Fight Night 3 reviews

Inscrit depuis 6971 Jours

Posté par Slabs

Acert93: I assume you've seen the HD video preview from Gametrailers?

Yeah, I was the first one to link to it here.

Posté par FireWire

Acert, I think you can have your own opinion and "we" can have ours but i don't think your gonna complain when u finally get to play GRAW personally....

The problem is when I say, "Here is why I personally would not give it a 10" and someone childishly comes by and rants without even giving my comments a moment of pause.

And yes, I will "demerit" (not complain) GRAW on a *graphics* grade for not only not using soft shadows, but having jagged shadows that crawl. Maybe these are not sticking out to some because they do not know what they are looking at, but the edges of many shadows crawl. This means the edge not only is jagged, but even when you are standing still the jagged edge "moves".

All I was saying is that to give a game a 10 in graphics when there are graphical bugs -- ones that can be fixed -- is too high *in my opinion*. I did not bash the guy giving it a 10 -- I gave a clear, coherant reason why I would not.

u will see that allot if not all of those aren't an issue in the video

See, and this is it: I DID see the video! I was the first to post it here in 1 of the 10,000 GRAW threads (no, I did not start yet another thread just for that video).

Even more, *Every* demerit I gave was from that very video. You are saying, "those aren't an issue in the video" and yet I could go back and timestamp the frames that show what I am talking about.

I hate to say this because it comes off the wrong way... but if you are not "trained" to see something you cannot see the difference. We all have friends who think their PS2 game looks as good/better than an Xbox or PC game. Some people HONESTLY cannot see the difference.

I cannot claim to have a discerning eye for every technique and feature employed by developers; but I can say I am fairly familiar with a number of techniques that can--and are--being used by developers in which GRAW is using old & inferior techniques.

The shadow crawls is just an example of a shadowing/lighting engine that could be better. Unrealistic shadows bother me; they don't seem to even be noticed by some of you. But that does not mean graphically it could not be better or improved on--just some people don't notice.

But I promise you if you go boot up a 4 year old game that used a static shadow map you would notice. Once you have seen what the system is capable of (e.g. look at GoW's shadowing, or Q4/Prey) it gives a different perspective.

GRAW is a beautiful game with some really nice technology and good art. But I stand by my points--and I am 100% correct that every issue I noted is present in the current video.

The good news is that it is only sticking out to the most insane of us "gaphic %^$%^" so if it is good enough for you then yeah, it should be a 10 in your book.

Just not mine. But graphics don't make a game; GRAW looks like a gameplay winner.

Posté par Jollipop

If you rate this 10 what happens when something better comes out ??

That was one of my points. IMO I could never rate a game a 10 in graphics, at the beginning of a generation, when (a) I personally have seen better games and (b) there are, to me, obvious areas where the game can be improved visually.

Some games deserve a 10. Yes, graphics can always be improved, but if I see graphical issues in a game that other games don't have I could not give it a 10.

I wish some of those getting offended would give detailed lists of why it deserves a 10 in their opinion (and if they want to call me out show that I am wrong in pointing out certain glitches like the shadowing issues).

En réponse à

[quote=Slabs]Acert93: I assume you've seen the HD video preview from Gametrailers?[/quote]

Yeah, I was the first one to link to it here.

[quote=FireWire]Acert, I think you can have your own opinion and "we" can have ours but i don't think your gonna complain when u finally get to play GRAW personally.... [/quote]

The problem is when I say, "Here is why I personally would not give it a 10" and someone childishly comes by and rants without even giving my comments a moment of pause.

And yes, I will "demerit" (not complain) GRAW on a *graphics* grade for not only not using soft shadows, but having jagged shadows that crawl. Maybe these are not sticking out to some because they do not know what they are looking at, but the edges of many shadows crawl. This means the edge not only is jagged, but even when you are standing still the jagged edge "moves".

All I was saying is that to give a game a 10 in graphics when there are graphical bugs -- ones that can be fixed -- is too high *in my opinion*. I did not bash the guy giving it a 10 -- I gave a clear, coherant reason why I would not.

