Which computer game has the most spectacular graphics/sound?
Discussion
I've just been watching some videos of some computer games on various formats, and I have to say I am very impressed with the standard of graphics I am seeing on computer games these days. I myself have a PS3 but only have some early titles i.e. GT5, Darkness, UT3 and Rainbow Six, all of which have quite decent graphics to say the least, but after having witnessed high res videos of GTA4 and MGS I am highly impressed at what this console seems capable of. It seems gone are the days of consoles having crap graphics in comparison to PCs...
Having said that, I have just watched a video of Crysis on the PC. I have been out of the PC games scene for quite some time now due to being bored with the constant merry go round of upgrading just to make sure that your PC is able to play the games smoothly, not to mention the lack of quality releases. This does not seem to have changed at all - indeed, the review of Crysis remarked that even a Quad core 4 Gb monster PC with a high end Nvidia graphics card struggled to play it with maximum details... That said though, my god is it pretty. I dont think I have ever seen computer game graphics look as good as that does. Simply stunning.
So, is Crysis the most visually spectacular game out there? Almost makes me want to get back into PC gaming, but that is a very expensive slippery slope I dont want to get back into.
Also, which game qualifies as having the best sound? Convincing explosions, etc. I found Rainbow Six quite good for this, but thinking back to my PC gaming days, I found that the audio quality in many games, even some very pretty ones, was overlooked.
Having said that, I have just watched a video of Crysis on the PC. I have been out of the PC games scene for quite some time now due to being bored with the constant merry go round of upgrading just to make sure that your PC is able to play the games smoothly, not to mention the lack of quality releases. This does not seem to have changed at all - indeed, the review of Crysis remarked that even a Quad core 4 Gb monster PC with a high end Nvidia graphics card struggled to play it with maximum details... That said though, my god is it pretty. I dont think I have ever seen computer game graphics look as good as that does. Simply stunning.
So, is Crysis the most visually spectacular game out there? Almost makes me want to get back into PC gaming, but that is a very expensive slippery slope I dont want to get back into.
Also, which game qualifies as having the best sound? Convincing explosions, etc. I found Rainbow Six quite good for this, but thinking back to my PC gaming days, I found that the audio quality in many games, even some very pretty ones, was overlooked.
LukeBird said:
Crysis is indeed the most visually impressive game I have found.
I spent the best part of £1800 on a PC (several components which were 2nd hand!!) to keep up with PC gaming. Absolutely phenomenal graphically for Crysis though!
Thats exactly why I got out of it. Admittedly, I have never spent £1800 on a PC for games, but I used to routinely spend a grand on one, and realistically it would only run cutting edge games at the resolutions I wanted for maybe a couple of years: Very expensive. The PS3s graphics are not as good as a good PC, but I have to admit, there doesnt seem to be such a gulf any more. Back in the days of the PS1 and PS2, I always thought the PC had far superior graphics. Nowadays, they are still better, but consoles have improved to the point where you no longer feel too hard done by. Indeed, the PS3 is actually the first games console I have ever owned. However, I still think you cannot beat a first person shooter with a keyboard and mouse - playing with a joypad just feels wrong. Might have to buy a FragFX I spent the best part of £1800 on a PC (several components which were 2nd hand!!) to keep up with PC gaming. Absolutely phenomenal graphically for Crysis though!
Graphics quality usually has a lot to do with frame rate and antialiasing which is why alot of the decent console games compare well with PCs as their graphics is more dedicated and custom programmed as opposed to the pc where they have to cover all bases.
Obviously GT5 is looking pretty good on the PS3 but I would put forward GRID even on the 360 as a good looking game.
Obviously GT5 is looking pretty good on the PS3 but I would put forward GRID even on the 360 as a good looking game.
pbirkett said:
LukeBird said:
Crysis is indeed the most visually impressive game I have found.
I spent the best part of £1800 on a PC (several components which were 2nd hand!!) to keep up with PC gaming. Absolutely phenomenal graphically for Crysis though!
