Silent Hill 3 in progressive scan.... Bloody hell!

[Phil]

okay, a bit OT but might aswell ask it here:

since I can't find ICO (I'll have to import, as there's no chance finding it here), I'm thinking of buying a Silent Hill game. I've never played a Silent Hill, other than a demo of the second part (which I didn't like very much due to the stearing and not quite knowing what I should do). Hearing all the positive remarks about the series, I'm actually wondering if I should give part 3 a chance. What do you guys think? Could I get 3 alone - or should I start with part 1, followed by 2 and then 3? tia...

 

[chaphack]

If you want a scarier console game, i recomend Tecmo Fatal Frame/Zero.

 

[London Geezer]

Might be just me, but i think SH3 is around SH2 with just more beefy characters...dont see the deal with it...??? It has much better cutscenes though.

WELL the textures LOOK better, but i guess most of it comes from different/better artwork (depends on the taste really).
the shadowing system is amazing considering the platform it's running on.
the characters are also MUCH more detailed than SH2 and the textures on them are much better than SH2...


i guess for some people that could be enough to consider SH3 as VERY PRETTY, even though, yes it's the same series of a game running on the same platform, so u won't see SH1-SH2 differences...

 

[maskrider]

Storywise, for those who are familiar with Silent Hill will not relate anything SH3 to SH2, SH3 is more a sequel to SH1 and SH2 is almost an independent story with Silent Hill as the common place.

SH3 is different, comparing to SH2 by the creators of the series (I watched the Making of Silent Hill 3), SH2 is more about implicit psychological horror that builds up gradually than the SH3's more explicit horror.

SH3 is gorgeous and indeed upgraded a lot graphics-wise on PS2. I am looking forward to the SH3 PC version as the SH2 PC version is gorgeous running 1024x768 4xAA 16xAF on my ATI 9700Pro. Creature Labs (Deano C) has done a really good job porting the game to PC.

 

[maskrider]

okay, a bit OT but might aswell ask it here:

since I can't find ICO (I'll have to import, as there's no chance finding it here), I'm thinking of buying a Silent Hill game. I've never played a Silent Hill, other than a demo of the second part (which I didn't like very much due to the stearing and not quite knowing what I should do). Hearing all the positive remarks about the series, I'm actually wondering if I should give part 3 a chance. What do you guys think? Could I get 3 alone - or should I start with part 1, followed by 2 and then 3? tia...

3 is more related to 1, 2 is quite independent. You may want to read about 1 before playing 3.

 

[London Geezer]

3 is more related to 1, 2 is quite independent. You may want to read about 1 before playing 3.

yep. i recommend u read a walkthrough or at least a detailed description of SH1 story since it's pretty much a prequel to SH3.

SH2 was just the "unlucky psycho" drawn in by Silent Hill's magnet for weirdos...

 

[marconelly!]

Put a computer monitor up next to your TV on any game to see the effect with your own eyes.

Bah, *that* kind of flicker is negligible. In many ways I prefer the picture from my TV to that on my monitor actually, when it comes to watching games and moves. It's staggering just how much better DVDs look on a TV comared to PC+monitor for example, colors are so much more rich and vibrant.

WELL the textures LOOK better, but i guess most of it comes from different/better artwork (depends on the taste really).
the shadowing system is amazing considering the platform it's running on.
the characters are also MUCH more detailed than SH2 and the textures on them are much better than SH2...

Don't forget the new 'scare' effects (nice use of multitexturing, etc.), and better looking lighting.

 

[notAFanB]

Might be just me, but i think SH3 is around SH2 with just more beefy characters...dont see the deal with it...??? It has much better cutscenes though.

fair you think that, but it's doing quite alotmore than 2. the state could be made 'halo2 looks awfully like halo with more beefy textureing' 8)

when a sequel use less subtle addidtions and keeps the look to the general rxten this happs.

hl2 is not what to expect from sequels 12 monthes apart (or thereabouts)

If you want a scarier console game, i recomend Tecmo Fatal Frame/Zero.

ok now your just crapping on this thread, please refrain. I've already stated my vciews on ff and we will leave it aat that (start anoth thread about the merit of suvival horror if you like)

 

[London Geezer]

Bah, *that* kind of flicker is negligible. In many ways I prefer the picture from my TV to that on my monitor actually, when it comes to watching games and moves. It's staggering just how much better DVDs look on a TV comared to PC+monitor for example, colors are so much more rich and vibrant.

whatever u say, i put my LCD screen side by side my little 15" TV and i'm sorry to say the difference is night and day. actually, more. and thats using interlacing with both. when i switch to pro-scan on my LCD the difference is like.... dont know, find me a metaphore here. but its A LOT.

