Me and my friends had an argument about which has better graphics. purely based on graphics which one is better?
Which has better graphics Uncharted 2 or Modern Warfare 2?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
@SeriouslyNow: Maybe you need some screenshots. You also didn't know that there are extra graphical options? They are for normal mapping, specular maps and texture. I set these to extra, that's something the console version doesn't have. Honestly modern warfare 2 looks better than crysis 2. Look I don't even need resolution for the textures on the pc. Sure I may have some jpeg artifacts, however I can retake these in bmp later on.
The problem is most of the internet besides me has never seen a real ps3 screenshot in their life with life bars and ammo count. They use bullshots instead which is decieving or they say it's not about the screenshots, it's about the motion or art design to cover the low rez over use of shaders effects. You need to have a very critical eye to see what I see. Low rez cpu effects doesn't mean power to me, I belive pc gpu can output more without resorting to using weak parellel processing code to get you an overly unrealistic, saturated, low rez texture game. If it were up to me i'll bring in metro 2033 and show you real effects in DX11 with the gpu. Besides effects, what about realism or textures?
You having the technical understanding of engines or using an 8800GT doesn't make you more of a pc zealot than me. Anyone want these modern warfare 2 screenshots at 32X AA?
How about who cares? Its a game not a piece of art.
Sadly, the world will never be able to know what that would look like because this would be the result of it:" @JJWeatherman said:
" @SeriouslyNow said:Exactly. I watched an LP of Uncharted recorded at 720P and my most consistent thought was "I wonder how this would look on a DX11 equipped PC with all the requisite assets and effects upgraded accordingly?". "" @HitmanAgent47 said:Imagine Uncharted 2 with PC resolutions... ""what? Higher Resolution doesn't automatically equate to being better. Uncharted 2 has far higher detail and many more framebuffer effects present than Modern Warfare 2. I'm more of a PC Zealot than you and even I accept that Uncharted 2 is far superior graphically than Modern Warfare 2. "Modern warfare 2, if I can use pc screenshots vs console 720p life bar in uncharted 2 no bullshots. However uncharted 2 will look better than console modern warfare 2.
"
Some ppl can argue this cutscene still looks good, it's using the same video capturing process. Why does the cutscene looks good and ingame it doesn't? There are no smoke and mirrors and I don't really see art design as much as you. I know you like crysis with configs right? Well I don't so we see things differently. I just like high rez textures, not over saturated cell processor effects, low rez textures and high pixel shaders to the max with concept artist creating the design. I just like technical graphics better and modern warfare 2 looks great on the pc. I hope you have that game on pc and you have seen it.
The file is also named "VLCsnap".
/conversation
"/MOTHERFUCKING THREAD !!! LOOK AT THAT SHIT! DOES THAT LOOK LIKE MW2 TO YOU MOTHERFUCKERS? HOLY WOW
"
@BunkerBuster said:
" Those PC shots pretty much ended this thread. "gotta love how huge the PC's dick is..
It was tough to find these, it seems there are like 10 real screenshots out of all the bullshots here. You see see the ability to select the book right? So that's ingame, these are actually real. I hitman am not here to decieve others, rather I am here to show how others are decieved by good animation and decent effects, with art. Look here are real screenshots, these are direct feeds and there is absolutely no deception going on here with these screenshots. They are real and they speak for themselves, looks exactly like the other screenshots I posted earlier. Modern warfare 2 looks more real and has better textures, I think it's an underated game graphically so i'm standing by my opinion on that. I mean that's what the thread is about, which one of these games has better graphics. Are you going to use sweeping generalizations as truths from the gaming press or are you going to see for yourself? Like I said, there are exceptions, you can't just go by what other sites have said as truth. (tbh I don't trust what anyone says without seeing it for myself) They don't even acknowledge crysis exist on the pc and claims uncharted 2 has the best graphics and other ppl are regurgatating their misconceptions as truths. I disagree.
You can spin these, they have real video capture equipment and it looks exactly like the screenshots I posted earlier, so how do you explain that? You can't hide smoke and mirrors with screenshots, you see every detail regardless.
You know the ps3 can't turn up the textures, aniostropic filtering or AA to pc levels on a 7800GTX 256mb right? So they offset the rest of the effects to the cpu's cell processor. Don't you get it, what your seeing here is the limit of the gpu, look at multiplatform games. The rest of the graphics are from the cpu. Let me say this, port these games to pc, it's going to run it even better, at 100 frames per second with full AA. Are you saying there is no bottleneck with the 256mb gpu? You actually think they stream textures? Or the use the XDR ram because they say it's faster? It's a split architure, lots of bottlenecks if you don't use the gpu. Mulitplatform games proves this.
Here is one more:
Other than the things usually characteristic of console games (low AA, AF) the game looks amazing.
It's ironic that you talk about "deception" and "smoke and mirrors" when you initially used screenshots from low bitrate console footage compared to full frame PC screenshots to try and prove your point, and now you're taking screenshots from the multiplayer portion of the game (which, as in all games, look noticeably worse than the singleplayer portions).
If you want a fair comparison, go to gametrailers and compare video reviews or gameplay, which both come from the console version.
