the graphics on the xbox and ps2 where close, the first game to really show the advantage of the xbox graphics was splintercell I think, where you can compare the same game on both systems and one is better then the other, but I think that was because of memory more than anything else
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Nice GOW/MGS4 Compare
- Thread starter onetimeposter
- Start date
slider said:Didn't say anything about hostility!
Well that's what I'm saying. I mean the worst we have is people just saying lock the thread. Let's let it thrive and grow. I mean this thread is labeled as such, it's not MGS4 only or GOW only. It's for both, so a disscussion can happen without having a huge one sidedness that leads to big bad arguments...
That MGS4 shot wasn't from a alpha kit for PS3. The GOW shot (a very old shot) was taken on a xbox 360 alpha kit. What kit it was taken on doesn't matter, as that's just a fan-ish way of saying one piece of hardware is more powerful than tht other. Which isn't really the case when comparing these games...
I'm so sick of hearing, i don't see anything on xbox 360 that looks next gen, or PS3 is so much more powerful that it's a night and day difference, blah blah blah... That's a bunch of nonsense. GOW doesn't look next gen to people and MGS4 does? If your answer to that is "yes" then I dont' think you are really looking at this clearly.
look at pictures of both of these games and they are comparable graphically. Although I think GOW is more detailed, but that's a personal opinion. MGS4 has always beena game focused on the real time cutscenes. The biggest difference is artistic style. MGS4 didn't show any gameplay verses GOW. You simple can't compare a cutscene to in game playable action. When it's in game you need to make animaitons fit within a specific time frame, (for example reloading and shooting a gun). In a cutscene you can stream the entire animation from a big motion capture file.
There isn't anything wrong with the way graphics looks on xbox 360 compared to PS3. The ONLY difference is artistic style/choices between the artists invovled. Both systems are capable of the same damn things graphically, and I'm talking about from the hardware standpoint there isn't one eyecandy effect that can't be performed on both systems.
I'm tired of seeing all the nonsense about animation not looking next gen on xbox 360 compared to PS3, and that the xbox 360 isn't powerful enough to handle better animation. That again is complete garbage! people are complaining about the damn motion capture EA uses in all of thier sports games. Yes EA uses the same motion capture data on the next gen platforms that they use on teh current platforms, the biggest difference is some mo cap may have more frames (or in the case of teh game being the same framerate as last gen) more motion capture can be stored in system memory. Btw, you want to know why HANDS on players in sports games still looks like ass? It's because mo cap data doesn't capture finger movements. Your not going to see that improve any times quick.
Also there's a whole lot of BS going on about phsyics based animation. We had this last gen, it's called rag doll physiscs, leg & arm kinematics. You aren't going to see a whole lot of physics based skeletal animation beyond the basic stuff early this gen as this takes significant research time, and for the most part it's not required in the majority of games where typical blended animations and animation weighting are good enough. Yeah you *might* see a game somewhere along the lines that phsycially models the muscle structure on top of the bone data to make the skin of a model react properly to deformations, however thats a VERY expensive thing (is it necessary? no) to do that I don't think these consoles would be capable of in yoru average game. sure some games need more felixble animations systems, but the people talkling about animation in sports games on xbxo 360 not looking next gen simply don't knwo what they are talking abotu. Sports games (even the sprots games on the current xbox and PS2) are farmore advanced than most games released. that's right all that motioncapture data where the players hands move like flat palms.
...and last, NO PS3 doesn't have an advantage in an animation department. again the difference will be the mocap data, and the quality of the animatiors invovled with projects. it doesn't have any advantage, or the 360 doesn't have a weakness in this area.
You can agree or disagree, you can think I'm acting like an asshole for posting this. However all the crap being posted in forums is really pissing me off lately, mainly because it's a buch of crap that simply isn't true. Alot of peopel are falling for CG and thinking it's real time. The same thing happend last gen and it's annoying.
I'm so sick of hearing, i don't see anything on xbox 360 that looks next gen, or PS3 is so much more powerful that it's a night and day difference, blah blah blah... That's a bunch of nonsense. GOW doesn't look next gen to people and MGS4 does? If your answer to that is "yes" then I dont' think you are really looking at this clearly.
look at pictures of both of these games and they are comparable graphically. Although I think GOW is more detailed, but that's a personal opinion. MGS4 has always beena game focused on the real time cutscenes. The biggest difference is artistic style. MGS4 didn't show any gameplay verses GOW. You simple can't compare a cutscene to in game playable action. When it's in game you need to make animaitons fit within a specific time frame, (for example reloading and shooting a gun). In a cutscene you can stream the entire animation from a big motion capture file.
