And if they showed upscaled 1080p comparisons, everybody would scream "but it does not look this blurry on my awesome HDTV!"
Yeah, it doesn't. Because you're at least 3 feet too far away from that awesome HDTV.
http://www.thx.com/consumer...
"all the rest" looks "way more detailed on the PS3"?
What about the second picture from the bottom? Look at the facial detail.
What about the third picture from the bottom? Note how the starfield is resolved better and much more visible.
No, why should I? For example, I'm happy that more people get to play Mass Effect 2 very soon. I'm not egoistical like you.
Sony boys and their precious exclusives.
If a Move makes you feel like a master swordsman, then grab a broomstick with kinect. Jeez.
Why do I always imagine a nerd with a lisp when I read the word "exclusive"?
Ooooohhh, it's excluuuusive. Yees. Exclusive. 1st party support. Excluuuusive. Shiny.
I don't hate console gamers. I don't even hate the consoles themselves.
When I point out the great things about PC games, I do it to get some console gamers interested in them. I want more people to experience games at their very best.
Why do we keep stressing how inexpensive gaming PCs are, how you DON'T need to upgrade them all the time etc? Because we want more console gamers to join us.
4x or 8x anti aliasing? The anti aliasing used in this picture blurs the entire image. It is NOT MSAA, so that certainly points towards a console implementation.
They look comparable, and why wouldn't they?
"It would be cool to see what they could do w/ the PS3."
Crytek already said that they're pushing all versions as far as the hardware allows.
I agree that this Crysis 2 shot is underwhelming. But when you come along and post these Killzone shots I'm just confused.
Look at the very first picture. Do you see how low-res the ground and wall textures are? Second picture: walls on the left. Blow this up to 1080p, and you've got a blur fest.
The third picture looks decent. But again, these are downscaled like crazy. Every image fills out only 1/12th of my screen.
<<they're "movie dark," he explained. "It just means they're more blue than dark.">>
"Movie dark" isn't about blue for black (maybe it was 20 years ago). It's about blackness but pools of light in various spots.
Even night scenes in modern movies always have areas of the image that are very bright. Instead of a mushy darkness everywhere, there is high contrast. The developers should really just take a ...
RTS with Move? Are you for real? Maybe RTS "extra light".
<<You can't feel like a master swordsman just by clenching one fist and waving it.>>
But you can if you mash buttons on a game controller? The author doesn't even make sense.
Let's see, why is that? Oh yes, let's look at those November numbers.
US 360: 1,370,000 (+69% YOY)
US PS3: 530,000 (-25% YOY)
Japan 360: 16,247 (-4% YOY)
Japan PS3: 142,536 (-8% YOY)
Neither detail nor lighting have changed. More facial detail would suggest that they retextured the character, which is certainly not the case.
But as always, nobdoy will believe me until the Digital Foundry article is out. So let's wait for that, shall we?
After November 2010 I wouldn't be so sure about that.
A more polished art style? None of the art has changed at all.
Except you get to play in 720p with aggressive LODs.
If they re-encode the cutscenes for PS3 they had better update the PC cutscenes as well.
It's pretty ridiculous how the cutscenes looked A LOT worse than the actual game. I don't understand why they made them into low-bitrate 720p videos to begin with instead of running them realtime like Mass Effect 1.
Of course you can code properly for the hardware. But the architecture is VERY different from what developers are used to. So multi platform titles almost always suffer in some way.
You can be certain that by now Sony has realized that going with x86 would have been preferrable.