And horribly bland. It looks like Resistance 1 to me. Their color palette choice is just boring as heck. But that's because I'm used to colorful and interesting games like Ratchet and Clank.

More appealing graphics. Just because something has a higher pixel count and better antialiasing doesn't particularly mean that the picture is more appealing to the eye. It just means it's much sharper edged and has smoother corners. If a developer either intentionally goes for a grittier, blander palette, or if they do it out of laziness, the effect is the same. It's not as inviting of a world. That's not to say that all PC games are that way, just those trying-to-be-too-darn-realistic war gaming FPSes. I posted the example above of Torchlight as a PC game that has appealing graphics.

"look better" is in the eye of the beholder.

Like I said, to my eyes, the low budget title Torchlight looks better than MW2, but MW2 obviously has more advanced graphics and is more realistic.

Come on what's wrong with KZ2? GG have a awesome engine and like ND have made good use of the hardware available by utilising the CELL to off-load the RSX. Their deferred render combined with numerous post proscessing effects and object based motion blur make for a truly unique presentation, it will be interesting to see if GG can improve further with their next release as much as ND has going from UC to UC2.

Now ok KZ2, UC2 are both 720p 30fps 2xAA but hey what do you really expect from the limited RAM and bandwidth available. I agree resolution and AA is an important factor but what about shaders, lighting, post processing etc... ? Other than Crysis is there any PC game that really pushes the hardware in terms of graphical features (I'm sure there is...), MW2 does nothing different on the PC in this regards and it's only increased resources available that allow for higher resolutions but that's it, the hardware is there to do much more I would of liked to of seen better lighting (HDR + SSAO) for startes on the PC version although this is more than likely due to being multiplatform with consoles being the main focus. I know it can be hard to look past the resolution difference, I can remember when I used to PC game back in the GeForce 5/6 era and switching between the PC and PS2 what quite hard although tbh the difference was a lot more noticable back then imo.

At the end of the day I don't think you can knock these devs that are trying to push the console hardware, especialy considering some of the graphical features we are seeing on such limited hardware. I just wish they were more PC devs like ID and Crytek who are equally pushing the PC hardware. Also I've said it before your engine is only as good as your artists and the consoles seem to being getting a lot of love in this department.

SG it would be great if you could post some screens from PC games that you feel show off the hardware, Crysis is the obvious choice but what else is there? I'm interested to know for myself for when I get my new rig.

Just found some screens of MW2 on the PC with SSAA and SSAO enabled through some 'nhancer' tweaking (I assume 'n' is Nvidia?). Did'nt realise 4xAA was the limit for this game on the PC, that will be the console limit effecting the PC ouch!

Looks pretty sweet plus the guys running a 8800GTX just like you SG...




More through link >> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...postcount=3148

I think it's pretty cool that you can enable SSAO (or is it just AO?) through the Nvidia control panel, does this work for all games? I assume it's never going to be as good as native in-game support but a very cool feature never the less. SG could you do some 1080p screens with it off and on to compare?

Nothing its just not ground breaking, and all this talk of how MW2 is so bland etc. I thought id post a screen up. Its the most drab gray looking game I have seen in a while

Ambient Occlusion can be forced on MW2 through the control panel
and there is some quite nice lighting esp in the favela levels.
I know form seeing comparison screens that the shadows are also a lot better.

This has topic has not been brought up as a result of me trying to put down a ps3, but when comments are made that a game looks crap because it doesn't have an over saturated vivid visual style I think its a bit ridiculous.


TBH its extremely hard to demonstrate the vast differences through still thumbnails. Its a lot easier to make a low res screenshot look nicer in this way, but obviously it doesn't retain quality when you blow it up 24-50 inch on your display.

In terms of games with a colourful pallet on the pc, I would suggest Red Alert 3, Devil May Cry 4, SF4, Prince of Persia, Bionic Commando, Mirrors Edge (Amazing physx), Borderlands, TF2, possibly Gears of War set to vivid post processing

Ahh, you beat me to it lol. You can also force higher levels of AA through control panel.
I think SSAO needs to be built into the engine, so yeah its just AO on or off.

