Ok lets say Gears 2 Looks better than Killzone 2, R2, and MGS 4 when it's out...

But runs like Mass Effect (along with texture pop-up and alot of other graphcal glitches to boot) or worse, will lemmings still praise it the best looking game ever?

I mean, personally, I don't consideer ANY game that has graphical draw backs like textures popping up all over the place from out of nowhere and framerate problems that take me out of the immersion of a game while I'm trying to play, "impressive."

But lately I've been seing more and more xbox fans praising this (Mass Effect) game saying how great the graphics are, and then they flash this great looking still screen shot. I think "wow, that looks good." but then I hear other people (usually pS3+360 owners) admit that it kinda fails in gameplay because of the graphical glitches and framerate backs. I hear there's even a mode to "limit" the graphics so that the game will play better...wow, not that's rediclious. If the developers knew the graphics were a little too much for the system to handle while still runing with a steady framerate without all those graphical glitches and what not, they should have just toned it down the gfx a little.

Didn't Lemmings bash Lair because while it did look good in screenshots it had alot of graphical and gameplay glitches, while playing the game?

Killzone 2 has been seen and played and so has MGS4, soon to be Resistance 2. 2 of the three games here have been praised by the people who have "PLAYED" them as the best looking games on consoles, with Killzone having the most amazing lighing and fluid animation seen to date , and MGS4 'while in motion' being compaired to crysis...previewers saying the games running @ 60fps.

So, I ask, If gears 2 (in screen shots and stills alone ) 'appear' to look better than all of PS3 games that come out this year, but in motion turns out to be another example of a 360 game that 'looks good but proforms mediocore' will lemmings still come on this board and act like the game is sum kind of benchmark for all consoles to acheive?

IMO, I beleive xbox360 can make a game that looks better in Stills because of it's impressive use of textures, but in motion is where I believe xbox360 fails to proform when compaired to PS3.

what say you?

But runs like Mass Effect (along with texture pop-up and alot of other graphcal glitches to boot) or worse, will lemmings still praise it the best looking game ever?

I mean, personally, I don't consideer ANY game that has graphical draw backs like textures popping up all over the place from out of nowhere and framerate problems that take me out of the immersion of a game while I'm trying to play, "impressive."

But lately I've been seing more and more xbox fans praising this (Mass Effect) game saying how great the graphics are, and then they flash this great looking still screen shot. I think "wow, that looks good." but then I hear other people (usually pS3+360 owners) admit that it kinda fails in gameplay because of the graphical glitches and framerate draw backs. I hear there's even a mode to "limit" the graphics so that the game will play better...wow, now that's rediclious. If the developers knew the graphics were a little too much for the system to handle while still runing with a steady framerate without all those graphical glitches and what not, they should have just toned it down the gfx a little.

Didn't Lemmings bash Lair because while it did look good in screenshots it had alot of graphical and gameplay glitches, while playing the game?

Killzone 2 has been seen and played and so has MGS4, soon to be Resistance 2. 2 of the three games here have been praised by the people who have "PLAYED" them as the best looking games on consoles, with Killzone having the most amazing lighing and fluid animation seen to date , and MGS4 'while in motion' being compaired to crysis...previewers saying the games running @ 60fps.

So, I ask, If gears 2 (in screen shots and stills alone ) 'appear' to look better than all of PS3 games that come out this year, but in motion turns out to be another example of a 360 game that 'looks good but proforms mediocore' will lemmings still come on this board and act like the game is sum kind of benchmark for all consoles to acheive?

IMO, I beleive xbox360 can make a game that looks better in Stills because of it's impressive use of textures, but in motion is where I believe xbox360 fails to proform when compaired to PS3.

what say you?

an xbox360 guy just made himself look stupid please dont embaress us...Nolan16

:|WTF are you talking about?

every single game has problems. most people look at the good and could careless about the bad unless the game is unplayable.

just like in mgs1 sure the game is 3-4 hours of gameplay the hand to hand combat sucks but people still love the game solely based on the amazing sometimes dumb story

every single game has problems. most people look at the good and could careless about the bad unless the game is unplayable.

just like in mgs1 sure the game is 3-4 hours of gameplay the hand to hand combat sucks but people still love the game solely based on the amazing sometimes dumb story

blackice1983

And the amazing bossfights, and quirky gameplay. And it was around 6 hours really :|

[QUOTE="Nolan16"]an xbox360 guy just made himself look stupid please dont embaress us...killadread

:|WTF are you talking about?

a guy just went on about a rant how gears of war 2 is going to embaress killzone 2 and now your saying this crap no one knows just wait until both games are out.