[quote]u will see that allot if not all of those aren't an issue in the video[/quote]

See, and this is it: I DID see the video! I was the first to post it here in 1 of the 10,000 GRAW threads (no, I did not start yet another thread just for that video).

Even more, *Every* demerit I gave was from that very video. You are saying, [b]"those aren't an issue in the video"[/b] and yet I could go back and timestamp the frames that show what I am talking about.

I hate to say this because it comes off the wrong way... but if you are not "trained" to see something you cannot see the difference. We all have friends who think their PS2 game looks as good/better than an Xbox or PC game. Some people HONESTLY cannot see the difference.

I cannot claim to have a discerning eye for every technique and feature employed by developers; but I can say I am fairly familiar with a number of techniques that can--and are--being used by developers in which GRAW is using old & inferior techniques.

The shadow crawls is just an example of a shadowing/lighting engine that could be better. Unrealistic shadows bother me; they don't seem to even be noticed by some of you. But that does not mean graphically it could not be better or improved on--just some people don't notice.

But I promise you if you go boot up a 4 year old game that used a static shadow map you would notice. Once you have seen what the system is capable of (e.g. look at GoW's shadowing, or Q4/Prey) it gives a different perspective.

GRAW is a beautiful game with some really nice technology and good art. But I stand by my points--and I am 100% correct that every issue I noted is present in the current video.

The good news is that it is only sticking out to the most insane of us "gaphic %^$%^" so if it is good enough for you then yeah, it should be a 10 in your book.

Just not mine. But graphics don't make a game; GRAW looks like a gameplay winner.

[quote=Jollipop]If you rate this 10 what happens when something better comes out ??[/quote]

That was one of my points. IMO I could never rate a game a 10 in graphics, at the beginning of a generation, when (a) I personally have seen better games and (b) there are, to me, obvious areas where the game can be improved visually.

Some games deserve a 10. Yes, graphics can always be improved, but if I see graphical issues in a game that other games don't have I could not give it a 10.

I wish some of those getting offended would give detailed lists of why it deserves a 10 in their opinion (and if they want to call me out show that I am wrong in pointing out certain glitches like the shadowing issues).

Acert93

Inscrit depuis 6971 Jours

Just a couple examples of the shadow issue:

5:09 -- low rez "jagged" crawling shadows on players
2:37 -- shadows from the rails are very jagged
2:54 -- against jagged railing shadows

Without spending some time with the entire game this would just be a guess, but it looks like (a) the static geometry is using shadow maps because they are cheap/clean and of the highest quality, the draw back being they are not dynamic and (b) dynamic objects are using dynamic shadowing tech but of a much lower quality.

This is one of the advantages of the Doom 3 engine (Doom 3, Quake 4, forthcoming Prey), FEAR, Condemned, UE3, and the new Crysis engine (the last 4 all using dynamic techniques and soft shadows).

This specific issue does not detract from whether GRAW is a good game or a bad game, nor does it make it an "ugly" game (contrary to hasmanadah's jab it is clear I have praised the game in a number of threads). It only does not make it a 10 in my book if there are graphical issues that are better in other games.

Why that resulted in personal insults I do not know why. I did not dis the guy saying he thought it was a 10, only explained why IMO it was not a 10.

En réponse à

Just a couple examples of the shadow issue:

5:09 -- low rez "jagged" crawling shadows on players
2:37 -- shadows from the rails are very jagged
2:54 -- against jagged railing shadows

Without spending some time with the entire game this would just be a guess, but it looks like (a) the static geometry is using shadow maps because they are cheap/clean and of the highest quality, the draw back being they are not dynamic and (b) dynamic objects are using dynamic shadowing tech but of a much lower quality.

This is one of the advantages of the Doom 3 engine (Doom 3, Quake 4, forthcoming Prey), FEAR, Condemned, UE3, and the new Crysis engine (the last 4 all using dynamic techniques and soft shadows).

This specific issue does not detract from whether GRAW is a good game or a bad game, nor does it make it an "ugly" game (contrary to hasmanadah's jab it is clear I have praised the game in a number of threads). It only does not make it a 10 in my book if there are graphical issues that are better in other games.

