ok this is an honest question, NOT A FLAME. why do ps3 games always look blurry in stills? killzone 2, dirt, motorstorm, they all look like your looking at the screens through cataracts. i know it looks better in motion, but is it something different with the way the system handles antialiasing or something? go look at comparison screens for dirt and killzone shots and you'll see what i mean. it's all blurred together. honest answers here guys, no flames.
agreed... every cod game treyarch gets ahold of turns to $hit. big red one.. cod3.. etc.
agreed... definitely better looking than killzone. it just goes to show how powerful hype is. everyone is praising killzone while a dozen better looking games just get mentioned in passing. hell the new ufc game looks like hd video, noone's creaming their pants over it. it's crazy.
that looks amazing! probably the most fluid animation i've yet seen in a sports game. i only wonder if they'll be able to give mixed martial arts it's due as far as gameplay is concerned. it would be one hell of a waste to turn this into a button masher.
so how many versions are they going to release before they get to the whole game? not that i'm complaining, especially as long as they're free or cheap. i hope other studios catch on and do the same thing, it's just sort of unconventional to have TWO versions of a game come out before the "real thing" drops.
honestly... after the last couple years sony has had... they couldve $hit in a bag, threw it on stage, and sony fanboys would be calling it the best thing since sliced bread. it's all hype. just like the first one was.
dude this looks so much better than killzone. take off the hype glasses and just look at the screens. killzone looks like cod4 through cataracts.... all muddy and blurry. the hype machine is driving this one.. without a doubt.
hey... they gotta make up the difference somewhere.
actually UT is timed too.
why does anyone care? do you remember the last 3? play 2 minutes... watch 10 minutes of cg... play 2 minutes... watch 15 minutes of cg. splinter cell is better regardless.. and that IS exclusive.
that's just how the game looks. everything looks fuzzy, even in motion in the hd video. i think it's because they had to use low-res textures to fit into the ps3's ram constraints. it's like looking at a beautiful game through cataracts. kinda ruins it for me.
i'll take cod4 thanks...
guys.... seriously.. take off the fanboy glasses for a second. this game doesn't even look better than cod4.. let alone gears. models are great, environments are great, but the textures are all extremely low-res and very "muddy" looking. pause it when the guy is close to a wall and you'll see what i mean. it's good, but not revolutionary by any standards.
no.. it does work with xp... and dx9. that's just a sony fanboy creating problems for a spin. ignore him.
gotta agree with the above statement. i don't think kz2 looks any better than cod4. if anything.. the texture work is better on cod4. all else is equal.
why does anyone ever care about this game? remember the first one? the "halo killer" that ended up sucking testicles?
man... you guys are just dying for a killer app to the point of desperation.
and how does that have anything to do with this story? besides... your wrong. i dont need a wifi adapter to play games. i don't need an hd-dvd player to play games. and xbox live is $6 a month... which i'll take over sony's glorified website (psn) any day of the week, regardless of cost. so basically it's like this:
xbox 360 $299
playstation 3 $499 (to play the same games we've been playing for a year on 360)
we're gamers here... not home theatre buff...
i doubt it... considering how "well" sony is doing with their lots-of-stuff-i-dont-want $599 system.
eh... i don't really care if it comes to 360 or not. mgs has always been more of an interactive movie than an actual game (to me, atleast). i'll take splinter cell over it any day.
well all you sony fanboys who were complaining about graphics (on a game you supposedly "dont want" of all things) after the beta can all officially shut the hell up now.
this article is talking about consumer cameras, which always suck. there is way more to video than resolution. consumer cameras use cheap (small) ccd's that are terrible in low light, and it only gets worse as you go higher in resolution (for a given ccd size). what you end up with is a sensor with hardly any dynamic range at all (dark scenes black out, bright areas blow out white, with very little range inbetween). no consumer hd camera shoots better than even a dvx100 (standard def, min...