I'm not on about vivid looking games but games that offer modern graphical features like Crysis. The games you listed are all multiplatform therefore don't play to the strengths of the hardware and tbh are not doing anything that special in terms of rendering, although I'm sure they all look nice with a ton of AA at high res

Actually even though these may be multiplatform when you play these games there are a lot of settings that are turned off or down in the console versions not just resolution and AA.

The way I'm reading it you can enable regardless although some games don't support it. Regards the AA I think even if you force higher you still get the same 4xAA result - get some screens up to compare 4xAA in-game option vs 16xAA Nvidia control panel?

lol I can't render 16xAA

There are multiple options in the control panel such as enhance or over ride.
Finding the correct configuration usually lets you brute force it.
Although you are right some games such as Gears of War limit the amount of AA you can apply.

Out of the Exclusives you listed AZZ there is only really UC2 and GT5P worth playing, KZ2 looks and plays like a bag of spanners, UC1 is incomplete and broken as it suffer's from image tearing, I'm not really a fan of watching shoddy looking cut scene's in MGS4 and Motorstorm is just a mish mash of shit graphics non realistic sound's and crap game play.

I for one don't like the motion blur effect I turn it off in any game I have the option to, I think it spoil's the graphic's and over all experience of the game, you generally see this in driving games that struggle to run at 30 FPS so they blur it up so it looks faster., GRID on the PS3 looks and play's awful.

I reckon I could fool the average console user into thinking that the pc version of GRID is actually GRID 2 running on the PS4 as the difference between the 2 is night and day.

I think it's a matter of standard's, no offence Kaz but that Torchlight look's very dated, it has nice fantasy colour's but then again it seem's to be a fantasy game so fair play, like I said its a case of different stroke's for different folks, hmmmm 9 month's my pc is 2 year's old ?.

I used to buy a game every Friday on pay day for my 360 or PS3 at the time I thought they were great until I knew other wise, I bought all the exclusives with out fail, I got PS3 with motorstorm NG and Resistance and 2 pad's that failed to rumble

I own console's and a pc, up untill 2 year's ago I did all my gaming on consol's beside's the RA series, I used to argue the toss with SG that console's were better and blah blah blah non sense, i'm now fully converted, I had kept the 360 for Forza 3 what aint got a patch on Race/ Rfacotor or GTR2, and the PS3 has been sold to be replaced by a slim for GT5, it need's to be a lot better than GT5P or it's just another arcade racer !

Any cross platform game will play and look better on a PC it's pretty straight forward really, this is demonstrated best by shooter's, beat em up, RTS's and driving game's IMO.

The hardware in console's is cheap crap its comparable to the hardware you get in a shop bought home PC, this is why they always break down, I think a lot of forum member's can vouch for that, PS3 and 360 defects have even been highlighted by watchdog .

Of all the game's the PS3 has to offer UC2 is the only one I have been impressed by so far, on the 360 it is GOW but I can play that on my PC and its a completely different game.

If you want to play good looking game's at a competitive frame rate then you need a PC, if you want to play sub standard game's for twice the price then you need a console, if I still used my console's I would be wasting money on game's I get bored of within the first week, IMO it's taken Sony 3 year's to get a decent game out on the PS3.

Buy a PC and if you cant afford one then sell your console/console's, I think the GS new year's resolution should be...... get a PC

I guess these look crap compared to UC2 also.LMFAO













This one seem's to cater for some of the console lot on here

Found a game play pic as there is no point in comparing cut scene's to game play

Enjoy

Doesn't do your argument much good when you post pics that are saved at low compression ratios

NOT IN GAME

NOT IN GAME
[/quote]


Post up a shot that is actually in game then, also Azz this is PC vs console's not MW2 vs UC2, maybe you could answer some of the stuff I highlighted in my above post ?