Why that resulted in personal insults I do not know why. I did not dis the guy saying he thought it was a 10, only explained why IMO it was not a 10.

wuffyx

Inscrit depuis 6979 Jours

Good god almighty is everything and anything about the XBOX 360 end with graphical capabilities?

I don't mean to interupt the discussion here but Fight Night graphics look darn good within the context that it is an early next-genration title game. And its even made by EA?!? Can you guys imagine that...EA making a good looking game?!?

Graphics prowess will always be within the realm of developer skill. There will always be developers that will be better in making good graphics such as ID and Epic. IMHO the most surprising thing about Fight Night is that the developer, EA, is not exactly known for putting good graphics and yet they did.

En réponse à

easynow

Inscrit depuis 6961 Jours

Posté par Acert93

Ah yes, I forget that *hard shadow edges that crawl* get better in HD.

Or that some of the clearly low res textures are gonna magically get better.

Or glitchy animations will smooth out.

Or that the "dust from now where" miraclously makes a 10 story concrete building roof into a dirt floor.

Sorry, if YOU guys can give it a 10 -- based on the HD 720p movies -- I can give MY view on why I think giving it a 10 is ignoring the obvious graphical issues.

If you used complete sentances you would make a lot more sense. For the record I have worn desert fatigues (I was a military areomedical evacuation technician) and can say comment on the detail of commo. the fact is the backpack and uni look bland. This is an art issue. A boring design does not necessitate making it look flat. Compare the E3 footage if you must. The E3 main character's uniform, while essentially the same, appears to have more _texture_ and depth to the fabric and uniform.

Because people are giving their assessment of the footgage being shown now? Or maybe a mild dose of reality is needed when people are screaming about how a game must get a 10 in graphics? I am only responding to what I feel is overzealous praise for the graphics of a game--that looks stunning--that has some obvious areas where it can substantially improve.

Yes, I forget casual fans only want a couple numbers to go and run to forums and argue about. I guess the fact you fall asleep during reviews explains the grammar.

.

dude what you fail to see is that the majority of these so called "hd 720p" trailers
that you like to base your review on are not actually HD or in 720p. they may have started out as HD or 720p but the "trailers" are getting leeched around the internet forums and game sites. ie downloaded saved,compressed, re up loaded and so on and so on,
and i would say that 99.95% are not from final builds. so for you to base your opinion on those vids is just purely conjecture.

i am not even going to humour you about that E3 comment, been there and seen the screen shots and bought the t shirt, (and imo this new build is better than the E3 "footage")

the reason i made the comment about falling asleep during your "reviews" was based on a thing i like to call "the waffle factor"
you like to use nice fancy words (that not being a bad thing its better than OMG XBOXROXXX)
its as though you are trying to affirm the fact that you are slightly above other people
in an intellectual level, but at the end you blow it dude by picking on another persons use of grammer.
and dude if you were in the military you would know how to spell your position in that said military.....ie military aeromedical evacuation technician...not as you put it.....military areomedical evacuation technician. it makes you look realy silly when you cant even spell your position yet go on to knock other peoples grammer.

as i said before , reserve your judgement untill you have the game (that will be in actual 720p on an actual HD tv) not based on some low quality internet vid from an unfinished build, because it makes your arguments seem unfounded.

but thats just my opinion.

En réponse à

[quote=Acert93]

Ah yes, I forget that *hard shadow edges that crawl* get better in HD.

Or that some of the clearly low res textures are gonna magically get better.

Or glitchy animations will smooth out.

Or that the "dust from now where" miraclously makes a 10 story concrete building roof into a dirt floor.

Sorry, if YOU guys can give it a 10 -- based on the HD 720p movies -- I can give MY view on why I think giving it a 10 is ignoring the obvious graphical issues.

If you used complete sentances you would make a lot more sense. For the record I have worn desert fatigues (I was a military areomedical evacuation technician) and can say comment on the detail of commo. the fact is the backpack and uni look bland. This is an art issue. A boring design does not necessitate making it look flat. Compare the E3 footage if you must. The E3 main character's uniform, while essentially the same, appears to have more _texture_ and depth to the fabric and uniform.