I don't know why you are being attacked for speaking the truth. Thank you for posting these. People want to say if their was a PC version of UC2 it would look better, but then also claim this thread is an unfair comparison. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
"
UC2 doesn't exist on PC, this is as good as this game will ever look. Maybe they've never seen a game running in gorgeous, true HD but if the PS3 was their only avenue to gaming I can see how they would get offended.
@teh_pwnzorer:
I think the difference between JPG artifacts and jaggie pixels is night and day. I know we all want to be enamored by the hi-res rubble, but everything 10-20 feet in front of the character model looks like shit.
@Geno: Using real time to show the engine isn't exactly ingame screenshots which I like to see. Look you can run uncharted 2's video review on gametrailers, i'm sure it will look fantastic in motion, it will look like the best to alot of ppl. Then what happens with that hd video, you pause it? Then you say, where did the graphics go? That's the truth, when you pause this game, it looks like these screenshots above, no one noticed that before since they are used to seeing bullshots.
Well gametrailers will use the xbox360 version, I compared screenshots with the console version once in a thread. I posted console screenshots of modern warfare 2 compared to console screenshots, it's quite a difference. I hope it's not too much of an unfair advantage using pc screenshots, however the game is capable of alot when you give it higher settings among textures and other things. Look modern warfare 2 has great graphics. It looks kind of real.
Here is also another thing I learned about graphics, ever turned a screenshot upside down? Why do this? Well you aren't saying eyes, nose mouth head, like using your left brain. Rather with ps3 screenshots like the one you posted, you will see things differently. You will see the technical graphics instead of the iconic language and you can't see the art design. Tell me are these graphics really that great? Look at modern warfare 2 upside down, you will still see realistic shapes and good texture quality all around. I bet I can take any of your pc screenshots, turn them upsidedown and they all look clear. For arguement sake let's use one of the vlc snaps then, I turned it upsidedown so you can't see the smoke and mirrors yet you will see what I see. Great technique for seeing technical graphics.
What I see, (true of every ps3 exclusive cell processor game)
-low geometry
-overly saturated bright colors
-dull colored textures
-low rez textures
-jaggies 2X AA quazcuntz AA, I hope I spelled that right
-some contrast and bloom lighting
-over use of pixel shader effects over textures, gun is shiny at least
-quite 3d, lots of dimensionality
@teh_pwnzorer: Youtube videos looks alot worst.
Okay now let's look at modern warfare 2 (as it was intended) upside down. Let's just forget all these graphical techniques and look at what we can see.
-simple geometry, yet detailed at some places
-lots of textures on clothing and the gun, high resolution textures
-natural lighting, not some overly bright bloom
-realistic sort of look to the graphics, not cartoony at all
-a bit of a shine to cars and guns, not as much shader effects as uncharted 2
-sharp looking game not dull at all
-aniostropic filtering, you can see quite far into the distance
-detailed, ex leaves, grass
-good fire effects
@Geno: You just keep pretending I don't know it. However you still didn't explain the gamespot screenshots or ign's, then again anything that doesn't support you arguement, you pretend it doesn't exist and ignore it calling it wrong. I'm obviously using vlc snap to take screenshots from a 720p video, however ign and gamespot used direct feed, which is probally more accurate. It's not going to change the look or the design of the game that much, that's what the game sort of looks like, maybe blurrier. It's not going to look better if the screenshots was perfectly sharp, it's still going to look like a semi realistic cartoon with lots of effects. If you like that more power to you.
Maybe you just don't know what ps3 games looks like, they all have the same sort of look, here is god of war 3 for reference sakes. http://www.taxigamer.com/PlayStation_3/God_of_War_III/25640/sheet.html
Looks similar, cell processor effects, no one besides me knows what ps3 games really looks like and your finding out. Click on the spoiler to see another ps3 game, it has the same things, low geometry, low rez textures, bright, overuse of shaders, ect. It's just your seeing these as real screenshots for the first time.
I'll break it down for you (seem familiar? Yeah it's like the other dozen times I've had to sit you down and explain rudimentary stuff to you):" @Geno: You just keep pretending I don't know it. However you still didn't explain the gamespot screenshots, then again anything that doesn't support you arguement, you pretend it doesn't exist and ignore it calling it wrong. "
Youtube and Gametrailers videos (and Game videos or whatever) are low bitrate. What this means is that per frame (e.g. what you capture in a paused section), the quality is very low. What this also means is that when you take such a screenshot and compare it to one taken with FRAPS, it's a TOTALLY unfair comparison, since FRAPS captures the "real" frame with all of its RGB info. The bitrate of an uncompressed video taken with FRAPS for instance is literally orders of magnitudes larger than the bitrate of a typical gameplay video on the internet. The majority of your screenshots so far are taken in such a way, and you are still using them even now.
I've already responded to your Gamespot picture. I'll in fact quote myself:
@Geno
said:Once they release a PS3 emulator in a few years or whatever you can up the AA, AF and res of the above as well, and I guarantee you it will easily look better than MW2. Until then, the only honest comparison is console to console.
Other than the things usually characteristic of console games (low AA, AF) the game looks amazing.
Log in to comment