Fracture: PS3 & Xbox 360

[Gitaroo]

Tough crowd! I kinda liked it, not amazing but not bad. Maybe you were playing the PS3 build? Try the 360 one instead if you have access to it, it looks much sharper and doesn't have all that screen tear during play. I do wish they did more with the deformation gun, but calling it terrible is a bit harsh! Unless you're comparing it to PC shooters, but that's not totally fair

hmm..... Dark Sector already proofed that 720p compare to 640p is only a tiny bit better that most ppl cant tell. This game is 648p on PS3, doubt that there will be a huge difference between the 2.

 

[RobertR1]

Tough crowd! I kinda liked it, not amazing but not bad. Maybe you were playing the PS3 build? Try the 360 one instead if you have access to it, it looks much sharper and doesn't have all that screen tear during play. I do wish they did more with the deformation gun, but calling it terrible is a bit harsh! Unless you're comparing it to PC shooters, but that's not totally fair

Nah I was on the 360. I noticed some pauses during some of the transitions in scenes and frame rate dropped in the end when you're holding off the soilder rush. I went to the right side of the map to pick em off as they came. Maybe that was it? or my precious Elite is on it's way out and doing mean things

The graphics look nice but there's no real emotional immersion to the environment. Like UT3 for example. Looks great but you don't really care about the world you're in, if that makes sense.

The aiming was terrible also. There was no real fluidity. The weapons had no feel to them. This far into this generation, the graphics "wow effect" to purchasing a game is wearing down on me a bit and I'm transitioning more towards gameplay and immersion. Thus the demo only catered to 1/3 of what I was looking for. The Mercs2 demo was much more fun over all even if not nearly as pretty.

To be fair, after playing one shooter after another this gen, out side of Gears 2, I'm a bit exhausted on the genre and not really looking forward to any more for a while. I'm much more interested in Fallout/Fable/Banjo etc than CoD854 and so on. Likely, I'm being over harsh in the demo but then again, I've played through a lot of shooters and naturally will judge this against them and not on it's own.

 

[joker454]

hmm..... Dark Sector already proofed that 720p compare to 640p is only a tiny bit better that most ppl cant tell. This game is 648p on PS3, doubt that there will be a huge difference between the 2.

I don't know about Dark Sector, but I a/b'd Fracture at home and the 360 build looks much better.

This far into this generation, the graphics "wow effect" to purchasing a game is wearing down on me a bit and I'm transitioning more towards gameplay and immersion. Thus the demo only catered to 1/3 of what I was looking for.

Fair enough. I find I'm starting to gravitate back to the PC for my graphics fix, this gen of consoles is starting to get kinda old. Hard to get hyped on console shooters anymore with Crysis Warhead and Far Cry 2 on the PC just around the corner. Then again, I'm sure I'll love Gears 2

 

[RobertR1]

I was just going back to edit my post with the same. I'm going to pick up a 4870x2 for Crysis, Crysis: Warhead, Far Cry 2.

 

[GuestLV]

Fracture at home and the 360 build looks much better

didnt see where its looks much better, almost the same IMO

 

[DrJay24]

It feels like this years Timeshift, generic shooter with a gimmick. The PS3 was a tad softer, the 360 version seems to have some dithering in the shadows and trees, sort of like GTA4. Unless the reviews are glowing there is no reason to play this game until it hits the bargain bin next year.

 

[Jedi2016]

The problem with gimmicks like this is the way they're implemented. They come up with a really neat idea, like time manipulation or terrain deformation, but instead of simply turning the player loose, they integrate it so tightly into the level design that it's only useful when the designers have decided that you need to use it, and pretty much worthless during the rest of the game. You never get to be truly creative with it. All you do is solve puzzles with it, and there's usually only one way to get through. Having the player figure out that method isn't creativity. Take Portal, for example. No sooner was the game released than people started coming up with completely new ways to get through the levels, methods that the designers never thought of. I seriously doubt you'll get that kind of open gameplay from Fracture.

I should never have to use the "gimmick" feature of any game, IMO.

So, as DrJay pointed out... like Timeshift before it, Fracture is going straight onto my "don't give a crap" pile of games I'll never buy.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's not looking good for Lucasarts at the moment, with this and SW:FU being pretty uninspiring by accounts.