Thats exactly why I got out of it. Admittedly, I have never spent £1800 on a PC for games, but I used to routinely spend a grand on one, and realistically it would only run cutting edge games at the resolutions I wanted for maybe a couple of years: Very expensive. The PS3s graphics are not as good as a good PC, but I have to admit, there doesnt seem to be such a gulf any more. Back in the days of the PS1 and PS2, I always thought the PC had far superior graphics. Nowadays, they are still better, but consoles have improved to the point where you no longer feel too hard done by. Indeed, the PS3 is actually the first games console I have ever owned. However, I still think you cannot beat a first person shooter with a keyboard and mouse - playing with a joypad just feels wrong. Might have to buy a FragFX I spent the best part of £1800 on a PC (several components which were 2nd hand!!) to keep up with PC gaming. Absolutely phenomenal graphically for Crysis though!
I had friends with the latest, greatest PC's and they were all blown away with my PS1, my N64, my 3D0 etc.Things like the PS1 may have looked old hat to some, but it was simply because they were on the shelf for years and years, so it really depends on when you entered the gaming market as to how good or bad they appeared, the same can be said for most consoles.PC's started to have GPU's etc appearing almost weekly (who can forget the first combined 2D and 3D cards - they took long enough to arrive!!) so things progressed quickly, but it is easy to forget how dire they were compared to many consoles.Go back to the imported launch day PS1 machine I had for example, and there wasn't a home pc in the world throwing polys around like the PS1 did with ridge racer, certainly not at that speed.The same can be said for things like Mario on the N64, need for speed on the 3D0...the PC played catch-up and got their eventually.The PS2 is another example, that sat on store shelves for years and is still in use today, yet people are happy to compare it to a PC which is bang up to date and suggets it looks dated!
I have a 360 and had a PS3 and they look as good and often nicer than the majority of PC titles imho, you also get a much greater variety of titles.Show me something on the PC which looks and plays like Drakes Fortune for example, or Fight Night, or GT5 or...The same can be said for most of my previous consoles.
I know mega expensive PC's may be capable of more, but that really doesn't matter a great deal if only a few games are released to show it all off.I play the odd FPS on the PC these days (I have no problem with FPS on a pad though, never have) and have a quick blast on the odd race sim, but the consoles have lept ahead in terms of enjoyable gaming.And this is coming from someone who has always loved PC's.I have spent fortunes on them and was overclocking etc years and years ago, way before it was a doddle and all on a nice jumperless pre-modded plate like it is today.
Consoles now have HD images, superb online capabilities, hardly any cheaters, great variety and can cost you less than one pc GPU (a GPU which may require a new mobo/power supply etc), I can only see gaming becoming worse for the PC as the years roll on.As it is now, there is hardly anything on the PC I have my eye on, yet there are probably 20 or so titles on the consoles.In five+ years time people will no doubt be suggesting the PS3 and Xbox 360 look poor compared to PC's, they will simply forget once again how long they have been around (if there are any games for the PC to show them off of course), so they will have to be reminded once again that it was consoles which started the gaming revolution and broke down all the barriers
Edited by Digby on Sunday 5th October 10:44
LukeBird said:
Crysis is indeed the most visually impressive game I have found.
I spent the best part of £1800 on a PC (several components which were 2nd hand!!) to keep up with PC gaming. Absolutely phenomenal graphically for Crysis though!
I spent the best part of £1800 on a PC (several components which were 2nd hand!!) to keep up with PC gaming. Absolutely phenomenal graphically for Crysis though!
Don't suppose its on the 360 is it? Looks really good!
The_Jackal said:
Graphics quality usually has a lot to do with frame rate and antialiasing which is why alot of the decent console games compare well with PCs as their graphics is more dedicated and custom programmed as opposed to the pc where they have to cover all bases.
Obviously GT5 is looking pretty good on the PS3 but I would put forward GRID even on the 360 as a good looking game.
