Game Informer's E3 Grades + Review Scores

[scooby_dooby]

Trust me, Scooby is not talking about Photomode stuff. You two are thinking 2 different things.

I'm talking about making valid meaningful comparisons. The same would hold true if you were to compare photomode shots to ingame shots, unfair, invalid, meaningless comparison.

Remember, this whole thing was sparked by me saying the best PS3 'game' at E3 was Assassin's Creed which likely to be also available on 360. In response I was a given a laundry list of trailers that were more impressive, well trailers are not games.

As for MMkay's post: you could use the garage in PGR3 as an example, it's certainly realtime as I can walk around the car, and it is FAR superior to the ingame models.

 

[TheChefO]

Photomode added extra things to the screen that's not done in realtime. Did you just skip Mmmkay's post?

no - his post illustrates my point. You shouldnt compare any one of the above listed graphic techniques in mmkays post with any other technique.

cgi to cgi
gameplay to gameplay
...and everything in between

Not "well they showed this cool looking graphic and they said it was realtime and it looks so much better than this game I played over here."

Again - compare gameplay to gameplay.

If the games are in different phases of development this must also be considered as well as game type as well as budget as well as realease date.

 

[mckmas8808]

Remember, this whole thing was sparked by me saying the best PS3 'game' at E3 was Assassin's Creed. To which I was a given a laundry list of trailers that were more impressive, well trailers are not games.

Honest to god going screenshot for screenshot I honestly think Heavenly Sword looks a good amount better than Assassin's Creed. And I love the look of AC!

The problem is we haven't seen any video of it. And HS just animates so good.

 

[Mmmkay]

no - his post illustrates my point. You shouldnt compare any one of the above listed graphic techniques in mmkays post with any other technique.

cgi to cgi
gameplay to gameplay
...and everything in between

Not "well they showed this cool looking graphic and they said it was realtime and it looks so much better than this game I played over here."

Again - compare gameplay to gameplay.

If the games are in different phases of development this must also be considered as well as game type as well as budget as well as realease date.

Yeah, but you seem to be trying to bunch realtime cinematics in with 'photomodes'. That is, by your own admission, incorrect. In my opinion there is a big gap between a bullshot and a realtime cinematic. Unlike the bullshot, that cinematic is fully achievable in the game you play.

There's a difference between comparing a CGI target render to realtime gameplay, and a realtime cutscene to realtime gameplay. Neither are accurate, but one is a much closer comparison than the other.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Other titles around? That's the whole problem, the other titles around are real games with known release dates, and you're comparing them to cinematics that could be released in 2008 for all we know! They look better? Of course they look better! So will all games relesed in 2007, 2008, 2009 or whenever.

You act like they are mystically not real and running or something. Or maybe you think they are "photomode" trailers, I'm really not sure. Looking back at my earlier posts in this thread I am specifically talking about how games are looking better now when they still have a year+ more left in development. (and the key thing is that they are real time, and not target renders) How this translates to graphical downgrades is beyond me. If anything, the games will look even better as noted in my last post. Which is why I am saying they are impressive.

There's a difference between comparing a CGI target render to realtime gameplay, and a realtime cutscene to realtime gameplay. Neither are accurate, but one is a much closer comparison than the other.

Very true. I guess I just differ because I dont expect major downgrades when going from realtime cutscene to realtime gameplay. Applys for both consoles.

Remember, this whole thing was sparked by me saying the best PS3 'game' at E3 was Assassin's Creed which likely to be also available on 360. In response I was a given a laundry list of trailers that were more impressive, well trailers are not games.

Can you clarify why you think AC is graphically superior to HS then? Which is what this whole debate is about, graphics. What gameplay footage of AC have you seen?

 

[TheChefO]

Yeah, but you seem to be trying to bunch realtime cinematics in with 'photomodes'. That is, by your own admission, incorrect. In my opinion there is a big gap between a bullshot and a realtime cinematic. Unlike the bullshot, that cinematic is fully achievable in the game you play.

There's a difference between comparing a CGI target render to realtime gameplay, and a realtime cutscene to realtime gameplay. Neither are accurate, but one is a much closer comparison than the other.

The techniques used to get to the end result on the screen are not what I'm arguing. My point is clear. Compare graphics for equal situations only. And more specificly as I listed, game type, dev time, budget, release date, etc must also be considered when comparing games.

On a side note, I would not compare cinematic cutscenes, real time or not with gameplay. The environment with cutscenes is completely controlled and can be optimized strictly for what is shown. Halo2 is a great illustration of my point.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Honest to god going screenshot for screenshot I honestly think Heavenly Sword looks a good amount better than Assassin's Creed. And I love the look of AC!

The problem is we haven't seen any video of it. And HS just animates so good.

I agree HS is up there, it's a very close call. Most gaming sites gave game of show award to AC.