Don't forget the new 'scare' effects (nice use of multitexturing, etc.), and better looking lighting

yeah some effects seen in the last part of the game are amazing. i was checking again last night and some texture details on the walls and in other parts arre comlpletely lost when viewed in interlaced mode, lost in a mess of pixels. in progressive scan u can see the right patterns the way they were meant to be seen... oh god i sound like "Nvidia: The way it's meant to be played!"

 

[Phil]

whatever u say, i put my LCD screen side by side my little 15" TV and i'm sorry to say the difference is night and day. actually, more. and thats using interlacing with both. when i switch to pro-scan on my LCD the difference is like.... dont know, find me a metaphore here. but its A LOT.

Why not compare it with the micro television? Take any LCD and get a TV for about the same amount of money and compare the picture quality. A LCD will get you at least a 100Hz TV at at least 32" size. My tv owns those tiny displays in every aspect (unless someone is stupid enough to sit up close and compare pixels).

 

[London Geezer]

Why not compare it with the micro television? Take any LCD and get a TV for about the same amount of money and compare the picture quality. A LCD will get you at least a 100Hz TV at at least 32" size. My tv owns those tiny displays in every aspect (unless someone is stupid enough to sit up close and compare pixels).

I KNOW sweetie, but i only said that because Marco said that at 15" the pixels are so small that interlacing effects are not visible even on crappy TV's. if i got it wrong then excuse my very stupid example. because it is stupid...

 

[Phil]

actually, Marco was replying to the comment/remark Lazy made about flickering on interlaced displays after he pointed out that MGS2 has hardly any flickering.

 

[London Geezer]

actually, Marco was replying to the comment/remark Lazy made about flickering on interlaced displays after he pointed out that MGS2 has hardly any flickering.

oh.... sorry... i'm sure i read something the wrong way... oh well it must be the drool for seeing SH3 so detailed...

 

[Fox5]

Wow, I was unsure about getting the component to vga adapter for my gamecube, but I've made up my mind now. I hooked up my dreamcast with soul calibur running next to the soul calibur 2 demo on a tv, and soul calibur blew away soul calibur 2's graphics. Sure, you could see that soul calibur 2 had more complex stages and character models, but most of the detail was lost and the dreamcast just had so much sharper details.

 

[marconelly!]

In DC Soul Calibur running on VGA you can see every blurry texture, every mipmapping problem, every little graphics problem for that matter. Yeah it looks sharp, but the flaws you get to see are not worth it, IMO. I guess I just have different opinion on this whole issue.

 

[maskrider]

In DC Soul Calibur running on VGA you can see every blurry texture, every mipmapping problem, every little graphics problem for that matter. Yeah it looks sharp, but the flaws you get to see are not worth it, IMO. I guess I just have different opinion on this whole issue.

I feel the same for DC SC.

 

[Fox5]

Well, I ignored the flaws because it's a dreamcast port of a psx arcade game or something like that.(dreamcast remake perhaps....) I just focused on its strengths and tried to imagine how soul calibur 2 would look if the best parts of soul calibur 1 looked that good.

 

[London Geezer]

Well, I ignored the flaws because it's a dreamcast port of a psx arcade game or something like that.(dreamcast remake perhaps....) I just focused on its strengths and tried to imagine how soul calibur 2 would look if the best parts of soul calibur 1 looked that good.

i think soul calibur 2 in progressive scan would look much better than SC....

 

[maskrider]

Well, I ignored the flaws because it's a dreamcast port of a psx arcade game or something like that.(dreamcast remake perhaps....) I just focused on its strengths and tried to imagine how soul calibur 2 would look if the best parts of soul calibur 1 looked that good.

i think soul calibur 2 in progressive scan would look much better than SC....

The difference for both running progressive (DC VGA, PS2/GCN/XB 480p) in terms of graphics is very significant to me, SC2 wins hands down.