I've just had a look at a video for "Grid" on IGN, and it has to be said, I think it looks like more fun than GT5. In fact in all honesty, GT5, graphics aside, hasnt really impressed me all that much as a game. I think it takes itself too seriously. Thats not neccesarily a bad thing for some, but for me, I like instantly enjoyable games. I've also just looked at a video for "Motorstorm" and that looks like a riot! Obviously GT5 is looking pretty good on the PS3 but I would put forward GRID even on the 360 as a good looking game.
Digby said:
pbirkett said:
LukeBird said:
Crysis is indeed the most visually impressive game I have found.
I spent the best part of £1800 on a PC (several components which were 2nd hand!!) to keep up with PC gaming. Absolutely phenomenal graphically for Crysis though!
Thats exactly why I got out of it. Admittedly, I have never spent £1800 on a PC for games, but I used to routinely spend a grand on one, and realistically it would only run cutting edge games at the resolutions I wanted for maybe a couple of years: Very expensive. The PS3s graphics are not as good as a good PC, but I have to admit, there doesnt seem to be such a gulf any more. Back in the days of the PS1 and PS2, I always thought the PC had far superior graphics. Nowadays, they are still better, but consoles have improved to the point where you no longer feel too hard done by. Indeed, the PS3 is actually the first games console I have ever owned. However, I still think you cannot beat a first person shooter with a keyboard and mouse - playing with a joypad just feels wrong. Might have to buy a FragFX I spent the best part of £1800 on a PC (several components which were 2nd hand!!) to keep up with PC gaming. Absolutely phenomenal graphically for Crysis though!
I had friends with the latest, greatest PC's and they were all blown away with my PS1, my N64, my 3D0 etc.Things like the PS1 may have looked old hat to some, but it was simply because they were on the shelf for years and years, so it really depends on when you entered the gaming market as to how good or bad they appeared, the same can be said for most consoles.PC's started to have GPU's etc appearing almost weekly (who can forget the first combined 2D and 3D cards - they took long enough to arrive!!) so things progressed quickly, but it is easy to forget how dire they were compared to many consoles.Go back to the imported launch day PS1 machine I had for example, and there wasn't a home pc in the world throwing polys around like the PS1 did with ridge racer, certainly not at that speed.The same can be said for things like Mario on the N64, need for speed on the 3D0...the PC played catch-up and got their eventually.The PS2 is another example, that sat on store shelves for years and is still in use today, yet people are happy to compare it to a PC which is bang up to date and suggets it looks dated!
I have a 360 and had a PS3 and they look as good and often nicer than the majority of PC titles imho, you also get a much greater variety of titles.Show me something on the PC which looks and plays like Drakes Fortune for example, or Fight Night, or GT5 or...The same can be said for most of my previous consoles.
I know mega expensive PC's may be capable of more, but that really doesn't matter a great deal if only a few games are released to show it all off.I play the odd FPS on the PC these days (I have no problem with FPS on a pad though, never have) and have a quick blast on the odd race sim, but the consoles have lept ahead in terms of enjoyable gaming.And this is coming from someone who has always loved PC's.I have spent fortunes on them and was overclocking etc years and years ago, way before it was a doddle and all on a nice jumperless pre-modded plate like it is today.
Consoles now have HD images, superb online capabilities, hardly any cheaters, great variety and can cost you less than one pc GPU (a GPU which may require a new mobo/power supply etc), I can only see gaming becoming worse for the PC as the years roll on.As it is now, there is hardly anything on the PC I have my eye on, yet there are probably 20 or so titles on the consoles.In five+ years time people will no doubt be suggesting the PS3 and Xbox 360 look poor compared to PC's, they will simply forget once again how long they have been around (if there are any games for the PC to show them off of course), so they will have to be reminded once again that it was consoles which started the gaming revolution and broke down all the barriers
Edited by Digby on Sunday 5th October 10:44
So if you think PC games were legoland, you should have seen those I first saw PC games not long before I ended up buying one, and I saw Doom and Duke Nukem 3D. Compared to what the Amiga could do, these were so impressive, even though you look back now and they look rubbish.