There isn't anything wrong with the way graphics looks on xbox 360 compared to PS3. The ONLY difference is artistic style/choices between the artists invovled. Both systems are capable of the same damn things graphically, and I'm talking about from the hardware standpoint there isn't one eyecandy effect that can't be performed on both systems.
I'm tired of seeing all the nonsense about animation not looking next gen on xbox 360 compared to PS3, and that the xbox 360 isn't powerful enough to handle better animation. That again is complete garbage! people are complaining about the damn motion capture EA uses in all of thier sports games. Yes EA uses the same motion capture data on the next gen platforms that they use on teh current platforms, the biggest difference is some mo cap may have more frames (or in the case of teh game being the same framerate as last gen) more motion capture can be stored in system memory. Btw, you want to know why HANDS on players in sports games still looks like ass? It's because mo cap data doesn't capture finger movements. Your not going to see that improve any times quick.
Also there's a whole lot of BS going on about phsyics based animation. We had this last gen, it's called rag doll physiscs, leg & arm kinematics. You aren't going to see a whole lot of physics based skeletal animation beyond the basic stuff early this gen as this takes significant research time, and for the most part it's not required in the majority of games where typical blended animations and animation weighting are good enough. Yeah you *might* see a game somewhere along the lines that phsycially models the muscle structure on top of the bone data to make the skin of a model react properly to deformations, however thats a VERY expensive thing (is it necessary? no) to do that I don't think these consoles would be capable of in yoru average game. sure some games need more felixble animations systems, but the people talkling about animation in sports games on xbxo 360 not looking next gen simply don't knwo what they are talking abotu. Sports games (even the sprots games on the current xbox and PS2) are farmore advanced than most games released. that's right all that motioncapture data where the players hands move like flat palms.
...and last, NO PS3 doesn't have an advantage in an animation department. again the difference will be the mocap data, and the quality of the animatiors invovled with projects. it doesn't have any advantage, or the 360 doesn't have a weakness in this area.
You can agree or disagree, you can think I'm acting like an asshole for posting this. However all the crap being posted in forums is really pissing me off lately, mainly because it's a buch of crap that simply isn't true. Alot of peopel are falling for CG and thinking it's real time. The same thing happend last gen and it's annoying.
seismologist
Regular
it looks pretty close until you see it in motion. That's when you notice things like skin movement and Snake's suit flexing. Why the GOW guy is like a hardened robot.
We've known that PS3 will be king when it comes to realistic physics and animation but these aren't the kind of things you can see from a screenshot. The rendering capabilities are pretty similar.
We've known that PS3 will be king when it comes to realistic physics and animation but these aren't the kind of things you can see from a screenshot. The rendering capabilities are pretty similar.
Last edited by a moderator:
TekkenMaster
Newcomer
Call me silly but where's the hud in gow if its gameplay? And I thought this was a 3rd person shooter shouldn't we see his back almost all the time? Even the gow high definition trailer as juicy as it is wasn't even gameplay, infact you don't see any gameplay at all - there were some scenes that could pass as spectator mode but still its not gameplay. Hasan, you will stop the double standards. The gameplay excuse is getting old. The two games can't be compared. End of story.onetimeposter said:Realtime (TGS Alpha Kit) vs Gameplay (E3 build Alpha Kit)
Last edited by a moderator:
again your comparring in game "gameplay" animations where each individual animation has specific time lentgh, to a cutscene where all the animation data can be continuously streamed from memory. MGS4 wasn't showing you gameplay animations. I'm sure you realize the two can't be compared.
The last half of that sentance made sense, but the first half is what I was talking about. PS3 doesn't have any inherent advantage with animation.
We've known that PS3 will be king when it comes to realistic physics and animation but these aren't the kind of things you can see from a screenshot.
The last half of that sentance made sense, but the first half is what I was talking about. PS3 doesn't have any inherent advantage with animation.
Last edited by a moderator:
tekken master,
perhaps the HUD was disabled. Howeve rI don't really see why having a hud makes somethign gameplay or not.Call me silly but where's the hud in gow if its gameplay?
No, that's not necessarily true.And I thought this was a 3rd person shooter shouldn't we see his back almost all the time?
I'm not talking about the trailer. I'm talking about the playable prototype they have for GOW that has been seen in numerous video clips as of late.Even the gow high definition trailer as juicy as it is wasn't even gameplay, infact you don't see of gameplay at all - there were some scenes that could pass as spectator mode but still its not gameplay.
what are you talking about? he's not in this thread, is he?Hasan, you will stop the double standards. This bullshit gameplay argument is getting old.
TekkenMaster
Newcomer
Hasan is onetimeposter. He got ban so made another account.
