Multiplayer, incidentally, also seems to be limited to 8 players ...
Best Graphic EVER [Full Gears of War Vids]
- Thread starter MasterDisaster
- Start date
- Status
Multiplayer, incidentally, also seems to be limited to 8 players ...
It's amazing how some people can look at an image and see the technical details that sound good, instead of the actual picture that looks plain ugly.
Agreed, A game might be using all the latest tricks in the book, but if it the look don't match what good does that do...
commenting, that "I don't see many enemies on screen" and stating "but then it has trade-offs such as number of enemies on screen." are two totally different things. They don't have to show a video with 100's of enemies on screen at all. You might not fight more than 10 or 12 enemies at a time. regardless it's a design choice and we already know games this gen can have upwards of thousands of enemies on screen at one time without problems. My point is we haven't seen enough of the game to qualify a statement like that. That's like looking at all the screen shots we've seen of a game before it released to come to a conclusion that the game has a problem with the number of enemies on screen, so the developer made a trade off to achive a specific graphic level. it's not logical to make a statement like that without knowing enough before hand.
look at it this way:
1. We have no idea how many enemies the game will allow for on screen at one time.
2. We haven't seen what this game has to offer yet, and this was done to keep things hidden until release.
You're missing the point. You can only comment on what is known and what you can see on-screen. GoW could have a bazillion-million characters on screen and Lair -just taking up the example - could look as polished as shoe-shine in other levels. But fact is that judging from the visual evidence so far neither statement is warranted. You can't judge by hypothetical standards, only by actual footage. So far GoW is doesn't show more than a few enemies at once.
Last edited by a moderator:
As hupfinsgak points out, you missed the point
OP : Look at these vids. This is the best looking game ever
Thus, from the evidence in these videos, I conclude GOW looks better than all other games
For that to be an objective statement, you'd need a way of comparing different titles in different genres with this video footage, to decide it's better. And my argument is you can't, becuase this footage shows some technical merits like detail, but not others like scope.
Now if there's another video released with 50 NPCs fighting a big battle in this detail, post up another 'look at this vid - GOW is the best looking game ever' thread and we can again vconsider the technical merits of what's on show. Until then, talking about these videos and what they demonstrate, the point still stands. GOW has the same trade-offs as all titles, increasing detail at a cost of scope.
Actually both of your are completly missing my point. yes we can only comment on what is known and what is seen, that I do agree, which is exactly why i said:
"commenting, that "I don't see many enemies on screen" and stating "but then it has trade-offs such as number of enemies on screen." are two totally different things."
1. Does gears of war have some of the best graphics we've seen? sure. That stement is based on what we've seen thus far. Purely opinion and not conclusive. We don't neeed to see the entire game to make this statement and people can agree or disagree.
2. Have we seen a limited number of enemies on screen at one time? yes, this is correct since this is what we clearly saw in videos thus far. A stement like this doesn't reach beyond the obvious and is mroe fact based on the videos released.
However to infer that this "level of graphical detail" is somehow linked to "trade-offs such as number of enemies on screen." is a stretch without seeing more of the game. That's a conclusive statment. That's why i said saying it has a limited number of enemies on screen is one thing, but to come to a conclusion that this is due to a tradeoff (graphical or otherwise) can't be made based on what we've seen thus far.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a conclusive statement that can't be made unless you see more of the game. Sure games have trade offs, but don't think you can tell what those tradeoffs are without seeing more of the product to compare.
Also your use of the word scope is a bit strange since that can encompass many differing meanings. The number of enemies on screen can have more to do with a design/gameplay decision then some other limiting factor. Again not something a conclusive statement can be made about at this point.
New question more important for me.
Does Gears hit the limit of DVD capacity for next generation games ?
If true its 7.2 gigs for about 10 hours of next gen gameplay (by this size i assume that is 10 hours of mostly original stuff ,but is this enough ?)
Does Gears hit the limit of DVD capacity for next generation games ?
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/30/full-version-of-gears-of-war-leaked/#comments
If true its 7.2 gigs for about 10 hours of next gen gameplay (by this size i assume that is 10 hours of mostly original stuff ,but is this enough ?)
That "leaked" copy of GoW was fake. Also gameplay time, cannot be linked to the size of a game.
Hm... well there is the multiple path thing and co-op too... I would find that pretty good (10 Hours).
File size: don't forget multiplayer levels.
i.e. little correlation between filesize and game length.
It strikes me as more common sense than a stretch. We know these boxes have finite hardware so if your creating a bigger game in scope* you'll have to cut down on the detail. We also know that everything shown for GOW to date has been fairly closed environment. They haven't yet shown any battlefields with this detail and 50 NPCs running around. I think it's logical to expect the increase in detail (which is higher than other games) has come at the cost of scope*. That's more likely than Epic having increased detail this far without sacrificing anything anywhere else. Perhaps they have, and UE3 is doing some very clever things, but that to me sounds far more of a stretch than making compromises.
* by scope I mean size of content viewable, covering range of view, amount of objects, animation of those objects, etc.
Other way around. I find the art (especially on characters) to be pretty bad. But the game looks so technically good that it makes up for this.
scooby_dooby
Legend
If 360 can't do what we've seen of LAIR at 35% I'll eat my shoe.
Shifty, with all due respect this debate is silly. A game should be judged on graphical fidelity alone, who cares about scope? It seems like a thinly veiled attempt to rationalize why Resistance is somehow comparable to Gears, when in fact gears is clearly the much more impressive looking game, and is clearly the best looking game being released this year. If we judged by scope, than COD2 was would be the best lookin 360 launch title, but it wasn't. More 'limited' games like Condemned, Kameo, DOA4 etc take that crown.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a BS statement IMO. Who said that the 360 couldn't do this game? Julian? not that I fully beleive anything he says, but I've heard him make stements like this before. It's more PR talk imo.
common sense is to not come to a conclusion without having the proper amount of data
. Like I said before, yes, all games have trade offs, however you can't come to a conclusion on what those tradeoffs are without seeing more of a game to compare. Also, like I said there's other factores like design and gameplay choices that can have nothing to do with the hardware.Also, regarding your "Scope", yes they are pushing the hardware pretty far, however we don't know how far. Imo I think any tradeoffs in this game are less to do with the amount of enemies on screen compared to other possible factors, but that is my opinion and not meant to be conclusive. To be honest, I think your comment about scope isn't qualatative. range of view, amount of object, animation of those objects are seperate areas to discuss, you can't throw all of those together. Also again we haven't seen enough of this game to determine the scope of the title. For instance we know the game has vehicles because epic mentioned this before, but we haven't seen the environment with those vehicles. So again, you can't tell the "scope" of a game without seeing mroe of the game to compare.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked