Any games out there that use the full power of the PS3, in terms of graphics and quality games?
Thread Recap (last 10 posts from newest to oldest)
Nov 29, 12 at 7:30pm
nipsen
No, that's just my opinion, that it didn't look as good.
But what they did, objectively speaking, was to trade animation, animation variance, and model quality, parity between single player and multiplayer, snow/sand walk, etc. - for a new lighting model (which was pretty), more lighting passes, anti-aliasing, 3d, and more varied mp character looks.
From one point of view, it's all that "people" asked for. And it doesn't come out of nowhere that ND changed the design like this.
On the other hand, it suddenly looked like everything else. And the UC3 player base shrunk faster than the UC2 base. So in terms of sales, it's a bit like with Socom 4/MAG. Socom 4 got all the advertisement and all the support. MAG actually sold more copies anyway.
..and let's see.. have I ever played the game? Several weeks, many hours a day in the beta - bought the game, trashed through the single-player, was disgusted, tried the mp, sold the game.
Yeah, you clearly are the person to talk to regarding this game.
And the fact that the character models don't look the same in mp doesn't make the whole game a failure or worst than UC2.
I couldn't find a live link to the gif-animations someone put together of the character animations. But if you watch any footage of the mp in UC2 and then the mp in UC3, you're blind if you don't see that all the characters use the same animation as Drake. Or.. there's one animation set for all the characters.
When you're in cover, there's one single way to go out of cover forward. It's an on-off affair. In UC2 you had slow movement out, run out, roll out, run out at a sharper angle, etc.
UC3 was a serious step downwards in every way. Sony also continued their great convention to cut all the matching requirements out of the game, so people in Europe can have Argentinians playing in a game hosted by a Japanese guy, so we can all lag the game to death.
But on the other hand, Sony got in 3d, and they got more twitch controls, as well as the much wished for anti-aliasing pass that blurred the entire screen. Success!
..and let's see.. have I ever played the game? Several weeks, many hours a day in the beta - bought the game, trashed through the single-player, was disgusted, tried the mp, sold the game.
Nov 28, 12 at 11:59am
Aragorn Vzla
nipsen Have you even played the game? It looks like you are only talking for the sake of it. Maybe we can see some videos as proofs of the differences between the 50 variants of UC2 cover against the single one in UC3, because I played yesterday and I'm almost positive there were more than one. Also I don't remember the characters just switching out of the blue from walk to run in UC3 . I do remember that in UC3 when you are hoping over and obstacle and a grenade goes off nearby it affects how the animation continues and it's different according to the proximity of the blast. I think I don't remember that from UC2 but I could be wrong since it's been a while from the last time I played Among Thieves.
Agent_Mo You have played this a lot more than me, is there only one kind of animation in UC3 for the cover mechanics?
The multiplayer was vastly improved also and I'm not referring about perks and modes and stuff, I talk about the way you move, shoot, how you interact with the environment, etc.
But.. specifically, you mean improvements... such as?
..I mean, I don't know.. Chloe having painted on hair, static looping movement animation, and hips like a man? Have to admit that doesn't scream out "improvement" to me. Switch-based transition between walking and running, instead of the slow and gradual transition in UC2? Going in and out of cover having fifty variants in UC2, to one in UC3?
... *shrug*
Frankly, they didn't work very hard on the script either. Things like God of War 3 - no matter how much of a grumpy bastard you are, it's impossible not to watch the Daedalus scene and not say it's both good writing as well as good acting. Stahl in Killzone 3 as well - it's a good character and good acting.
And in UC3 the voice-actors often start to just mumble and say stuff, because there's nothing there in the story to move on to. They're supposed to say something that the scene and the music sets up as being significant -- and the actors either don't know or see the significance of it, just like the one who watches it, often for good reason. It's just "stuff happening".
Then comes the "oh, no, brainwashed to betray us" scenes. They're foreshadowed for hours, and then when it happens, it's just a single closed room with a brawl you've seen about fifty times up until that point. Which then is directly followed by a set piece where you literally have five rpg-soldiers lined up sniping you with rpg-launchers as you run down to a pile of sniper-rifles. It's just lazy, fractured and idiotic.
..sorry. You were talking about improvements to the multiplayer. Give me some examples, then.
Nov 28, 12 at 10:55am
Aragorn Vzla
Why are you here? You don't seem to care for the PS3 and clearly think there are some better options so I ask this. Why bother trying to convince other people that are perfectly happy with the way things are working right now with the platform.
Of course everyone is looking for improvements that bring the best of the current and newer hardware, but why discredit all the hard work people have done over the past few years? Why act like you've done something important for any of the platforms or the future of the current tech you are discussing? Where are the advancements that should follow this "lame attempts", and why don't you push for them if you have the knowledge to get this going?
See, is really easy to talk abut stuff without the knowledge of the risks and the work that is involved in the process. For example, Is really easy to say Uncharted 2 is better than Uncharted 3, and toss the blame at the developers, or at Sony for the bad management of their current staff. But that's a disservice to the people that work on the product, especially because it's a good game. Even though some aspects I agree were better on U2 (mainly the story), there are a lot of things that were implemented for the last game that weren't in the first ones and that after expending time with them they easily show. There are better animations, more fluid movement, a wider variety of environments. The multiplayer was vastly improved also and I'm not referring about perks and modes and stuff, I talk about the way you move, shoot, how you interact with the environment, etc.
Nov 28, 12 at 8:41am
nipsen
Ok. What about a neatly balanced game - that has better sound, animation, lighting, object and world density. And also costs less to develop?
Nov 27, 12 at 6:57pm
Ville_Valo
I don't rate things like animation and gun recoil as the important factors of the game. They got the balance between weapons very right, proving that sometimes just 10 weapons is better than 20 or 40 or 100. Every gun has a distinct purpose, and a string of strengths and weaknesses against various enemies in the game. The way you fight, with two weapons and a punch, also works very well. You're not saturated with weapons like in GTA, and it forces you to balance and pick a duo of guns that works for you, which is an element of mild strategy/micromanagement. But I could go on for hours, about the interesting and varied AI, very few glitches, impressive environments, mystery in the story, the co-op mode, robust physics, it's a tight all-round package.
A game that's well balanced is going to be a lot more fun than one that isn't, but has fluid animations.
Nov 27, 12 at 3:15am
nipsen
And these "lots of things" and "many small things" being.. such as..?
See, when I think about what made Halo a good game, I think about things like fluid fps, very dynamic controls for the driving, kinetic walking and shooting animation, good recoil treatment at least sometimes, cover based and slow, etc.
Things that gave you an impact when you played it, that let you avoid some of the arcade shooting that has been there in the rest of the series and in every other game. The last Halo game has twitch, all the multiplayer games are based on twitch, for example. Halo looks archaic now, of course, with no plants and low quality textures, and so on. Helmets instead of faces - consciously done.
And the point with having interesting tech is to be able to do some of those things that matter -- accurate input, kinetic and scene-aware animation (walking in stairs properly, up and down angled planes, recoil affecting the model, object-interference in general, physics) while raising the graphics quality.
Anyway. You were saying these "things" that made Halo a good game was...?
Nov 26, 12 at 7:08pm
Ville_Valo
That's not how I feel at all. Marketing helps, but it was a very good quality game, and did a lot of things right. Whereas something like Crysis got heaps of relatively unimportant stuff right, and it didn't help them.
Powered by neoforums v1.6.5b (aperture) Copyright Neo Era Media, Inc. 1999-2013
