[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="dakan45"]far cry had bigger and more "open world" so ddi far cry 2, the elder of scolls games, fallout 3 and new vegas, gta games, saboteur, just cause 2, arma 2, crysis maps were small and gameplay wise the game was pretty linear, you had to go to a specific point or stop by a secondary objectives, you could try turning invisible or shooting things up, which resulted into a flare being fired and bringing more reinforcements, when there are games like mass effect and alpha protocol, crysis is pretty linear, what isnt, is heavilly scripted and on rails.dakan45
Crysis's maps were very very big, and unlike the above the entire level was dumped onto the systems memory, assets, a.i.s and everything. As soon as the level loaded everything was live and constant. The others, all of them for that matter in your examples except for ArmA 2 all feature level streaming and not a memory dump (ArmA's tech was well in development before OFP for that matter). It's linear in progression structure it's non-linear in game design and often non linear in map architecture - though there's plenty of instances where it does actively funnel the player.
They are not big. They made an island, picked an area and put stuff into them. With the exception of the tank map and the next one, the rest of the game blocks you to stray from the path with watr or hills. You follow a road or two and end up in the same place. They are not big maps. fc2 has "big" maps.
Actually Crysis' levels were huge in the sense that the whole level was loaded at once. All those other games you mention uses cell streaming
[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"]UE graphics dont impress me at all, they are very static and fake. The only thing it does have are pretty textures, im sure every lemm prefers UE engine. every time i see someone judge an engine by a games textures.... it makes me want to kill something but yeah this topic is pretty stupid, we've never even seen a UE4 game yet.
Go to YouTube and watch the gameplay in HD then come back.
Only a fanboy would say that TLOU doesn't look good.
GamerwillzPS
It looks good for a console game, but compared to the other games on the list, it's nothing. I seriously thought Star Wars 1313 was CGI until it was revealed it was all in-game footage; with TLOU I could spot the low-res textures, jaggies, pop-ins, and low draw distance. I'm not saying TLOU is objectively a bad-looking game, but compared to the other games shown at E3, it doesn't even rank in the top five.
I can see a major flaw in GameTrailers' part. They mixed PC games with consoles.
PC games always looks better, and they are on the list... I think that's unfair. PC and consoles don't mix and they should be separated.
If it's a list consisting of console games, I'm pretty sure that TLOU would be there.
The only flaw is in your thinking.... Using your logic, we should also include the best looking wii games, DS, 3DS, iphone games etc... and just somehow supposed to compare them all and in some mysterious way, figure out which one uses it's hardware the best.
I doubt the specs will even be this good. when the PS3 released it costed 850ish$ to make and was sold at 500-600$ They were able to take this kind of loss since they just came off making the most successful console of all time. If you expect them to make a powerhouse again you're sorely mistaken. The most they'd be able to make is a $400 console in which they either break even per console sale or sell it at a profit. The only way for this to be a substantial leap over current gen is to release it in 2015
Log in to comment