When I first got into PCs I spent over a grand on a machine which had a Pentium 120 CPU and 16Mb of RAM, and treat myself to Quake, which ran smoothly at 320x240 (!) and compared to what I was used to it was a revolution!
However, soon after the first 3D cards appeared and I got myself a 3DFX card, and then the graphics really did take off as you say. Quake now ran smoothly at 640x480 in 16-bit colour with anti-aliasing, and as you say the difference was huge.
Ever since then, I have always felt that PCs were superior for graphics capabilities. However, lack of quality titles was frustrating. Nevertheless, I continued to upgrade my PC just to play the latest FPS at a decent frame rate and resolution.
Lately though, when I have seen what the X-Box 360 and PS3 can do with their graphics, I could not longer justify the expense when the consoles appeared to have the better quality games, and that the console itself could play the Blu-Ray stuff which was the clincher for me.
Instead of playing games on a PC with a relatively small monitor, I now have a system that plays games through my huge plasma TV and huge floorstanding speakers, and its an experience! And it does it without bankrupting me.
The thing is though, I somehow have failed thus far to get really back into gaming scene for the reason that my favourite genre is indeed FPS and I just cannot get on with FPS games with a joypad. It just seems so clumsy and cumbersome. People have told me I would get used to it, but i struggle in all honesty. Mind you the choice of games hasnt exactly kept me coming back for more. So far I have "Darkness" which is OK, but a bit repetitive, and the graphics are pretty poor IMO (think PC game of 5 years ago), Rainbox Six Vegas - again not bad, but graphically pretty average, and the game itself is too "strategy" based for my liking, Unreal Tournament which I was a huge fan of on the PC, and find this one with a keyboard and mouse plugged in every bit as enjoyable and graphically on par with the PC version, but ultimately repetitive (maybe i've just gone off the free for all type of FPS), and GT5 which just didnt excite me that much once the novelty of trying different cars had worn off.
I think perhaps a fragFX would benefit me because its more what I am used to, and perhaps a steering wheel and pedals for the driving games?
I think ultimately though as you say my traditional view that PCs always beat consoles for games was because of when I entered the PC gaming scene - one of my mates a year earlier had bought a PS1 and I remember him showing me "Wipeout" and I remember being floored by how good it looked.
The thing to remember about comparing the images of consoles and PCs is that generally, the consoles run at much lower resolutions. Even modern titles like GTA4 only run at a native resolution of 720p IIRC. It is then upscaled to fit whatever panel you have. An image only 1280x720 pixels was something I was running on an old Pentium 3 with a 3d accelerator. In comparison, I run Crysis/Stalker/Grid etc at 1920x1200.
Incidentally, when a friend of mine first got his PS1 I though the image quality was awful compared with my PC. The image just lacked definition compared to my monitor. And the draw distance was hopeless in comparison.
What I do think is that the writers work marvels with the hardware they have. And for the money, the consoles really can't be beaten. This latest generation are really good - online play, media extender. The list of features is very impressive.
But I recall the launch of the PS2 when they wre claiming X times as much processing power as a PC. I never saw it. Many games didn't even have real-time lighting (which PC games have had as far back as 1997 with Quake 2 and Unreal).
As an aside, the joypads always put me off consoles but I bought an Xbox360 Arcade to play GTA4 and I'm converted. I run it through my 24" monitor and attach it to my PC speakers. I wouldn't use one for a third person shooter but the xbox controller is really good - so much so that I bought a widget to attach it to my PC. It seems to fit my hands better than the PS3 ones.
So to summarise that waffle, I'm glad I got my Xbox360 and I'm really pleased by it but it will always play second fiddle to my (admittedly much more expensive) PC.
