TehKillzonelova's forum posts

Avatar image for TehKillzonelova
TehKillzonelova

253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 TehKillzonelova
Member since 2010 • 253 Posts

[QUOTE="TehKillzonelova"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

I see you dont know the difference between in game and bullshot.It could be taken in game with resolution of 16kx5k and than downsampled to 1080p,it would get rid of EVERY single jaggie and would make it look much crisper and smooth.

Going by your logic this is also in game...But,is that what GT5p looks like?

Bus-A-Bus

Now that is a Bullshot. The reason I know is because i have seen and played GT5p, but in Infamous 2's case, almost al shots are direct feed from the gameplay trailer

If they were direct feed they would be 720p with whatever AA it has,the problem is IF2 shots are far cry from 720p and they feature some kind of super super AA technique,maybe 64xMSAA...

....Look at this image

You can notice the jaggies on the man on the left'shis right sleeve...

Avatar image for TehKillzonelova
TehKillzonelova

253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 TehKillzonelova
Member since 2010 • 253 Posts
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="TehKillzonelova"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

OMG Tehkilltonenovela didnt you just say that IF2 shots that gpuking posted look better than DIRECT FEED shots of RDR?The shots you posted now are for promotive purpose,with better lighting and AA.Look at what i posted-DIRECT FEEEEEEEEED!Meaning,that is what your ps3 sends to screen.Ofcourse it looks better in motion,with motion blur and jaggies are much harder to spot but that did not stop gpuking to put RDR direct feed shots.

Even if you compare normal RDR shots to the in-game Infamous 2 shots, you will see that I2 looks much better graphically in every aspect

The problem is it does not,not to majority of people.First play RDR on 360 and then judge...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLU5lsf4o5o

On the contrary, in the thread i created, after people saw the new gameplay video, most of the posters said Infamous 2 obviously looks better
Avatar image for TehKillzonelova
TehKillzonelova

253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 TehKillzonelova
Member since 2010 • 253 Posts
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="TehKillzonelova"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Can you please ask your fellow gpuking if those shots are bullshots,he would probably go as far to say the are not but he probably cant cus thats undeniable truth.B.U.L.L.S.H.O.T.S ;)

OMG...They are confirmed in-game, they came from the gameplay trailer. What more do you want :? ?. You tell me to use logic, so why dont you interpret what my message means describing nearly every third party title?

I see you dont know the difference between in game and bullshot.It could be taken in game with resolution of 16kx5k and than downsampled to 1080p,it would get rid of EVERY single jaggie and would make it look much crisper and smooth.

Going by your logic this is also in game...But,is that what GT5p looks like?

Now that is a Bullshot. The reason I know is because i have seen and played GT5p, but in Infamous 2's case, almost al shots are direct feed from the gameplay trailer
Avatar image for TehKillzonelova
TehKillzonelova

253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 TehKillzonelova
Member since 2010 • 253 Posts

OMG Tehkilltonenovela didnt you just say that IF2 shots that gpuking posted look better than DIRECT FEED shots of RDR?The shots you posted now are for promotive purpose,with better lighting and AA.Look at what i posted-DIRECT FEEEEEEEEED!Meaning,that is what your ps3 sends to screen.Ofcourse it looks better in motion,with motion blur and jaggies are much harder to spot but that did not stop gpuking to put RDR direct feed shots.

Bus-A-Bus
Even if you compare normal RDR shots to the in-game Infamous 2 shots, you will see that I2 looks much better graphically in every aspect
Avatar image for TehKillzonelova
TehKillzonelova

253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 TehKillzonelova
Member since 2010 • 253 Posts
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="TehKillzonelova"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Yea yea i always write wrong roll :S Anyway,those are bullshots end of story. ;)

No they arent. It was proven that almost all of those images are direct feed...:?. Your basically telling me that multiplat developers that work with out-dated tech and port to other platforms without decent optimization for any specific platform working within a very strict time and budget can produce a game that looks better graphically than a game with a custom built engine that has been created by multiple first party studios on one platform with generous funding and decelopement time doesnt look better graphically? The images that were confirmed in-game look much, much better graphically than anyhting in RDR

