ME2 runs better, as in it has no screen tearing and a better frame rate, but sadly it also looks worse than ME1 in the fact the texture resolutions are not quite as high and there is no anti-aliasing like the first one had.
All in all I still prefer the better performance of ME2 over ME1, but I think the actual graphics were somewhat better in the first game.
What you wrote makes no sense to me. There is not that much difference between the way ME1 and ME2 play. There are a few minor changes here and there, but they both essentially feel like the same kind of experience.
Well, he was put on the spot by the question the PS3 mag asked him. He said that it would probably have some visual changes and play a little differently, if only because you are using a different controller, but it didn't seem like he was referring to anything specific, more like he was trying to give them some kind of answer that would satisfy them.
If they were talking about visual upgrades they would have simply said "visual upgrades" or "visual improv...
Yeah, go ahead and shun a great looking game and one of the best games of the generation all because you have some stupid bias against the Unreal 3 Engine. All you will be hurting is yourself, no skin off the rest of our noses.
It didn't have to be ODST, there were several other deserving contenders. But they chose to give it to Uncharted 2.
Look, guys, the fact that if you average all their PS3 scores they are lower than the meta average doesn't mean that they are biased. Sometimes it's just the way things play out. Maybe some of those PS3 exclusives didn't appeal to those reviewers as much as they did to other reviewers.
It is a statistical inevitability that so...
Reviews almost never mention any differences between the different console versions of multiplatform games.
For one thing, most reviewers only play through one version, so they have nothing to compare it to.
The other thing is, most reviewers don't really see it as their role to judge the differences between versions of multiplatform games. They are simply judging the game on its qualities as a game, not performance differences between the consoles. <...
Bubbles on this site mean absolutely nothing. If you are a PS3 fanboy your bubbles will generally go up. If you are a 360 fanboys your bubbles will quickly go down. And if you are somewhere in the middle, like me, you will still struggle to keep your bubbles.
Many of those 1 bubble 360 fanboys are no worse than most of you PS3 fanboys that have more bubbles. It's just that pro-360 comments aren't tolerated on this site, while pro-PS3 comments are rewarded with pra...
The 360 never had a 54.2% failure rate. Repeating that nonsense is irresponsible.
Videogames ARE art and Ico and Shadow of the Colossus are two of the true masterpieces of the medium.
Yes, because it makes so much more sense to compare completely different games, using completely different engines, made by completely different developers. /s
Yeah I agree, Uncharted 2 looks a lot better than Enslaved. But I still think Enslaved is an interesting game that I am looking forward to play. Mainly the characters and story interest me.
Edit: After looking at all the screenshots it seems the 360 version has better quality shadows than the PS3 version. The PS3 version's shadows seem to have banding or dithering. I haven't noticed any other notable differences.
I don't think most of those people are being sincere or honest. I think what you are seeing is mostly a bunch of PS3 fanboys that want to minimize Halo Reach in any way they can. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
I like great games no matter what console they are on and Halo Reach is definitely a great game in my book. I love the campaign and the multiplayer.
I wonder if you PS3 fanboys would preach the same tolerant attitude when it comes to people saying negative things about PS3 exclusives. Somehow I doubt it.
Massively disagree. Alan Wake is one of my favorite games this year.
The characters were a lot more interesting to me than what you find in most shooters.
When I see an obvious flamebait title like this I simply don't read the article.
It's not that people aren't entitled to their own opinions on Halo Reach or any other game, it's the fact that they make their titles sound like a factual statement which is a slap in the face to all those of use that really enjoy the game and think it is actually one of the best games of the year.
Yeah and COD MW2 runs at 60FPS and Killzone 2 runs at 30FPS, what's your point?
This is pretty normal performance for any 30FPS game. The films we watch in the theater have a lower frame rate, but they look smooth to us due to the natural motion blur that film produces. This game with motion blur looks perfectly fine to me. Not to mention it has without a doubt some of the best graphics of this generation.
I actually thought the graphics were pretty nice, it was the gameplay that felt mediocre.
Both versions of Dragon Age had their trade-offs. Besides, Mass Effect 2 is a much more graphically advanced game than Dragon Age, the latter of which was pretty average looking.