Because people are giving their assessment of the footgage being shown now? Or maybe a mild dose of reality is needed when people are screaming about how a game must get a 10 in graphics? I am only responding to what I feel is overzealous praise for the graphics of a game--that looks stunning--that has some obvious areas where it can substantially improve.

Yes, I forget casual fans only want a couple numbers to go and run to forums and argue about. I guess the fact you fall asleep during reviews explains the grammar.

.[/quote]

dude what you fail to see is that the majority of these so called "hd 720p" trailers
that you like to base your review on are not actually HD or in 720p. they may have started out as HD or  720p but the "trailers" are getting leeched around the internet forums and game sites. ie downloaded saved,compressed, re up loaded and so on and so on,
and i would say that 99.95% are not from final builds. so for you to base your opinion on those vids is just purely conjecture.

i am not even going to humour you about that E3 comment, been there and seen the screen shots and  bought the t shirt,  (and imo this new build is better than the E3 "footage")

the reason i made the comment about falling asleep during your "reviews" was based on a thing i like to call "the waffle factor" 
you like to use nice fancy words (that not being a bad thing its better than OMG XBOXROXXX)
its as though you are trying to affirm the fact that you are slightly above other people
in an intellectual level, but at the end you blow it dude by picking on another persons use of grammer. 
 and dude if you were in the military you would know how to spell your position in that said military.....ie  military aeromedical evacuation technician...not as you put it.....military areomedical evacuation technician.  it makes you look realy silly when you cant even spell your position yet go on to knock other peoples grammer.

as i said before , reserve your judgement untill you have the game (that will be in actual 720p on an actual HD tv) not based on some low quality internet vid from an unfinished build, because it makes your arguments seem unfounded.

but thats just my opinion.

Acert93

Inscrit depuis 6971 Jours

reserve your judgement untill you have the game

The problem is you wish to call it a 10 and praise it on an early build and when I give my non-aggressive input based on my technical background you start a flame. So take your own advice.

i am not even going to humour you about that E3 comment

Humor me. I have seen the 720p GRAW E3 video. The lighting, shadowing, and texture qualites -- and especially the texture filtering (a subtle but significant difference) -- are all excellent. The models are also higher poly count and have more smooth surfaces. Of course that is because it is CGI.

Of course the difference between our posts is I keep attempting to discuss the game--you attack my comments (fall asleep; waffle factor), tell me I have no clue about something I have intimate knowledge of (rendering and the military), totally disregard my technical comments, and half the time you are doing this while not even bothering to write--dialogue--coherantly. Ok, I had a type, but my comment in regards to your grammar is in regards to your rude behavior and attacking my posts-methods of analysing software.

This is a constant problem with fanboys. An unwillingness to discuss / critique software objectively. I have both praised GRAW and given some critical feedback. I do this with all games as it is part of discussing likes, dislikes, and so forth.

In doing so I do not assault those who disagree. I never belittled the person who said "GRAW is a 10!". I explained why I expect more and issues I saw.

Instead you decided to take a nice discussion and turn it into a stupid flame war where you wish to take the focus away from the games being discussed but to turn it on the people you disagree with.

If you don't like my comments on the game give your own opinion on the game. But as long as a couple of you continue to troll I will be on my guard. If you don't like my comments in regards to your personal attacks then stop changing the focus to me instead of the game.

And if you really think I "waffle" or am boring and put people to sleep and condescend so forth and so on stop reading my posts and stop personally attacking me because I have no problem replying and showing examples of my opinion.

Like the shadows.

Which of course supposedly were "solved". Funny how I could back up my point with timestamps to the graphic bugs. Of course the thread continues to be an assault on me instead of discussing the game... I guess some Xbox fans cannot handle objective opinions. Agree to disagree and give well thought out, coherant, and readable responses about your opinion. But stop dragging threads into personal spheres.

OMG XBOX IS TEH WIN!!!111

En réponse à

[quote]reserve your judgement untill you have the game[/quote]

The problem is you wish to call it a 10 and praise it on an early build and when I give my non-aggressive input based on my technical background you start a flame. So take your own advice.