[QUOTE="Nolan16"]an xbox360 guy just made himself look stupid please dont embaress us...killadread

:|WTF are you talking about?

a guy just went on about a rant how gears of war 2 is going to embaress killzone 2 and now your saying this crap no one knows just wait until both games are out.

Seeing how gears1 is still the most technically impressive game on a console, Gears2 will blow everything away. Killzone2 and MGS4 also have horrible textures.jbz7890

Uncharted says Hi :|

If it had multiplayer, it would be awesome.

[QUOTE="blackice1983"]

every single game has problems. most people look at the good and could careless about the bad unless the game is unplayable.

just like in mgs1 sure the game is 3-4 hours of gameplay the hand to hand combat sucks but people still love the game solely based on the amazing sometimes dumb story

thrones

And the amazing bossfights, and quirky gameplay. And it was around 6 hours really :|

is u sit their and watch those long ass cutscenes

[QUOTE="blackice1983"]

every single game has problems. most people look at the good and could careless about the bad unless the game is unplayable.

just like in mgs1 sure the game is 3-4 hours of gameplay the hand to hand combat sucks but people still love the game solely based on the amazing sometimes dumb story

thrones

And the amazing bossfights, and quirky gameplay. And it was around 6 hours really :|

if u sit their and watch those long ass cutscenes

[QUOTE="blackice1983"]

every single game has problems. most people look at the good and could careless about the bad unless the game is unplayable.

just like in mgs1 sure the game is 3-4 hours of gameplay the hand to hand combat sucks but people still love the game solely based on the amazing sometimes dumb story

thrones

And the amazing bossfights, and quirky gameplay. And it was around 6 hours really :|

wow talk about longevity 6 hours :shock:

Didn't Lemmings bash Lair because while it did look good in screenshots it had alot of graphical and gameplay glitches, while playing the game?

killadread

And no. It wasn't glitches; it was the fact that it's a god-awful game. :?

Gears 1 didn't have any technical issues at all. Why on earth would Gears 2?

[QUOTE="thrones"][QUOTE="blackice1983"]

every single game has problems. most people look at the good and could careless about the bad unless the game is unplayable.

just like in mgs1 sure the game is 3-4 hours of gameplay the hand to hand combat sucks but people still love the game solely based on the amazing sometimes dumb story

manny280

And the amazing bossfights, and quirky gameplay. And it was around 6 hours really :|

wow talk about longevity 6 hours :shock:

It was Playstation 1 :| And it had cutscenes and amazing graphics.

[QUOTE="killadread"]

Didn't Lemmings bash Lair because while it did look good in screenshots it had alot of graphical and gameplay glitches, while playing the game?

Ninja-Hippo

And no. It wasn't glitches; it was the fact that it's a god-awful game. :?

Gears 1 didn't have any technical issues at all. Why on earth would Gears 2?

Perhaps it pushes the 360 hardware too far? :|

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="killadread"]

Didn't Lemmings bash Lair because while it did look good in screenshots it had alot of graphical and gameplay glitches, while playing the game?

thrones

And no. It wasn't glitches; it was the fact that it's a god-awful game. :?

Gears 1 didn't have any technical issues at all. Why on earth would Gears 2?

Perhaps it pushes the 360 hardware too far? :|

What consoles are you aware of, in the history of the universe, which maxed out in two years? :| Do you honestly think Epic are incapable of making a game run well on their own engine?