IGN - AC Best PS3 action game (HS runner up)
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/709/709245p1.html
Gamespot - AC PS3 Game of Show
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6151435/p-24.html
1up - AC PS3 Game of the Show
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9371

 

[Bad_Boy]

Many gaming sites also assumed HS was just an arena based game due to the small playable demo. Which wouldnt really be fair, as it's much more than that.
But as I mentioned before, graphics is the thing. AC might be a great game, greatly animated, have a great story, etc. But those sites are going off of overall presentation, not just graphics.

*note, im definately not saying gameplay/story/animations dont matter. just referring to the argument.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Can you clarify why you think AC is graphically superior to HS then? Which is what this whole debate is about, graphics. What gameplay footage of AC have you seen?

Mainly the screenshots in the latest issue of GameInformer which are amazing, coupled with glowing previews, Game of Show awards from just about every site, and in the trailer for AC you can see the animations as the character scales the wall and grabs a gaurd, that is certainly realtime and looks very smooth.

I don't think we disagree, we're just sort of talking past eachother. I don't necessarily expect these games to have big graphical downgrades, I have a problem with this notion that PS3 is demonstrating the 'same level' of graphics as 360 7months before launch. It's not. It's signifigantly lower quality when you judge actual games released in the forseeable future, to the other actual games on 360.

The trailers look nice, but we don't know when they will be released, or what their competition will be at that time. They may not be impressive at all by the time they are released, who knows? All I know, is right now, PS3 games are not very impressive at all, they have a ways to go simply to match the 360 titles.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Mainly the screenshots in the latest issue of GameInformer which are amazing, coupled with glowing previews, Game of Show awards from just about every site, and in the trailer for AC you can see the animations as the character scales the wall and grabs a gaurd, that is certainly realtime and looks very smooth.

This I find funny. So game of the show awards makes AC better graphically? Game of the show awards are about presentation and gameplay as I mentioned, not just about graphics. Animations in the trailer? Isn't that what we have been arguing lol. So its ok for us to compare the AC trailer animations, but not consider the trailer animations of HS, Naughty Dog's new game, animations of MGS4, and the animations in the trailer of FFXIII? I'm not sure I get your point.

Graphically and technically again. I think I just see HS more impressive in those respects. Free flowing hair and clothing. self shadowing/AA/HDR/etc. Huge landscapes w/ hundreds of enemies on screen. Very nice physics system. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Once again you and I find that same battleground Scoob. Let's just agree to dissagree for once?

 

[scooby_dooby]

This I find funny. So game of the show awards makes AC better graphically? Game of the show awards are about presentation and gameplay as I mentioned, not just about graphics. Animations in the trailer? Isn't that what we have been arguing lol. So its ok for us to compare the AC trailer animations, but not consider the trailer animations of HS, Naughty Dog's new game, animations of MGS4, and the animations in the trailer of FFXIII? I'm not sure I get your point.

Graphically and technically again. I think I just see HS more impressive in those respects. Free flowing hair and clothing. self shadowing/AA/HDR/etc. Huge landscapes w/ hundreds of enemies on screen. Very nice physics system. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

The animations in the trailer I speak of clearly showed a transition to a gameplay camera, and is obviously gameplay to my eyes, go look for yourself I'm sure you'll agree. It is only a few seconds of the overall trailer, but were enough to give me a feel for the animation.

The screenshots in GI are in-game, and jawdropping. I didn't want to go there, but the hair clipping in HS is brutal, every enemy has the exact same canned animation repeating them in synch, and the main character looks very starved for polygons. That's just my opnion, you asked for it! I won't try and dissuade you of yours as both games are top notch.

This was never meant to be a HS vs AC debate, they are both great, and it's open to opinion. As I've said it's a damn good thing Sony has HS because other than that AC would be the only game keeping up with the 360 exclusives, and it's also available on 360 (most likely).

 

[Titanio]

Of course not, but it is a much (yes that is bolded AND underlined!) better representation of what the actual game will look like.

Not necessarily, at all.

Really this boils down to assumption, on either side of the coin, really. And which side of the coin you land on does really depend on your level of scepticism. For me, I'm happy to give most the benefit of the doubt until I know differently. Some are obvious, but in the absence of proof or significant indication that what you're seeing is a special case versus what an engine will be doing generally in a game, I don't see reason to treat such footage any differently than any other from a technical POV.

If we're comparing target realtime cinematics, then what about the realtime GOW trailer from months ago? That was absolutely stunning, and rivals anything released subsequently at E3. Everyone call 'CG!'

I did not, and certainly would not have.

 

[Mmmkay]

The techniques used to get to the end result on the screen are not what I'm arguing. My point is clear. Compare graphics for equal situations only. And more specificly as I listed, game type, dev time, budget, release date, etc must also be considered when comparing games.

Then I don't get your point anymore, because that scenario is impossible. Do we just go home? Surely we can still subjectively compare games in their incomplete state, and that is what we're trying to do. But to do this we have to understand the weightings of each type of media we have available. I'll always wait for gameplay in the end to make a proper judgement, but it doesn't mean that everything we have until then is meaningless.