[quote]i am not even going to humour you about that E3 comment[/quote]

Humor me. I have seen the 720p GRAW E3 video. The lighting, shadowing, and texture qualites -- and especially the texture filtering (a subtle but significant difference) -- are all excellent. The models are also higher poly count and have more smooth surfaces. Of course that is because it is CGI.

Of course the difference between our posts is I keep attempting to discuss the game--you attack my comments (fall asleep; waffle factor), tell me I have no clue about something I have intimate knowledge of (rendering and the military), totally disregard my technical comments, and half the time you are doing this while not even bothering to write--dialogue--coherantly. Ok, I had a type, but my comment in regards to your grammar is in regards to your rude behavior and attacking my posts-methods of analysing software.

This is a constant problem with fanboys. An unwillingness to discuss / critique software objectively. I have both praised GRAW and given some critical feedback. I do this with all games as it is part of discussing likes, dislikes, and so forth.

In doing so I do not assault those who disagree. I never belittled the person who said "GRAW is a 10!". I explained why I expect more and issues I saw.

Instead you decided to take a nice discussion and turn it into a stupid flame war where you wish to take the focus away from the games being discussed but to turn it on the people you disagree with.

If you don't like my comments on the game give your own opinion on the game. But as long as a couple of you continue to troll I will be on my guard. If you don't like my comments in regards to your personal attacks then stop changing the focus to me instead of the game.

And if you really think I "waffle" or am boring and put people to sleep and condescend so forth and so on stop reading my posts and stop personally attacking me because I have no problem replying and showing examples of my opinion.

Like the shadows.

Which of course supposedly were "solved". Funny how I could back up my point with timestamps to the graphic bugs. Of course the thread continues to be an assault on me instead of discussing the game... I guess some Xbox fans cannot handle objective opinions. Agree to disagree and give well thought out, coherant, and readable responses about your opinion. But stop dragging threads into personal spheres.

OMG XBOX IS TEH WIN!!!111

rjcc

Inscrit depuis 7017 Jours

acert, as I recall there were two different E3 GRAW videos. are you talking about the one that looked very close to what the original game is like, or the other one which was very obviously cgi? because the one that looked likk the real game, I don't recall there being added detail thats now missing from the soldiers.

En réponse à

Jollipop

Inscrit depuis 6883 Jours

GEEZZZZ who cares.. ?

It's stupid to say it looks like 10/10 and its stupid to complain about jaggy shadowing..

Give it a rest already..

En réponse à

easynow

Inscrit depuis 6961 Jours

acert . i was not agresive nor am i a fan boy
what my point is and you have yet to acknowledge is that you are basing your judgement on
and let me say this again NON FINAL BUILD VIDEOS. i expect (with a game with so much hype place upon its shoulders to have all the little bugs ironed out)

and you say "If you don't like my comments on the game give your own opinion on the game"
yes i will give my opinion on the game , but i will only give my opinion on the game when i have the final build , aka the game that is released in to the general public on march 10th (uk) and untill then i will reserve my judgement.

and acert dude i didnt start any flame war , me and varios other people didnt like the fact that you are basing an opinion on a game you have neither played or is compleated. simple as

as a video game fan and one of the consoles i am a fan of just so happens to be the xbox 360, doesnt cloud my judgement or stop me from giving an objective opinion.
but what the point of giving an objective opinion on somthing that (in 99% of the time) will not reprisent the final ojective?????.
by what you are saying i sould state my opinion on how a game is before i have played the game, (your making your self sound realy stupid) then i have to re-evaluate my objective opinion that was based on conjecture, thus making my firt opinion pointless ???.

i will point out one of you foibles..to quote you "Humor me. I have seen the 720p GRAW E3 video. The lighting, shadowing, and texture qualites -- and especially the texture filtering (a subtle but significant difference) -- are all excellent. The models are also higher poly count and have more smooth surfaces. Of course that is because it is CGI."

that statement is nonsensical you trying to compare gci to actual game play and then go on to say that the gameplay vids are poor in comparison, yet admit that the E3 footage is cgi????. cgi will always outway actual gameplay in terms of quality and production values.

