Fallout 3 New Vegas - THKS to all those who beta tested it!

[108 Stars]

He probably doesn´t think it is the only console-game dong so.

[Phosis]

You don't think it looks impressive?

Sure it does.

But THE ONLY impressive console game? You have to be out of your goddamn mind if you actually think that.

[kokujin]

Sure it does.

But THE ONLY impressive console game? You have to be out of your goddamn mind if you actually think that.

It's true, most games don't look that good anymore,I've played Crysis with various graphical mods, it's hard to be impressed with "realistic"graphics.Kirby's Epic Yarn also looks amazing.LA Noire doesn't look that good, but the facial recognition technology they are using is out of this world,I hope it gets a PC release so I can play it in 60 FPS.There are some, but they are few and far between.

[OldSchool]

What the fuck are you talking about?

You don't think it looks impressive?

Goddammit, Phosis knows Uncharted 2 is an impressive looking game... what he and I are trying to get you to admit is that there are 'plenty' of other top notch looking games on various Consoles.

You're a fool, kokujin if you truly believe that Uncharted 2 is the only visually impressive Console game.


Killzone 2/3
Resistance 1/2/3


for starters... on one console mind you... c'mon kokujin, be realistic

It's true, most games don't look that good anymore,I've played Crysis with various graphical mods, it's hard to be impressed with "realistic"graphics.Kirby's Epic Yarn also looks amazing.LA Noire doesn't look that good, but the facial recognition technology they are using is out of this world,I hope it gets a PC release so I can play it in 60 FPS.There are some, but they are few and far between.

Are you serious? You're bringing Crysis up in this conversation...
I'm sorry to inform you, but the Crytech engine takes a GIANT dump on anything the Uncharted 2 engine can do.... that's no an opinion, that's fact.

That's also why it's still to this day used as a Benchmark for top notch gaming PCs.




fuck it, you're obviously a silly, silly cat
like what you like

[Phosis]

It's true, most games don't look that good anymore,I've played Crysis with various graphical mods, it's hard to be impressed with "realistic"graphics.Kirby's Epic Yarn also looks amazing.LA Noire doesn't look that good, but the facial recognition technology they are using is out of this world,I hope it gets a PC release so I can play it in 60 FPS.There are some, but they are few and far between.

Art direction probably has more to do with how good a game looks than anything. Sure, games like Crysis which are renowned for having state of the art graphics are going to look better than most things. Likewise, the PC is a much more expandable, and altogether powerful system than any available console. But there are games whose art direction I infinitely prefer to something like Crysis any day; it really depends on how effective the presentation is.

I guess I can see how many console games are not "impressive" compared to some of the newer PC games. It just depends how much you appreciate what can be done within the restrictions of hardware, and if those capabilities impress you or not. Just in the same way that (as is a popular discussion right now) Pier Solar is very impressive from the perspective of that hardware, it could obviously not compare to something like Crysis graphically, because Crysis has much more powerful hardware to work with. As for the PS3 and Xbox 360, I was very impressed with the graphics in, say, Final Fantasy XIII (REGARDLESS on what the opinions of the game itself are, it is indeed very pretty to look at.) And even Metal Gear Solid 4. You aren't completely wrong; Uncharted 2 is one of the most impressive looking games on any console, ever. But it certainly isn't the ONLY one.

[OldSchool]

Art direction probably has more to do with how good a game looks than anything. Sure, games like Crysis which are renowned for having state of the art graphics are going to look better than most things. Likewise, the PC is a much more expandable, and altogether powerful system than any available console. But there are games whose art direction I infinitely prefer to something like Crysis any day; it really depends on how effective the presentation is.

