entertainment purchases were justified?:lol:

#264 Posted by kraken2109 (13255 posts) -
[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

They look nuff on my 1080p screens.

shadiezz2012

On a 1080p screen:

EDIT: Broken GS won't let me post it in 1920x1080, it's been resized ot 1200x1080, you get the idea.

6947132361_7f3c8617a6_z.jpg

you do know that his photo res are 640 × 360 ?! and that's why they look like that on 1200x1080 and they are not the real res for those games ?!

That's my point, he should be posting direct feed captures, not supersampled bullshots.
#265 Posted by Brendissimo35 (1930 posts) -

Finally got my beta invite, only to find my computer is struggling hard. :(

#266 Posted by mitu123 (154668 posts) -

Finally got my beta invite, only to find my computer is struggling hard. :(

Brendissimo35
What are your specs?
#267 Posted by Brendissimo35 (1930 posts) -

Core2 Quad Q9550 @2.83ghz

Visiontek HD 4870 512mb

8GB DDR2 RAM

It's not that I can't run it, but big and medium battles produce heavy slowdowns.

#268 Posted by mitu123 (154668 posts) -

Core2 Quad Q9550 @2.83ghz

Visiontek HD 4870 512mb

8GB DDR2 RAM

It's not that I can't run it, but big and medium battles produce heavy slowdowns.

Brendissimo35

Lower than 30FPS? Because lowest I get is like 35 in big battles and I have a GTX 670.

#269 Posted by hexashadow13 (5157 posts) -

Core2 Quad Q9550 @2.83ghz

Visiontek HD 4870 512mb

8GB DDR2 RAM

It's not that I can't run it, but big and medium battles produce heavy slowdowns.

Brendissimo35
I think I should probably wait until I can upgrade before I play this then, cause my specs are even worse than yours. O.o
#270 Posted by mitu123 (154668 posts) -

[QUOTE="Brendissimo35"]

Core2 Quad Q9550 @2.83ghz

Visiontek HD 4870 512mb

8GB DDR2 RAM

It's not that I can't run it, but big and medium battles produce heavy slowdowns.

hexashadow13

I think I should probably wait until I can upgrade before I play this then, cause my specs are even worse than yours. O.o

Yeah this game will eat your system alive.XD

#271 Posted by hexashadow13 (5157 posts) -

[QUOTE="hexashadow13"][QUOTE="Brendissimo35"]

Core2 Quad Q9550 @2.83ghz

Visiontek HD 4870 512mb

8GB DDR2 RAM

It's not that I can't run it, but big and medium battles produce heavy slowdowns.

mitu123

I think I should probably wait until I can upgrade before I play this then, cause my specs are even worse than yours. O.o

Yeah this game will eat your system alive.XD

:( Black Friday is so far away. T_T