imo your not attempting to discuss the software objectively, you have picked one tiny subject (ie the shadow crawl) and got stuck on that subject instead of looking at the bigger picture. GRAW is still a 1st generation 360 game , and may i add is still far ahead if what most pc's can pump out. and the graphical quality is still going to get better.
GRAWF is still going to be a tour de force in what the 360 is achievable. most of us know this and expect the gfx to get better with every generation of games, but to get stuck on the "shadow crawl" and then say the you wouldnt give it a 10 because of that is very silly.

imo it does indeed deserve a 10 for the gfx , why ??? because its the best that they could do in the time frame , with the coders still getting to know the OS of the 360, and because it looks better than anything that has come before it, and its only a 1st generation game.to not give it a 10 because of the "crawl" and that they might get better gfx out of the 360 is plain stupid.

i will make a music analogy..i like the strokes.. their first album i will give a 10 out of 10. it perfect to me when i heard it i didnt think "well its ok but i will only give it a 8 out of 10 because they might do a better album"....well the second album was not so good to me , a 8 out of 10. but the 3rd album is a blinder but i still give it a 10 out of 10. but its neither better or worse than the 1st album .... just different, but based on your system i should have not liked the 1st album as much because it might not be as good as the can be....that makes no sense.

dude i only attack when you decided to bring forth my grammatical errors to the forefront
you decided to make it personal.

En réponse à

acert . i was not agresive nor am i a fan boy
what my point is and you have yet to acknowledge is that you are basing your judgement on
and let me say this again  NON FINAL BUILD VIDEOS.  i expect (with a game with so much hype place upon its shoulders to have all the little bugs ironed out)

and you say "If you don't like my comments on the game give your own opinion on the game"
yes i will give my opinion on the game , but i will only give my opinion on the game when i have the final build , aka the game that is released in to the general public on march 10th (uk) and untill then i will reserve my judgement.

and acert dude i didnt start any flame war , me and varios other people didnt like the fact that you  are basing an opinion on a game you have neither played or is compleated. simple as

as a video game fan and one of the consoles i am a fan of just so happens to be the xbox 360, doesnt cloud my judgement or stop me from giving an objective opinion.
but what the point of giving an objective opinion on somthing that (in 99% of the time) will not reprisent the final ojective?????. 
by what you are saying i sould state my opinion on how a game is before i have played the game, (your making your self sound realy stupid) then i have to re-evaluate my objective opinion that was based on conjecture, thus making my firt opinion pointless ???.

i will point out one of you foibles..to quote you                                           "Humor me. I have seen the 720p GRAW E3 video. The lighting, shadowing, and texture qualites -- and especially the texture filtering (a subtle but significant difference) -- are all excellent. The models are also higher poly count and have more smooth surfaces. Of course that is because it is CGI."

that statement is nonsensical you trying to compare gci to actual game play and then go on to say that the gameplay vids are poor in comparison, yet admit that the E3 footage is cgi????. cgi will always outway actual gameplay in terms of quality and production values.

imo your not attempting to discuss the software objectively, you have picked one tiny subject (ie the shadow crawl) and got stuck on that subject instead of looking at the bigger picture. GRAW is still a 1st generation 360 game , and may i add is still far ahead if what most pc's can pump out. and the graphical quality is still going to get better.
GRAWF  is still going to be a tour de force in what the 360 is achievable. most of us know this and expect the gfx to get better with every generation of games, but to get stuck on the "shadow crawl" and then say the you wouldnt give it a 10 because of that is very silly.

imo it does indeed deserve a 10 for the gfx , why ??? because its the best that they could do in the time frame , with the coders still getting to know the OS of the 360, and because it looks better than anything that has come before it, and its only a 1st generation game.to not give it a 10 because of the "crawl" and that they might get better gfx out of the 360 is plain stupid.

i will make a music analogy..i like the strokes.. their first album i will give a 10 out of 10. it perfect to me when i heard it i didnt think "well its ok but i will only give it a 8 out of 10 because they might do a better album"....well the second album was not so good to me , a 8 out of 10.  but the 3rd album is a blinder but i still give it a 10 out of 10. but its neither better or worse than the 1st album .... just different, but based on your system i should have not liked the 1st album as much because it might not be as good as the can be....that makes no sense.

dude i only attack when you decided to bring forth my grammatical errors to the forefront
you decided to make it personal.