Seeing how gears1 is still the most technically impressive game on a console, Gears2 will blow everything away. Killzone2 and MGS4 also have horrible textures.jbz7890

every single game has problems. most people look at the good and could careless about the bad unless the game is unplayable.

just like in mgs1 sure the game is 3-4 hours of gameplay the hand to hand combat sucks but people still love the game solely based on the amazing sometimes dumb story

blackice1983

This thead is about graphical draw backs such a framerate probems and pop-ups that occure while playing a game as opposed to how a game may look in a screenshot. not about wheather you like certian aspects of a game or not.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

every single game has problems. most people look at the good and could careless about the bad unless the game is unplayable.

just like in mgs1 sure the game is 3-4 hours of gameplay the hand to hand combat sucks but people still love the game solely based on the amazing sometimes dumb story

blackice1983

This thead is about graphical draw backs such as framerate probems and pop-ups that occure while playing a game as opposed to how a game may look in a screenshot, because you dont 'play' screenshots. not about wheather you like certian aspects of a game or not.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

but then I hear other people (usually pS3+360 owners) admit that it kinda fails in gameplay because of the graphical glitches and framerate backs. I hear there's even a mode to "limit" the graphics so that the game will play better...wow, not that's rediclious. If the developers knew the graphics were a little too much for the system to handle while still runing with a steady framerate without all those graphical glitches and what not, they should have just toned it down the gfx a little.

what say you?

killadread

I say you shouldn't make threads comparing an unreleased game to a game you haven't played and relying on other people's opinions of the game you haven't played as the basis for your bashing. And you most definately should check a fact or two before repeating what you heard.

I heard ________(insert game) is utter crap. And if that is utter crap then what if this other game is also utter crap?

See what I did.

[QUOTE="jbz7890"]Seeing how gears1 is still the most technically impressive game on a console, Gears2 will blow everything away. Killzone2 and MGS4 also have horrible textures.thrones

Uncharted says Hi :|

If it had multiplayer, it would be awesome.

and gears ignores an indiana rip-off.

Seeing how gears1 is still the most technically impressive game on a console, Gears2 will blow everything away. Killzone2 and MGS4 also have horrible textures.jbz7890

You've just fallen right into the category of people I refering to while trying to make my point. In my post I stated I believe xbox360 has better textures than PS3...that's why I believe in a STILL SCREENSHOT that Gears 2 could potentially look better than all of PS3 exclusive games in stills...but while "playing the game" I do not think will will hold up well against any of them (for reasons I've already stated in my OP)

[QUOTE="thrones"]

[QUOTE="jbz7890"]Seeing how gears1 is still the most technically impressive game on a console, Gears2 will blow everything away. Killzone2 and MGS4 also have horrible textures.jlh47

Uncharted says Hi :|

If it had multiplayer, it would be awesome.

and gears ignores an indiana rip-off.

What makes Uncharted better? Its a beautiful game, i know, but from a technical standpoint, Gears of War has the edge.

[QUOTE="jbz7890"]Seeing how gears1 is still the most technically impressive game on a console, Gears2 will blow everything away. Killzone2 and MGS4 also have horrible textures.killadread

You've just fallen right into the category of people I refering to while trying to make my point. In my post I stated I believe xbox360 has better textures than PS3...that's why I believe in a STILL SCREENSHOT that Gears 2 could potentially look better than all of PS3 exclusive games in stills...but while "playing the game" I do not think will will hold up well against any of them (for reasons I've already stated in my OP)

I've played Gears of War and it looks BETTER in-game than any screenshots. In Gears of War you can go to a wall, zoom in with a sniper rifle and the textures will still look above average for most other games. Its an amazing technical accomplishment.

[QUOTE="jbz7890"]Seeing how gears1 is still the most technically impressive game on a console, Gears2 will blow everything away. Killzone2 and MGS4 also have horrible textures.killadread

You've just fallen right into the category of people I refering to while trying to make my point. In my post I stated I believe xbox360 has better textures than PS3...that's why I believe in a STILL SCREENSHOT that Gears 2 could potentially look better than all of PS3 exclusive games in stills...but while "playing the game" I do not think will will hold up well against any of them (for reasons I've already stated in my OP)

I've played Gears of War and it looks BETTER in-game than any screenshots. In Gears of War you can go to a wall, zoom in with a sniper rifle and the textures will still look better than most other games. Its an amazing technical accomplishment.

[QUOTE="thrones"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="killadread"]

Didn't Lemmings bash Lair because while it did look good in screenshots it had alot of graphical and gameplay glitches, while playing the game?

