If PS3 can really do 1Tflops

Almost all shots are clean and AAed (I didn't take the time to wait for the download of all the damn large shots and I don't think you need to post that much shots as IMG than links, you are wasting bandwidth, man), I am complaining about not the case in game.

This is indeed common knowledge that screenshots are not true representative of the game, not only X-BOX, PS2 and others are the same case. I am merely saying your included shots are not the image displayed in game.

I think I will not read this thread again and I rest my comment, I suggest you to edit your post to include links instead of IMGs.

 

I play it on my hdtv and it looks fine. No where near as good as my games on my pc with 6xfsaa and 16tap aniso but it does look better than the ps2. But the ps2 has come along way with its jaggies.
+

 

lazy is just replying to randy's pathetic trolling.

Sure the game do not have impressive 16x FSAA and crap(dont see some of you complaining about SH3 or ZOE2 screens), but it IS one of THE most beautiful console game today. Nothing on the PS2 can touch PDO graphics. Maybe RL or MP on GC come close, but as it stands, PDO == Beauty.

Those who have not played the game, do so on a good TV, and come back to me again.

 

Who's doing pathetic trolling??? This topic is about "if PS3 can really do 1 TFLOPs", so why are we discussing images of an Xbox game in here? The answer is simple- Chaperone who cannot resist turning every discussion into why Xbox is great.

You don't see the graininess and drab colors? Fine. It just shows you how a good deal of merit comes right from the eye of the beholder. There's nothing wrong with that if it allows you to get into the game that much more. Just don't be so shocked when other people have different impressions, and try to be honest with yourself that other impressions can exist other than yours.

 

chaperone, I have Xbox, and I have PDO. Good game, ive beat it 4 time so far.

Onto the graphics, yes they are AMAZING, the water is incredible too.

Although, the graphics didn't really "WOW" me as the MGS2 demo did 2 years ago, although I will admit PDO DOES look better, although MGS2's rain > PDO's laughable attempt at rain effects.

MGS2 floored me when I first popped in that demo.. This game, looks amazing but just doesn't 'wow' me.

While there is no 'grainyness' in PDO that I see on my TV, the game does have drab colors, as do alot of Xbox games for some reason. Colors seem a tad on the washed out side.

 

Do you have an RPT or Direct View set? My colors are fine, since my TV has great contrast. This can make a big difference.

 

You might have a point there, but too bad it was not me who brought PDO into this discussion.
So have you played PDO?


Paul, i guess that is your opinions and i respect that.

As for me, i love MGS2 cutscenes, very nice looking and well directed. The whole game though, do not impress me that much. MGS2 is what i call drab colors! The whole place is just filled with washed out colors. Well that might be Konami design choice but it didnt reall wow me with faint blurry looks.

 

Johnny, it's not my TV belive me none of my other systems are like this. My PDO looks like the screenshots a page back, although a little sharper.

As for MGS2.. It's not suppost to be a colorfull game, it's real. PDO on the other hand, should be colorfull because it's that type of game.

 

Panzer Dragoon has always sported a subdued, pastel color palette... even in the Saturn versions. The colors are not meant to be high contrast like in, for example, a Sonic the Hedgehog game.

 

Well metal gear solid two compared to pdo is not fair at all. ONe takes place in small areas the other takes place in wide open areas. The wide open areas take alot more rendering power than the inclosed areas

 

BUT u have some scenes in MGS2 where you can see the whole ship in its entirety, with people on and elicopters, plus the water and if i remember correctly that amazing bridge at the beginning of the game.
and also in the second part some scenes show the whole exagonal structured thing in its entirety.
all of those structures are pretty polygon heavy....
but yeah, most of the game is in enclosed areas, although that does not mean that the engine cannot handle open areas as i said above.

 

Excuse my ignorance, but is PDO not on rails? If so, that can make for easier rendering demands than MGS2's "enclosed" areas.

 

Yes . THe engine can do outside rendering (I've played most of the game just didn't impress but thats me) Of course its also dark and it can be used to hide alot of things missing or low polygon counts. Using the same textures over and over will go unnoticed. Mgs2 looked good but was able to get away with alot.

 

But you can also get away with a lot in a rail shooter. Much more so IMO.

 

How so ? You still need to draw the huge outside locations ... you still need to do water effects rain effects as far as the eye can see. terrain as far as the eye can see . Its a lot harder to do than something that takes place in a very small room . The game is on rails but i can say the same for mgs2. You follow a set path. Sure you can go here and there but your choices are highly limited. Even a game like shenmue in the end your limited and thus on a rail to the ending of the game.

 

Eh, it's not exactly the same, and I'm sure you realize it. When you have the open game where you can position yourself anywhere you want - in the middle of the crowd for example, or in the empty open space - and both can occur during the same scene, at any given moment you have to take care if the scene rendering will become too intensive and produce slowdowns. In PDO, and other such games, everything is pre-scripted. There is no AI, there are no uncertainties. Programmer knows what is going to be on the screen at any given moment, and player can basically do nothing to change that.

Yeah, but AI in MGS2 takes a lot more power than the absence of it PDO. I have no idea why these two games are even being compared, btw, as they couldn't possibly be more different (except that they generally both look great)

Btw, whoever said PS2 can't even *touch* what is being displayed in PDO, should play ZOE2 before making such bold statement. It touches it, and then some

 

Heh haven't played zoe2.. But theere is aload of ai in pdo. It may not be as complex as mgs2. But then again mgs2 has only a hand full (At the most) of enemies on screen at once where as pdo has easily twice the number at times. How these are being compared i don't know but alot of ps2 people say mgs2 is the greatest thing since sex... and i just don't agree at all

 

A lot of things can be pre-calculated for an on-rails shooter. Things like level-of-detail models, mip-mapping, visibility culling. Even enemy movements. It's one step removed from replaying a display list streamed off the disc.

Phat.

 

I don't know... From what I've played, it looked like enemies charge in at the exact same places, follow the exact same paths, etc. every time you replay a level. Much like in standard vert/horizontal scrolling shooters. Where's the AI in that? :\

 

Depends on the difficulty level. I still say you can get away with more in a mgs2 game than a pdo game. Thats just what i'm saying.