Myro

Inscrit depuis 6928 Jours

Since it's my B-day today [hint] i will now be purchasing FNR3 on time like the rest of you fine people. (screw dressing gowns and new clothes! give me money!)

En réponse à

I am the pwnage

Jato

Inscrit depuis 6877 Jours

Posté par Myro

Since it's my B-day today [hint] i will now be purchasing FNR3 on time like the rest of you fine people. (screw dressing gowns and new clothes! give me money!)

Who needs clothes when you got an 360....:)
Happy B-day By the Way(hey, that's a funny sentence....)

En réponse à

Acert93

Inscrit depuis 6971 Jours

Posté par rjcc

acert, as I recall there were two different E3 GRAW videos. are you talking about the one that looked very close to what the original game is like, or the other one which was very obviously cgi? because the one that looked likk the real game, I don't recall there being added detail thats now missing from the soldiers.

I am talking about the GRAW footage that was shown at MS's E3 press event. Later a UBI representative showed off some footage where some apaches blow up a tank, but I am talking about the first footage specifically showed publically for the first time. It was also shown, shortly, at the MTV show. It is the one with "Mitchell" on the back of the uniform, the guy ducks, and the large explosion.

The irony is (a) it was presented as "game" and demoed by a UBI rep as "gameplay" and explaining how the game worked and (b) to their benefit, the final games DOES look very similar.

MUCH better than the game looked in June/July. There is an old thread on B3D where there was a long discussion on how/why GRAW looked so bad. Because it honestly did. The final product looks absolutely amazing and NOTHING like the stuff they showed 6 months ago.

I am pretty happy with what they did with it; and it even is close to the render target. I wish people would understand my criticisms of the engine/rendering with that in mind (i.e. "there is a lot more room to go for a 10 IMO" and not "GRAW looks bad"). Personally I would give GRAW a 9. It looks better than any PC shooter I can think of (both in high quality art detail and overall use of technology), it just lags in art theme some and has some missing bells and whistles you would expect since other games use them.

But it is a great looking game.

En réponse à

[quote=rjcc]acert, as I recall there were two different E3 GRAW videos.  are you talking about the one that looked very close to what the original game is like, or the other one which was very obviously cgi?  because the one that looked likk the real game, I don't recall there being added detail thats now missing from the soldiers.[/quote]

I am talking about the GRAW footage that was shown at MS's E3 press event. Later a UBI representative showed off some footage where some apaches blow up a tank, but I am talking about the first footage specifically showed publically for the first time. It was also shown, shortly, at the MTV show. It is the one with "Mitchell" on the back of the uniform, the guy ducks, and the large explosion.

The irony is (a) it was presented as "game" and demoed by a UBI rep as "gameplay" and explaining how the game worked and (b) to their benefit, the final games DOES look very similar.

MUCH better than the game looked in June/July. There is an old thread on B3D where there was a long discussion on how/why GRAW looked so bad. Because it honestly did. The final product looks absolutely amazing and NOTHING like the stuff they showed 6 months ago.

I am pretty happy with what they did with it; and it even is close to the render target. I wish people would understand my criticisms of the engine/rendering with that in mind (i.e. "there is a lot more room to go for a 10 IMO" and not "GRAW looks bad"). Personally I would give GRAW a 9. It looks better than any PC shooter I can think of (both in high quality art detail and overall use of technology), it just lags in art theme some and has some missing bells and whistles you would expect since other games use them.

But it is a great looking game.

Acert93

Inscrit depuis 6971 Jours

Posté par easynow

and acert dude i didnt start any flame war , me and varios other people didnt like the fact that you are basing an opinion on a game you have neither played or is compleated. simple as

And yet you can give a positive opinion of a game?

Look, if someone says, "This (what they are seeing) is a 10!"

I have a right to say what I think. And no, I don't think what we saw is a 10 in my opinion.

You continue to rail against why I should not comment on the footage we see yet ignore the double standard that you and others CAN comment.