EuroMafia

And no. It wasn't glitches; it was the fact that it's a god-awful game. :?

Gears 1 didn't have any technical issues at all. Why on earth would Gears 2?

Perhaps it pushes the 360 hardware too far? :|

That's why I said perhaps, that's the only way there are any technical issues. Simply, Epic are too used to 360 design to have any real technical problens short of expecting too much.

[QUOTE="killadread"]

[QUOTE="jbz7890"]Seeing how gears1 is still the most technically impressive game on a console, Gears2 will blow everything away. Killzone2 and MGS4 also have horrible textures.jbz7890

You've just fallen right into the category of people I refering to while trying to make my point. In my post I stated I believe xbox360 has better textures than PS3...that's why I believe in a STILL SCREENSHOT that Gears 2 could potentially look better than all of PS3 exclusive games in stills...but while "playing the game" I do not think will will hold up well against any of them (for reasons I've already stated in my OP)

I've played Gears of War and it looks BETTER in-game than any screenshots. In Gears of War you can go to a wall, zoom in with a sniper rifle and the textures will still look better than most other games. Its an amazing technical accomplishment.

I've played Gears of War and Uncharted, and I still think Uncharted is better :|

[QUOTE="jbz7890"][QUOTE="killadread"]

[QUOTE="jbz7890"]Seeing how gears1 is still the most technically impressive game on a console, Gears2 will blow everything away. Killzone2 and MGS4 also have horrible textures.thrones

You've just fallen right into the category of people I refering to while trying to make my point. In my post I stated I believe xbox360 has better textures than PS3...that's why I believe in a STILL SCREENSHOT that Gears 2 could potentially look better than all of PS3 exclusive games in stills...but while "playing the game" I do not think will will hold up well against any of them (for reasons I've already stated in my OP)

I've played Gears of War and it looks BETTER in-game than any screenshots. In Gears of War you can go to a wall, zoom in with a sniper rifle and the textures will still look better than most other games. Its an amazing technical accomplishment.

I've played Gears of War and Uncharted, and I still think Uncharted is better :|

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I'm not saying Gears looks better, but its simply more technically impressive.

[QUOTE="killadread"]

[QUOTE="Nolan16"]an xbox360 guy just made himself look stupid please dont embaress us...Nolan16

:|WTF are you talking about?

a guy just went on about a rant how gears of war 2 is going to embaress killzone 2 and now your saying this crap no one knows just wait until both games are out.

Again WTF are you talking about.

I am asking a ******* question, and then I stated my OPINION. I have't stated anything as a fact, that's why I have a poll. I said "Let's Say" which is like saying "for instance" or "perhaps if" It's a frecking question. Read the thead and understand what someone is talking about before making a rediclious post.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I'm not saying Gears looks better, but its simply more technically impressive.

jbz7890

How? Because it ticks more checkboxes? Nothing to do with it, 'technically' impressive is hard to define :|

[QUOTE="jbz7890"]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I'm not saying Gears looks better, but its simply more technically impressive.

thrones

How? Because it ticks more checkboxes? Nothing to do with it, 'technically' impressive is hard to define :|

Actually its very easy to define more technicall impressive. Gears of War has better textures. All the other features (HDR, specular maps, shadows, etc.) are pretty much standard in games this gen,

[QUOTE="killadread"]

but then I hear other people (usually pS3+360 owners) admit that it kinda fails in gameplay because of the graphical glitches and framerate backs. I hear there's even a mode to "limit" the graphics so that the game will play better...wow, not that's rediclious. If the developers knew the graphics were a little too much for the system to handle while still runing with a steady framerate without all those graphical glitches and what not, they should have just toned it down the gfx a little.

what say you?

SUD123456

I say you shouldn't make threads comparing an unreleased game to a game you haven't played and relying on other people's opinions of the game you haven't played as the basis for your bashing. And you most definately should check a fact or two before repeating what you heard.

I heard ________(insert game) is utter crap. And if that is utter crap then what if this other game is also utter crap?

See what I did.

Humm how bout this?

"say you shouldn't make threads comparing an unreleased game to a game you haven't played and relying on other Game reviews opinions of the game you haven't played as the basis for your questions. And you most definately should check the multiple game sites that already stated this before repeating what you heard.