On a side note, I would not compare cinematic cutscenes, real time or not with gameplay. The environment with cutscenes is completely controlled and can be optimized strictly for what is shown. Halo2 is a great illustration of my point.

Just insert a caveat to say that this is representative of x% of the game. Something like Halo 2 has what 5% of its game time in cutscenes? MGS3 on the other hand has anything up to 50%. It's a fundamental part of the game experience.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Really this boils down to assumption, on either side of the coin, really. And which side of the coin you land on does really depend on your level of scepticism.

For the last time, it has absolutely nothing to do with skepticism. It has to do with the simple fact that games are not played from these cut-scene perspectives, and graphics are always improved in these cut-scenes. It's about not comparing tomorrow's cut-scenes to today's games, it's about comparing apples to apples, very straightforward concept.

 

[TheChefO]

For the last time, it has absolutely nothing to do with skepticism. It has to do with the simple fact that games are not played from these cut-scene perspectives, and graphics are always improved in these cut-scenes. It's about not comparing tomorrow's cut-scenes to today's games, it's about comparing apples to apples, very straightforward concept.

EXACTLY - Thank you Scoob

Some here, for whatever reason (hmmmm), cannot grasp this concept.

mmkay -

What I am saying in that post is that those factors must be considered in comparing games graphics. But one should not make a habit out of saying "this game's graphics are better" while looking at a cutscene/trailer of something and are comparing it to real gameplay. Why is this not obvious? Perhaps I need a few lessons in writting to make my points more clearly

Also no I would still not compare or weigh how important cutscenes are to a game in factoring its graphic quality. Otherwise I'd jyst pop in a movie and say "this game has the best graphics you've ever seen!"

 

[Titanio]

For the last time, it has absolutely nothing to do with skepticism. It has to do with the simple fact that games are not played from these cut-scene perspectives

You keep harping on about camera angles, I've already acknowledged their different in many cases in-game, but that's irrelevant to the renderer (at least, if the camera angle isn't fixed in-game).

and graphics are always improved in these cut-scenes.

Nope.

 

[Bad_Boy]

The animations in the trailer I speak of clearly showed a transition to a gameplay camera, and is obviously gameplay to my eyes, go look for yourself I'm sure you'll agree. It is only a few seconds of the overall trailer, but were enough to give me a feel for the animation.

Not sure I see any type of gameplay in this HD trailer... http://gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=2581 Maybe representation of gameplay; but the trailer definately has higher details/polygons than the released screens shots have shown. http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/707/707154/assassins-creed-20060510005327089.jpg not really sure where I see a superior polygon count over HS characters either. I just dont see how you can compare that trailer to other games, but not compare the trailers of the games I mentioned. Doesnt seem too fair.

That's just my opnion, you asked for it!

Definately, I dont knock your opinion one bit. Just maybe question it a little. I'm all for opinions. (mine are probably out there to some of you too lol)

This was never meant to be a HS vs AC debate, they are both great, and it's open to opinion.

ofcourse, and I think we may have become more off topic than should have. This thread is about review scores right?

As I've said it's a damn good thing Sony has HS because other than that AC would be the only game keeping up with the 360 exclusives, and it's also available on 360 (most likely).

I'm just going to leave that comment alone lol, It would probably warrant another 4-5 pages of debate. We obviously have our differences on the subject.

 

[scooby_dooby]

You keep harping on about camera angles, I've already acknowledged their different in many cases in-game, but that's irrelevant to the renderer (at least, if the camera angle isn't fixed in-game).

Cinematics are an extremely powerful thing and make a huge difference. Are you seriously going to argue this?

Nope.

Yes. Even in your poster child for real-time cut scenes MGS, the cut scenes have better texture details and much higher LOD. And this exception, most games show an even greater drop.

Bad_Boy - "I just dont see how you can compare that trailer to other games, but not compare the trailers of the games I mentioned. Doesnt seem too fair."
For graphical fidelity I'm using my issue of GI that is sitting on my bathroom floor, the trailer simply gave me a feel for the animations which were very impressive(this goes without saying as it's the original PoP team and they've increased animations from 800 to 4000, nevertheless it was nice to seee it in action for a few seconds)

 

[Mmmkay]

EXACTLY - Thank you Scoob

Some here, for whatever reason (hmmmm), cannot grasp this concept.

Less of the ad hominems please.

What you both propose is only possible by comparing retail game against retail game. The rest of us are trying to provide an amicable methodology relying on realtime footage from incomplete games.

 

[Titanio]

Cinematics are an extremely powerful thing and make a huge difference. Are you seriously going to argue this?

They do not make a single solitary difference to rendering quality if the only difference is camera angles. No offense, but it's a ridiculous point, and you keep parroting it. Maybe you can't tell the difference between graphical quality and camera work, but don't assume others can't make the distinction.

Yes.

No. The statement that cutscene graphics are always better than in-game graphics is patently untrue.