Basically if I gave a positive comment you would be fine; but since I have something negative to say you make personal attacks about "waffle factor" and "putting people to sleep" and so forth.

that statement is nonsensical you trying to compare gci to actual game play

Sorry, the UBI rep said it was gameplay. Just because you and I know it was CGI does not matter; UBI presented it to us in great detail as gameplay. He not only said that, but he went to great pains to DEMO the ingame features from the video.

but i will only give my opinion on the game when i have the final build

1. So are you saying you have NEVER on these boards gave your opinion of a game before playing it? Never? Not a single comment?

2. You continue to ignore the fact we were discussing what we were SEEING.

How hard is to to comprehend that someone called THIS a 10, and I am saying THIS is not a 10 in my book???

No one ever said it could not get better (or worse). We are talking about what we are seeing now.

The fact you are picking on my negative comments and have completely ignored the positive ones is telling. I don't see you saying, "Hey guys, don't get excited! They could turn self shadowing off!"

imo your not attempting to discuss the software objectively, you have picked one tiny subject (ie the shadow crawl) and got stuck on that subject instead of looking at the bigger picture.

Back to talking about me again? You have no clue how my mind things. Fact is I noted a number of issues (like 6). Shadow errors were only one criticism of the footage shown.

GRAWF is still going to be a tour de force in what the 360 is achievable

What happened to not commenting on games until they are released?!

imo it does indeed deserve a 10 for the gfx

Hahahaha! So the truth comes out!

Your issue is not me judging the footage we saw--it is you disagree. I get it, if I agree with you I can dance around and call it a 10. But if I question a number of graphical issues I am "not objective"?

Whatever happened to seeing the final product before judging it?

This says it all:

but i will only give my opinion on the game when i have the final build

En réponse à

[quote=easynow]and acert dude i didnt start any flame war , me and varios other people didnt like the fact that you are basing an opinion on a game you have neither played or is compleated. simple as[/quote]

And yet you can give a positive opinion of a game?

Look, if someone says, "This (what they are seeing) is a 10!"

I have a right to say what I think. And no, I don't think what we saw is a 10 in my opinion.

You continue to rail against why I should not comment on the footage we see yet ignore the double standard that you and others CAN comment.

Basically if I gave a positive comment you would be fine; but since I have something negative to say you make personal attacks about "waffle factor" and "putting people to sleep" and so forth.

[quote]that statement is nonsensical you trying to compare gci to actual game play[/quote]

Sorry, the UBI rep said it was gameplay. Just because you and I know it was CGI does not matter; UBI presented it to us in great detail as gameplay. He not only said that, but he went to great pains to DEMO the ingame features from the video.

[quote]but i will only give my opinion on the game when i have the final build [/quote]

1. So are you saying you have NEVER on these boards gave your opinion of a game before playing it? Never? Not a single comment?

2. You continue to ignore the fact we were discussing what we were SEEING.

How hard is to to comprehend that someone called THIS a 10, and I am saying THIS is not a 10 in my book???

No one ever said it could not get better (or worse). We are talking about what we are seeing now.

The fact you are picking on my negative comments and have completely ignored the positive ones is telling. I don't see you saying, "Hey guys, don't get excited! They could turn self shadowing off!"

[quote]imo your not attempting to discuss the software objectively, you have picked one tiny subject (ie the shadow crawl) and got stuck on that subject instead of looking at the bigger picture.[/quote]

Back to talking about me again? You have no clue how my mind things. Fact is I noted a number of issues (like 6). Shadow errors were only one criticism of the footage shown.

[quote]GRAWF is still going to be a tour de force in what the 360 is achievable[/quote]

What happened to not commenting on games until they are released?!

[quote]imo it does indeed deserve a 10 for the gfx[/quote]

Hahahaha! So the truth comes out!

Your issue is not me judging the footage we saw--it is you disagree. I get it, if I agree with you I can dance around and call it a 10. But if I question a number of graphical issues I am "not objective"?

Whatever happened to seeing the final product before judging it?

This says it all:

[quote]but i will only give my opinion on the game when i have the final build [/quote]