Gamespot said Mass Effect "it's surprising that so many small annoyances and glitches made their way into a game of such general high quality."

See what I did."

Yes, I see what you did (slander me) so I corrected it.

BTW. I don't recall calling any of the games utter crap.

every single game has problems. most people look at the good and could careless about the bad unless the game is on another system.

blackice1983

fixed. :)

Seeing how gears1 is still the most technically impressive game on a console, Gears2 will blow everything away. Killzone2 and MGS4 also have horrible textures.jbz7890

yes in your opinion....you are part of the minority who seem to think gears 1 is still graphics king but the majority know and have come to terms with uncharted being graphics king. and like any other vote the majority wins.

and ye well done pre alpha killzone 2 footage has horrible textures...naaaa u dont sayyyy! omgzz the alpha footage has horrible textures lord save us :| what did you expect? full polished up graphics all textures, lighting, optimisations to be completed already??? dont be such a fanboy

[QUOTE="jbz7890"]Seeing how gears1 is still the most technically impressive game on a console, Gears2 will blow everything away. Killzone2 and MGS4 also have horrible textures.ma7moud93

I'd rather play a game with a story (MGS4) rather than a graphics-fest minus every other important aspect of a game (GeOW) thanks. ;)

What is MGS4 looks great in still but when its out is has a framerate of 3 FPS?

My Answer: Then It Fails

What if R2 looks beautiful but when you put it in motion there's so much screen tearing that my eyes bleed?

My Answer: Then It Fails

What if KMy Answer:Z2 is a great game except they borrowed the 6 axis controls from Lair and you can't actually hit/shoot anything?

Irrelivant to this thread, I'm talking aobut gfx and how well they are upheld while playing the game

What if GT5 plays just like Big Rigs?

See Above^

I heard that LBP has a legendary/awesome mode where you build levels completely in the dark. Yep, that's right ,you can build anything/do anything but it's all in the dark. Flashlight needed...batteries not included.

See Above^

I heard that Motorstorm2 is going to include a weight penalty. Yah, that's right...they are going to bundle it with a scale and if you are overweight/obese they are going to penalize you 3/10ths of a second for every 10 pounds you are overweight.

See Above^

I hear all kinds of dumb things on SW. And I like to make completely fabricated strawman arguments about rumours, opinions, and totally unrelated games....because it is fun!!! yeah.

Can I have a cookie now?

SUD123456

BTW: I didn't fabricate anything and this isn't a strawman argument and I dont go off just rumors and opinions.

Fact: Mass Effect is used by lemmings in almost every graphics comparison done this board between xbox360 and PS3 as a condinder for best on consoles.

Fact: Mass Effect does look great in screenshots.

Fact: Mass Effect has many graphical glitches, texture pop-ups and framerate problems while actually playing the game.

You utterly fail becase this is the basis of my post. I already see xbox fans going crazy over a few mag scans saying it looks better than Killzone 2, when they haveing seen a lick of gameplay footage...and the thing that makes Killzone 2 look so amazing is THE GAMEPLAY FOOTAGE. So I ask myself "how can Gears 2 look better?"...Because in still shots xbox360 produced some good textures?

In motion is where Killzone 2 fries other games and I just want to clarify before the arguments start, if lemmings are basing their arguments on how well Gears 2 actually proforms with that level of graphics...or that it was able to acheive them at all making a pretty screenshot.

And no, no cookie for you.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"][QUOTE="killadread"]

but then I hear other people (usually pS3+360 owners) admit that it kinda fails in gameplay because of the graphical glitches and framerate backs. I hear there's even a mode to "limit" the graphics so that the game will play better...wow, not that's rediclious. If the developers knew the graphics were a little too much for the system to handle while still runing with a steady framerate without all those graphical glitches and what not, they should have just toned it down the gfx a little.

what say you?

killadread

I say you shouldn't make threads comparing an unreleased game to a game you haven't played and relying on other people's opinions of the game you haven't played as the basis for your bashing. And you most definately should check a fact or two before repeating what you heard.

I heard ________(insert game) is utter crap. And if that is utter crap then what if this other game is also utter crap?