I guess I can see how many console games are not "impressive" compared to some of the newer PC games. It just depends how much you appreciate what can be done within the restrictions of hardware, and if those capabilities impress you or not. Just in the same way that (as is a popular discussion right now) Pier Solar is very impressive from the perspective of that hardware, it could obviously not compare to something like Crysis graphically, because Crysis has much more powerful hardware to work with. As for the PS3 and Xbox 360, I was very impressed with the graphics in, say, Final Fantasy XIII (REGARDLESS on what the opinions of the game itself are, it is indeed very pretty to look at.) And even Metal Gear Solid 4. You aren't completely wrong; Uncharted 2 is one of the most impressive looking games on any console, ever. But it certainly isn't the ONLY one.

solid post ^



I guess I'm easy to please... hell, I still think the early 3D iterations of Games look amazing... and yes, I'm using the word amazing.

I'll always have Wolf3D (the original) fresh in my mind... so anything past that level of graphical capability is going to impress me right off the bat.


I think it's amazing that we can see 1s and 0s on a screen...

[kokujin]

Goddammit, Phosis knows Uncharted 2 is an impressive looking game... what he and I are trying to get you to admit is that there are 'plenty' of other top notch looking games on various Consoles.

You're a fool, kokujin if you truly believe that Uncharted 2 is the only visually impressive Console game.


Killzone 2/3
Resistance 1/2/3


for starters... on one console mind you... c'mon kokujin, be realistic



Are you serious? You're bringing Crysis up in this conversation...
I'm sorry to inform you, but the Crytech engine takes a GIANT dump on anything the Uncharted 2 engine can do.... that's no an opinion, that's fact.

That's also why it's still to this day used as a Benchmark for top notch gaming PCs.




fuck it, you're obviously a silly, silly cat
like what you like

I was actually saying I am not impressed with other titles employing realistic visuals due to the fact I have played Crysis with mods.Nothing on any console looks as good as Crysis.

solid post ^



I guess I'm easy to please... hell, I still think the early 3D iterations of Games look amazing... and yes, I'm using the word amazing.

I'll always have Wolf3D (the original) fresh in my mind... so anything past that level of graphical capability is going to impress me right off the bat.


I think it's amazing that we can see 1s and 0s on a screen...

Yet you say DS visuals are garbage.

[OldSchool]

I was actually saying I am not impressed with other titles employing realistic visuals due to the fact I have played Crysis with mods.Nothing on any console looks as good as Crysis.

Yet you say DS visuals are garbage.

really

It's true, most games don't look that good anymore,I've played Crysis with various graphical mods, it's hard to be impressed with "realistic"graphics.

That's not how that reads to me at all.




Considering what Nintendo could have done with that handheld, yes... they are garbage. In light of games from the 90s, they're impressive... compared to their competitor (PSP), they're garbage.

Clear enough for you now?

[Why-Disciple]

How, it's not a new engine? Maybe a 15 year old would think the 'next' game in the series was automatically a sequel. C'mon dude.... use your head.

First off, I haven't played New Vegas, so I don't know if it's the same engine or new. Second, I'm mainly saying this because the title says "Fallout 3 New Vegas" which seems out of place to me. Saying that sounds more like an expansion pack or something. Third, how is it not a sequel? Isn't Vice City still considered a sequel to GTA3, even though GTA4 came out two games later? Isn't Sonic and Knuckles a sequel to Sonic 3? It's not like they're two separate series or something, maybe spinoffs, but still part of the same series. I guess it depends on how you define the word sequel.

[gamevet]

The game is impressive considering what they had to work with, they are very talented, I just wish they would work on a better platform(PC).

It's because they are given the luxury of time and money to make it right. It doesn't hurt when you have Sony's money backing the expenses of building a game engine made to take advantage of the PS3 either.

The Sony backed Gran Turismo 5 isn't too hard on the eyes either.

That's also why it's still to this day used as a Benchmark for top notch gaming PCs.

Mafia II's physics engine is the new benchmark in town. It'll eat any single videocard PC, no matter what processor you're running.

[InternalPrimate]

I guess I'm easy to please...

Ha!

[Metal_Sonic]

I guess I'm easy to please...

[OldSchool]

Ha!

I've reported both of you for Trolling my thread... kindly piss off unless you've got something useful to add.