Can you please ask your fellow gpuking if those shots are bullshots,he would probably go as far to say the are not but he probably cant cus thats undeniable truth.B.U.L.L.S.H.O.T.S ;)

OMG...They are confirmed in-game, they came from the gameplay trailer. What more do you want :? ?. You tell me to use logic, so why dont you interpret what my message means describing nearly every third party title?
Avatar image for TehKillzonelova
TehKillzonelova

253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 TehKillzonelova
Member since 2010 • 253 Posts

[QUOTE="gpuking"][QUOTE="PAL360"]

Red Dead Redemption look better. It looks nothing like those screens :?

Bus-A-Bus

Truth hurts doesn't it? Those are direct captures from the 360 build on digitalfoundry.

It still looks great.After all...its 720p 2xAA like all other games,like UC2...want me to show you what UC2 direct feed shots look like?Sure...

Thanks for posting mediocre quality U2 shots, though heres some sctual ones

Image 35Image 30Image 36Image 59Image 78Image 81Image 82
Avatar image for TehKillzonelova
TehKillzonelova

253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 TehKillzonelova
Member since 2010 • 253 Posts
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="TehKillzonelova"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Wait...did i get it wrong or did it say that you actually took those images and downsampled it cus they were from video and jagged?:roll:

no, I had enlarged images that dont look as fantastic as when you display them at their native res. BTW, Its : roll : without any spaces :P

Yea yea i always write wrong roll :S Anyway,those are bullshots end of story. ;)

No they arent. It was proven that almost all of those images are direct feed...:?. Your basically telling me that multiplat developers that work with out-dated tech and port to other platforms without decent optimization for any specific platform working within a very strict time and budget can produce a game that looks better graphically than a game with a custom built engine that has been created by multiple first party studios on one platform with generous funding and decelopement time doesnt look better graphically? The images that were confirmed in-game look much, much better graphically than anyhting in RDR
Avatar image for TehKillzonelova
TehKillzonelova

253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 TehKillzonelova
Member since 2010 • 253 Posts
[QUOTE="ocstew"][QUOTE="TehKillzonelova"][QUOTE="Santesyu"]

Why are people arguing that Infamous 2 can be done on 360 if the xbox hasn't produced a game better looking to date then UC2 yet? The only game that comes close is alan wake out of all xbox 360 titles.. if the xbox hasn't produced a game better looking now what makes you think Infamous 2 could be easily created on the xbox 360 is my question.

Aw isnt really a good looking game, Gears 2 looks better :/. Then the difference between KZ2/3, U2, GOW3, and I2 compared to GEOW2 is very large graphically

No, they aren't that's why I posted the photoshopped pictures.

Lol wut? :?
Avatar image for TehKillzonelova
TehKillzonelova

253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 TehKillzonelova
Member since 2010 • 253 Posts
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="TehKillzonelova"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Oh my my...Tehkillzonenovela,those are NOT native shots.Just click second click and open image,those shots are several times bigger than native resolution and EVEN than they dont have jaggies which means they were downsampled from even BIGGER resolution.

Did you read the description on top of those images...:roll:

Wait...did i get it wrong or did it say that you actually took those images and downsampled it cus they were from video and jagged?:rolls:

no, I had enlarged images that dont look as fantastic as when you display them at their native res. BTW, Its : roll : without any spaces :P
Avatar image for TehKillzonelova
TehKillzonelova

253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 TehKillzonelova
Member since 2010 • 253 Posts

Why are people arguing that Infamous 2 can be done on 360 if the xbox hasn't produced a game better looking to date then UC2 yet? The only game that comes close is alan wake out of all xbox 360 titles.. if the xbox hasn't produced a game better looking now what makes you think Infamous 2 could be easily created on the xbox 360 is my question.

Santesyu
Aw isnt really a good looking game, Gears 2 looks better :/. Then the difference between KZ2/3, U2, GOW3, and I2 compared to GEOW2 is very large graphically