See what I did.

Humm how bout this?

"say you shouldn't make threads comparing an unreleased game to a game you haven't played and relying on other Game reviews opinions of the game you haven't played as the basis for your questions. And you most definately should check the multiple game sites that already stated this before repeating what you heard.

Gamespot said Mass Effect "it's surprising that so many small annoyances and glitches made their way into a game of such general high quality."

See what I did."

Yes, I see what you did (slander me) so I corrected it.

BTW. I don't recall calling any of the games utter crap.

I slandered you by quoting you? Now that's a good one.

Trying reading your own post again. You didn't say that you relied on reviews. You said you relied mostly on the opinions of PS3+360 gamers.

Mass Effect scores just over 90% on Gamerankings. And yes there are some minor technical glitches and some annoying slowdowns etc. The consensus of people that have actually played the game seems to be that these are rather minimal. Unlike you I have the game.

Regardless, you are making up a false argument by comparing annoying technical issues in one game by one developer with another game by another developer. Strawman argument = fail.

Second, I wasn't aware that multiple sites stated that there was a mode "to limit the graphics so the game will play better" and then all the righteous nonsense you post afterwoods about that. There is mode to turn film mode on and off. This effect is to make the graphics look like a space movie shot with a handheld/slightly grainy. It is to add atmosphere. Some people like it on, some people like it off. It doesn't have anything to do with limiting the graphics to play better. Like I said check your facts.

In any case, the point of my replying at all to this thread is to highlight the irrelevance of comparing Mass Effect to Gears 2. You have made up a completely false argument so you can bash the 360/Gears 2. Yippee...here's a cookie for you.

texture fade in isnt a glitch :|zero9167

*checks post*

Don't remember using that word anywhere in my post. I seem to remember using the word "pop-up" which is exactly what I ment. :P maybe you read the wrong post.

P.S.

I know the diffrence between Fade and Pop, do you? If so, why'd you make a useless post?

You utterly fail becase this is the basis of my post. I already see xbox fans going crazy over a few mag scans saying it looks better than Killzone 2, when they haveing seen a lick of gameplay footage...and the thing that makes Killzone 2 look so amazing is THE GAMEPLAY FOOTAGE. So I ask myself "how can Gears 2 look better?"...Because in still shots xbox360 produced some good textures?

In motion is where Killzone 2 fries other games and I just want to clarify before the arguments start, if lemmings are basing their arguments on how well Gears 2 actually proforms with that level of graphics...or that it was able to acheive them at all making a pretty screenshot.

And no, no cookie for you.

killadread

You utterly fail because you are acting just like the fanboys you are taking offense too.

People that make Gears 2 is teh greatest evar! are no different than the people who said R2 is teh greatest evar based upon their scans. Or KZ2.

Look in the mirror, pal. There was no pupose to creating this thread. You are acting just like the people you are criticizing. When KZ2 actually comes out we will all be able to judge.

But for now, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether KZ2 will suffer from exactly the same framerate drops and pop-ins as Mass Effect does.

Which makes your above comment about KZ2 just as rediculous as the people posting Gears 2 is teh greatest evar.

Take off your googles and look at it objectively.

every single game has problems. most people look at the good and could careless about the bad unless the game is unplayable.

just like in mgs1 sure the game is 3-4 hours of gameplay the hand to hand combat sucks but people still love the game solely based on the amazing sometimes dumb story

blackice1983

[QUOTE="jbz7890"]Seeing how gears1 is still the most technically impressive game on a console, Gears2 will blow everything away. Killzone2 and MGS4 also have horrible textures.ma7moud93

So u dont think any of the other huge ps3 exclusives will be a factor because of one game? Dont get me wrong, I also think gears of war 2 is going to look crazy amazing but thats the only game I think microsoft has so far that is going to bring the wow at e3. Maybe fable 2 and other games aswell but Sony has so many Big Hitters waiting to be revealed that its pretty scary, especially if they announce a Shadow of The Colosus 2 and show some gameplay of Final Fantasy 13. I mean these are just a few titles that I think will be shown at e3 other then the ones we know that are coming out this year. So I dont see how gears alone will blow away everything sony has to showcase at e3.