Incidentally, when a friend of mine first got his PS1 I though the image quality was awful compared with my PC. The image just lacked definition compared to my monitor. And the draw distance was hopeless in comparison.
What I do think is that the writers work marvels with the hardware they have. And for the money, the consoles really can't be beaten. This latest generation are really good - online play, media extender. The list of features is very impressive.
But I recall the launch of the PS2 when they wre claiming X times as much processing power as a PC. I never saw it. Many games didn't even have real-time lighting (which PC games have had as far back as 1997 with Quake 2 and Unreal).
As an aside, the joypads always put me off consoles but I bought an Xbox360 Arcade to play GTA4 and I'm converted. I run it through my 24" monitor and attach it to my PC speakers. I wouldn't use one for a third person shooter but the xbox controller is really good - so much so that I bought a widget to attach it to my PC. It seems to fit my hands better than the PS3 ones.
So to summarise that waffle, I'm glad I got my Xbox360 and I'm really pleased by it but it will always play second fiddle to my (admittedly much more expensive) PC.
rsv gone! said:
Incidentally, when a friend of mine first got his PS1 I though the image quality was awful compared with my PC. The image just lacked definition compared to my monitor. And the draw distance was hopeless in comparison.
Was this when the PS1 first launched in the UK? It's worth remembering it had been out for almost a year by then on import.I Picked mine up in 1994.I would imagine your friend was using the standard composite lead on a large TV with a UK machine (the worst possible combination), compared to even a low res on what would have been a fairly small PC monitor, the PC would always appear sharper.Use a proper scart/s-video cable though on a smaller TV with an import machine and things would certainly improve.
But again, It must depend on when this happened as the PS1 is well known for reproducing what was only capable at that time on expensive arcade machines.We were all into PC gaming back then and I don't remember a single person showing me anything that compared to the PS1, it blew everyone away.That situation did change though as PC gaming grew, but it took a while.We messed around with upgrades galore on the PC, all the matrox cards, ATi cards etc etc, but it was only when the 3DFX's landed (around 1996 iirc) that things got interesting and could compare to the PS1.
pbirkett said:
The_Jackal said:
Graphics quality usually has a lot to do with frame rate and antialiasing which is why alot of the decent console games compare well with PCs as their graphics is more dedicated and custom programmed as opposed to the pc where they have to cover all bases.
Obviously GT5 is looking pretty good on the PS3 but I would put forward GRID even on the 360 as a good looking game.
I've just had a look at a video for "Grid" on IGN, and it has to be said, I think it looks like more fun than GT5. In fact in all honesty, GT5, graphics aside, hasnt really impressed me all that much as a game. I think it takes itself too seriously. Thats not neccesarily a bad thing for some, but for me, I like instantly enjoyable games. I've also just looked at a video for "Motorstorm" and that looks like a riot! Obviously GT5 is looking pretty good on the PS3 but I would put forward GRID even on the 360 as a good looking game.
Digby said:
pbirkett said:
LukeBird said:
Crysis is indeed the most visually impressive game I have found.
I spent the best part of £1800 on a PC (several components which were 2nd hand!!) to keep up with PC gaming. Absolutely phenomenal graphically for Crysis though!
Thats exactly why I got out of it. Admittedly, I have never spent £1800 on a PC for games, but I used to routinely spend a grand on one, and realistically it would only run cutting edge games at the resolutions I wanted for maybe a couple of years: Very expensive. The PS3s graphics are not as good as a good PC, but I have to admit, there doesnt seem to be such a gulf any more. Back in the days of the PS1 and PS2, I always thought the PC had far superior graphics. Nowadays, they are still better, but consoles have improved to the point where you no longer feel too hard done by. Indeed, the PS3 is actually the first games console I have ever owned. However, I still think you cannot beat a first person shooter with a keyboard and mouse - playing with a joypad just feels wrong. Might have to buy a FragFX I spent the best part of £1800 on a PC (several components which were 2nd hand!!) to keep up with PC gaming. Absolutely phenomenal graphically for Crysis though!