 

[JPT]

Somebody "we know" to the rescue? ;D

 

[djskribbles]

I don't know about Dark Sector, but I a/b'd Fracture at home and the 360 build looks much better.

i got a chance to A/B them on my buddy's calibrated Samsung LCD and i wouldn't say it looks "much better". the PS3 version is a little softer and some of the textures are a little worse on PS3. the usual differences in brightness come into play big time in this game (PS3 version is quite a bit brighter, therefore looks washed out). i didn't get a chance to play around with the brightness setting, but i think that would even things out a tad.

 

[joker454]

i got a chance to A/B them on my buddy's calibrated Samsung LCD and i wouldn't say it looks "much better". the PS3 version is a little softer and some of the textures are a little worse on PS3. the usual differences in brightness come into play big time in this game (PS3 version is quite a bit brighter, therefore looks washed out). i didn't get a chance to play around with the brightness setting, but i think that would even things out a tad.

Hmm, maybe it's a tv thing. On mine the difference was so dramatic that I initially thought my PS3 got reset to 480 mode, it looked really blurry, weaker textures, lacked color, and had lots of screen tear.

I think I may know what's going on here, because this isn't the first time I've seen such dramatic differences that others haven't. Is that Samsung a 1080p? That would imply that you get an upscale step either from the 360 or the tv which probably mangles the 360's display quality to an extent. Maybe that's what drags the 360 build down closer to the PS3's in your comparison. On the other hand my plasma is a 720p, so this generations games get to the display mostly as is.

In other words, in your test its "upscaled(360) vs upscaled(PS3)", on mine its "native(360) vs upscaled(PS3)". This would also explain why other gamers, both 360 and PS3 fans alike, have commented how unusually good 360 games look on my tv since they are seeing an untouched image compared to what they see on their 1080 displays which is usually upscaled.

 

[Rangers]

It's not looking good for Lucasarts at the moment, with this and SW:FU being pretty uninspiring by accounts.

SWFU is going to kill saleswise though.

 

[archangelmorph]

I actually though the fracture demo was pretty good..

 

[kyleb]

I think I may know what's going on here, because this isn't the first time I've seen such dramatic differences that others haven't. Is that Samsung a 1080p? That would imply that you get an upscale step either from the 360 or the tv which probably mangles the 360's display quality to an extent. Maybe that's what drags the 360 build down closer to the PS3's in your comparison. On the other hand my plasma is a 720p, so this generations games get to the display mostly as is.

I haven't seen the game, but good 1080p display will make any differences in image fedility more obvious than a lower resoultion one, regardless of the native resolution of the content. Besides, you are getting scaling too as so-called "720p" plasmas aren't really 720p anyway.

 

[inefficient]

Played the demo.

The game visually looked better than I was expecting. Some of the outside areas looked pretty stunning. But I didn't like the overall aesthetic of the game. And I thought the core game play mechanic of moving earth was pretty gimmicky and didn't actually add any fun to the game. It basically was just a glorified elevator since you could only move up/down exactly where the developer wanted you to.

I realize you could also use it in combat situations, but outside of forced scenarios the developer forced you into, just using your regular guns seemed to be more worthwhile than fiddling around with making mountains.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I just played the demo and I thought it was the dumbest game I've ever played.

It looks fine, but for a game based on environmental manipulation the fact you can't even shoot out WINDOWS with your ROCKET LAUNCHER just complete lost me.

So I'm to believe I've got weapons that can dig holes in the ground, create mountains where they don't exist, etc.. etc.. But I can't bust out some WINDOWS?

Yeah, that's a REAL interactive environment there.

As was stated earlier, what a freaking gimmicky waste of time. So you can manipulate your environment but only in the ways that the developers want you to?

Why waste my time? Just build the damn ramp or the tunnel when I get there, why make me waste my time throwing a grenade to hit the spot where something special is supposed to happen?

And without that gimmick, it feels like a very generic shooter. I might play through the demo again (I didn't delete it yet), but honestly.. The instant I realized I couldn't TURN or MOVE or LOOK AROUND when I was blowing up the water tower told me I was just watching scripted sequences. Then, when I tried to 'play around' with my weapons as they TOLD YOU TO DO and you realize you can't influence any bit of the environment that they didn't want you to...

Couldn't blow out windows, couldn't blow out doors, or walls, or anything that wasn't already pre-determined... just.. pathetic.

Really.