First off, I haven't played New Vegas, so I don't know if it's the same engine or new. Second, I'm mainly saying this because the title says "Fallout 3 New Vegas" which seems out of place to me. Saying that sounds more like an expansion pack or something. Third, how is it not a sequel? Isn't Vice City still considered a sequel to GTA3, even though GTA4 came out two games later? Isn't Sonic and Knuckles a sequel to Sonic 3? It's not like they're two separate series or something, maybe spinoffs, but still part of the same series. I guess it depends on how you define the word sequel.

agreed

It's not a sequel because it's not called Fallout 4... pretty simple really. Sorry to sound like a dick but I don't think this is rocket science.

Vice City was an EXP, nothing more... just because it operated on it's own two feet doesn't automatically make it a sequel. Sequels are usually designated by an ascending number. Why would Vice City or San Andreas be sequels anyhow? They're the same engine... 4 was a new engine.


You got me there... good one. I've no idea. Yeah, 1-3/etc are all the same engine, yet they're sequels... 'but' they're legitimate sequels as designated by different numbers. The Sonic & Knuckles game... an addon? Part 4 should be just that... a new engine. I dunno, sometimes logic doesn't apply here I suppose

It's because they are given the luxury of time and money to make it right. It doesn't hurt when you have Sony's money backing the expenses of building a game engine made to take advantage of the PS3 either.

The Sony backed Gran Turismo 5 isn't too hard on the eyes either.

Mafia II's physics engine is the new benchmark in town. It'll eat any single videocard PC, no matter what processor you're running.

This should be the case for ALL games released on all systems... there should be about 30-40% less games made every year (hell, maybe more).... basically, all the gold diggers in the industry need to either shape up or find another trade to fuck off.

Meh, sounds like it's unoptimized. CryTech wasn't optimized in the beginning... and driver sets weren't setup either. Now, the original CryTech + latest drivers = a great benchmark for fast hardware.


I've seen Mafia II... looked meh. I would imagine the silly Cryostasis and it's poorly done DX10 implementations or any # of todays piss poor displays of DX11 would have made your "I can top your benchmark example" list.

[Metal_Sonic]

I've reported both of you for Trolling my thread... kindly piss off unless you've got something useful to add.

[gamevet]

This should be the case for ALL games released on all systems... there should be about 30-40% less games made every year (hell, maybe more).... basically, all the gold diggers in the industry need to either shape up or find another trade to fuck off.

It's not going to happen with multi-console games. Most of these games are setup to run on the 360 and then tweeked to run on PC or PS3. Dirt 2 on the PC looks exactly like the 360's version, as does the PS3 game. It's just too expensive for these studios to retool these games for 3 different hardware configurations, let alone the massive configurations of the dying PC market. How many studios have closed their doors in the last couple of years, because they've invested large amounts of cash on games that didn't sell in the millions to recoup the costs?

Meh, sounds like it's unoptimized. CryTech wasn't optimized in the beginning... and driver sets weren't setup either. Now, the original CryTech + latest drivers = a great benchmark for fast hardware.


I've seen Mafia II... looked meh. I would imagine the silly Cryostasis and it's poorly done DX10 implementations or any # of todays piss poor displays of DX11 would have made your "I can top your benchmark example" list.

Mafia II uses a cloth physics engine. You need a 2nd PHYSX capable video card to run it. I've ran Mafia II benchmark with high settings (with physics disabled) and got an average of @ 55 fps. I turn on physics and that number drops at least 65%.

Crysis was the benchmark for DX10 videocards and Dual-Core processors. DX11 is the new benchmark for PC gaming, and that starts with the Heaven benchmark tool and any software that supports the newer processors and videocards that meet those requirements.


http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2209093,00.asp

The most interesting result is the comparison between the Core 2 E6850 and Core 2 Extreme QX6850. Both CPUs run at 3.0GHz, but the E6850 is dual core while the QX6850 is quad core. As you can see, the results for both high detail and low detail are essentially identical. The low detail result is particularly illuminating because it suggests that Crysis won't benefit from quad core CPUs.