I had friends with the latest, greatest PC's and they were all blown away with my PS1, my N64, my 3D0 etc.Things like the PS1 may have looked old hat to some, but it was simply because they were on the shelf for years and years, so it really depends on when you entered the gaming market as to how good or bad they appeared, the same can be said for most consoles.PC's started to have GPU's etc appearing almost weekly (who can forget the first combined 2D and 3D cards - they took long enough to arrive!!) so things progressed quickly, but it is easy to forget how dire they were compared to many consoles.Go back to the imported launch day PS1 machine I had for example, and there wasn't a home pc in the world throwing polys around like the PS1 did with ridge racer, certainly not at that speed.The same can be said for things like Mario on the N64, need for speed on the 3D0...the PC played catch-up and got their eventually.The PS2 is another example, that sat on store shelves for years and is still in use today, yet people are happy to compare it to a PC which is bang up to date and suggets it looks dated!
I have a 360 and had a PS3 and they look as good and often nicer than the majority of PC titles imho, you also get a much greater variety of titles.Show me something on the PC which looks and plays like Drakes Fortune for example, or Fight Night, or GT5 or...The same can be said for most of my previous consoles.
I know mega expensive PC's may be capable of more, but that really doesn't matter a great deal if only a few games are released to show it all off.I play the odd FPS on the PC these days (I have no problem with FPS on a pad though, never have) and have a quick blast on the odd race sim, but the consoles have lept ahead in terms of enjoyable gaming.And this is coming from someone who has always loved PC's.I have spent fortunes on them and was overclocking etc years and years ago, way before it was a doddle and all on a nice jumperless pre-modded plate like it is today.
Consoles now have HD images, superb online capabilities, hardly any cheaters, great variety and can cost you less than one pc GPU (a GPU which may require a new mobo/power supply etc), I can only see gaming becoming worse for the PC as the years roll on.As it is now, there is hardly anything on the PC I have my eye on, yet there are probably 20 or so titles on the consoles.In five+ years time people will no doubt be suggesting the PS3 and Xbox 360 look poor compared to PC's, they will simply forget once again how long they have been around (if there are any games for the PC to show them off of course), so they will have to be reminded once again that it was consoles which started the gaming revolution and broke down all the barriers
Edited by Digby on Sunday 5th October 10:44
So if you think PC games were legoland, you should have seen those I first saw PC games not long before I ended up buying one, and I saw Doom and Duke Nukem 3D. Compared to what the Amiga could do, these were so impressive, even though you look back now and they look rubbish.
When I first got into PCs I spent over a grand on a machine which had a Pentium 120 CPU and 16Mb of RAM, and treat myself to Quake, which ran smoothly at 320x240 (!) and compared to what I was used to it was a revolution!
However, soon after the first 3D cards appeared and I got myself a 3DFX card, and then the graphics really did take off as you say. Quake now ran smoothly at 640x480 in 16-bit colour with anti-aliasing, and as you say the difference was huge.
Ever since then, I have always felt that PCs were superior for graphics capabilities. However, lack of quality titles was frustrating. Nevertheless, I continued to upgrade my PC just to play the latest FPS at a decent frame rate and resolution.
Lately though, when I have seen what the X-Box 360 and PS3 can do with their graphics, I could not longer justify the expense when the consoles appeared to have the better quality games, and that the console itself could play the Blu-Ray stuff which was the clincher for me.
Instead of playing games on a PC with a relatively small monitor, I now have a system that plays games through my huge plasma TV and huge floorstanding speakers, and its an experience! And it does it without bankrupting me.