Qroach said:again your comparring in game "gameplay" animations where each individual animation has specific time lentgh, to a cutscene where all the animation data can be continuously streamed from memory. MGS4 wasn't showing you gameplay animations. I'm sure you realize the two can't be compared.
The last half of that sentance made sense, but the first half is what I was talking about. PS3 doesn't have any inherent advantage with animation.
You are assuming that the particular GOW picture used was a "gameplay" screenshot.
onanie said:You are assuming that the particular GOW picture used was a "gameplay" screenshot.
No, I'm not, and you're completly missing the point of what I'm saying. Those two pics show that the graphics are comparable.
Alstrong said:You see that character's position many times in the TGS gameplay video. It is not unreasonable to assume that this screenshot is from gameplay.
It is not a particularly useful viewpoint, given the amount of zoom on the character. The character's position is not the issue (also known as 2nd person view).
Qroach said:No, I'm not, and you're completly missing the point of what I'm saying. Those two pics show that the graphics are comparable.
Yes you are.
I see you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Last time I'm going to say this. No I'm NOT asuming that GOW picture was a gameplay shot! I never said anything of the sort and that is NOT the point I was making. The screen shots ONLY show the graphics are comparable. That is it!onanie said:Yes you are.
My comments about people saying the MGS4 demo as a WHOLE was so much better than anything seen on xbox relates to both demos in thier entirety. It has nothing to do with individual screenshots. One is a game demo that can be played, and one is in game/in engine cinematics. The comparrison I made was about the animations in BOTH those demos. In game cinematics and actual playable demos have completely different animation requirements.
Last edited by a moderator:
Qroach said:My comments about people saying the MGS4 demo as a WHOLE was so much better than anythign seen on xbox
Its not wise to argue with people that make that statment. You should know that the your ability to sway them will be in vain. The images ARE equal. Each one has their strengths and weaknesses. I personally dislike the general lighting of GoW. It gives everything the same hueish color. In the MGS pic..I like the lighting..the more natural lighting appeals to me. What I LOVE about the GoW pic is the sharpness of the texture. The MGS pic seems a little more blurry and less sharp.
Oh..and onetimeposter (hasamasnd) threads are usualy made from the ground up to set discourse to the thread. Almost every thread hes ever created has had a slant to it or is just information without him commenting at all. This type of battling and posting back and forth is being brought on by eachother.
Qroach said:I see you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Last imte I'm going to say this. No I'm NOT asuming that GOW picture was a gameplay shot. I never said anything of the sort and that is NOT the point I was making. The screen shots ONLY show the graphics are comparable. That is it!
My comments about people saying the MGS4 demo as a WHOLE was so much better than anything seen on xbox relates to both demos in thier entirety. It has nothing to do with individual screenshots. One is a game demo that can be played, and one is in game/in engine cinematics. The comparrison I made was about the animations in BOTH those demos. In game cinematics and actual playable demos have completely different animation requirements.
Just to clarify your position, as it seemed you were implying that GOW was somehow disadvantaged in that screenshot because it was "gameplay". I'm glad you dropped that argument.
MGS4 is a graphical showcase, and I agree, if we were to make a valid comparison, we should use something similar from the xbox. Would you be so kind as to suggest an example?
BlueTsunami said:Its not wise to argue with people that make that statment. You should know that the your ability to sway them will be in vain. The images ARE equal. Each one has their strengths and weaknesses. I personally dislike the general lighting of GoW. It gives everything the same hueish color. In the MGS pic..I like the lighting..the more natural lighting appeals to me. What I LOVE about the GoW pic is the sharpness of the texture. The MGS pic seems a little more blurry and less sharp.
I totally agree with you. Your comments about what you like/ displike are very valid points. it all comes down to which one you like better, not that one was technically better than the next.
onanie,
No I wasn't implying that. I'm sorry that what you thought, but you are simply wrong.Just to clarify your position, as it seemed you were implying that GOW was somehow disadvantaged in that screenshot because it was "gameplay". I'm glad you dropped that argument.
if your comparring graphics than you can use god of war. There's not much point comparing animations in cutscenes as it's usually just motion capture anyway.MGS4 is a graphical showcase, and I agree, if we were to make a valid comparison, we should use something similar from the xbox. Would you be so kind as to suggest an example?
onanie said:It is not a particularly useful viewpoint, given the amount of zoom on the character. The character's position is not the issue (also known as 2nd person view).
The image could have been cropped to highlight the similar positioning of the character comparing it to the MGS4 picture. (Take into account the odd aspect ratio of the GoW half of the picture).
But anyways...
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 316
- Views
- 75K
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 3K
- Sticky
- Replies
- 1K
- Views
- 373K
- Replies
- 96
- Views
- 12K