The thing is though, I somehow have failed thus far to get really back into gaming scene for the reason that my favourite genre is indeed FPS and I just cannot get on with FPS games with a joypad. It just seems so clumsy and cumbersome. People have told me I would get used to it, but i struggle in all honesty. Mind you the choice of games hasnt exactly kept me coming back for more. So far I have "Darkness" which is OK, but a bit repetitive, and the graphics are pretty poor IMO (think PC game of 5 years ago), Rainbox Six Vegas - again not bad, but graphically pretty average, and the game itself is too "strategy" based for my liking, Unreal Tournament which I was a huge fan of on the PC, and find this one with a keyboard and mouse plugged in every bit as enjoyable and graphically on par with the PC version, but ultimately repetitive (maybe i've just gone off the free for all type of FPS), and GT5 which just didnt excite me that much once the novelty of trying different cars had worn off.
I think perhaps a fragFX would benefit me because its more what I am used to, and perhaps a steering wheel and pedals for the driving games?
I think ultimately though as you say my traditional view that PCs always beat consoles for games was because of when I entered the PC gaming scene - one of my mates a year earlier had bought a PS1 and I remember him showing me "Wipeout" and I remember being floored by how good it looked.
As for PC costs, apart from all the CPU's and GPU's etc we regularly spent a fortune on, the one purchase which really sticks in my mind was my first PC dvd writer.This cost me £350 second hand and my first 10 blanks cost me £150! Yes, £15 per blank! Scary really.Games wise, the biggest battle I face these days is that I am simply growing older (have been gaming since the 70's) so it takes a lot to impress me now.When you have seen variation on variation on variation of a theme, you tend to get picky.There are games I simply find bland to play that other people seem to love and despite having several mates with the LIVE service - a service we would have LOVED to have had years ago - it's now a take it or leave it affair.We will never experience that feeling again of rushing home with the latest title, desperate to boot it up.If I buy a new game these days, it may still sit inside the wrapper for a week or two.That said, that is the beauty of online gaming, you can come to a forum like this, meet some great 'virtual' friends (and real ones) and really get yout teeth into a game you all really enjoy.I always thought counter strike would hold the record for the most hours I spent online gaming, but I think Forza has taken that crown now.
Well in an attempt to try and regain my passion for gaming I have been out today and bought a couple of new games, GTA4, which I have always been wanting but didnt want to pay full price for (paid 30 quid, still more than i would of liked, but never mind) and Resistance Fall of man... and I have just played the latter for an hour and half. Despite as i've said before not being too good with PS3 controls, I really enjoyed this tonight. The graphics are excellent, and the game is enjoyable. Much better than some of the other stuff I've bought so far.
I understand this is one of the older PS3 titles though, so the machine is potentially capable of better? If so i think i can slum it with games consoles from now on
I understand this is one of the older PS3 titles though, so the machine is potentially capable of better? If so i think i can slum it with games consoles from now on
Don't do the Frag X thing, I had one on the original XBox and it was a poor replacement for a mouse, you're trying to recreate a mouse via something that is expecting the input from an analogue joystick with a set field of movement.
Think I used it on Halo about three times before I realised that I was just as good, if not better with the pad.
Think I used it on Halo about three times before I realised that I was just as good, if not better with the pad.
Eve Online's graphics do it for me. These are in-game graphics:
http://www.eve-online.com/screenshots/collection.a...
As for sound, well, Battlefield 2... when some mofo is sneaking up behind you to knife you in the back, if you're still, you can hear the footsteps behind you and know to move quickly. It's witchcraft, I tell thee.
http://www.eve-online.com/screenshots/collection.a...
As for sound, well, Battlefield 2... when some mofo is sneaking up behind you to knife you in the back, if you're still, you can hear the footsteps behind you and know to move quickly. It's witchcraft, I tell thee.
Riknos said:
I have nothing productive to add to this thread. All I wanted to say is, I really don't care about graphics in games, at all. PSX games are still good enough for me.
You're right - it is about playability. I have BF2 set to dirty/pixelated cos it runs faster. Shadows/light effects are off, so nobody can hide in the shadows. Edited by shadowninja on Tuesday 7th October 12:58
Gassing Station | Video Games | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff