Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

How the hell did R* make a game this good looking?

82 replies to this topic
The Balcony Guy
  • The Balcony Guy

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2013

#61

Posted 24 November 2013 - 09:13 PM Edited by The Balcony Guy, 24 November 2013 - 09:15 PM.

For a detailed open world game, the graphics are great. The lightning is amazing, especially in the cars. It's the best I've seen in a video game. I think Rockstar managed to make this game good looking with the extra 8 GB.


Wolfhuman
  • Wolfhuman

    crush on Amanda De Santa.

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 May 2008
  • None

#62

Posted 24 November 2013 - 11:30 PM

We aren't even worth it to play this game.


saksoka
  • saksoka

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013

#63

Posted 25 November 2013 - 12:05 AM Edited by saksoka, 25 November 2013 - 12:07 AM.

 

 

The last of us has far better graphics.



True but is waaaaaaay smaller

 


LOL Are you serious?
GTA V (Not mine it's -EvilFuture- picture) 10/10
13874645.jpg
The Last of Us 8/10
13874648.png

 

 

13853373951.jpg

 

13853373962.jpg

 

13853373963.jpg

 

13853373964.jpg

 

13853373975.jpg

 

13853373987.jpg

 

13853373988.jpg

 

well nice try kid , but next time be careful and don't lie 

Saksoka is watching you  

  • HoleInTheSky, UltraGizmo64 and Murray Bunyan like this

Neox
  • Neox

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2013

#64

Posted 25 November 2013 - 12:13 AM

 

 

Far Cry 3 looked better and ran much better, though.

 

I'll elaborate on what I said ^ there, here:

 

Far Cry 3:

 

Far-Cry-3-hangglider.jpg

 

GTA V:

 

GTA_V_13524245038808.jpg

 

The difference is quite noticeable and Far Cry 3 ran much better, even on consoles.

 

The screenshot of Far Cry 3 is probably from the PC Version.

And you don't know how good GTA V would look like on a PC.

 

How about this ha ? how about this ??? 

in your face , in your f*cking face 

next time post a clean pic 

 

Someone is really mad.

 

And you can't compare GTA 5 with TLoU because GTA 5 is open world where you can see everything from every angle while driving with highspeed.

In TLoU you play mostly in closed locations and move slowly.


saksoka
  • saksoka

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013

#65

Posted 25 November 2013 - 12:35 AM Edited by saksoka, 25 November 2013 - 12:36 AM.

 

 

 

Far Cry 3 looked better and ran much better, though.

 

I'll elaborate on what I said ^ there, here:

 

Far Cry 3:

 

Far-Cry-3-hangglider.jpg

 

GTA V:

 

GTA_V_13524245038808.jpg

 

The difference is quite noticeable and Far Cry 3 ran much better, even on consoles.

 

The screenshot of Far Cry 3 is probably from the PC Version.

And you don't know how good GTA V would look like on a PC.

 

How about this ha ? how about this ??? 

in your face , in your f*cking face 

next time post a clean pic 

 

Someone is really mad.

 

And you can't compare GTA 5 with TLoU because GTA 5 is open world where you can see everything from every angle while driving with highspeed.

In TLoU you play mostly in closed locations and move slowly.

 

I actually edit my comment before seen yours , and yeah I can't compere an open world game like GTA V with TLOU . 

actually I like GTA V graphics very much , It's awesome  

But what GTA564 did is just  plain stupid , and Idiotic

putting a terribly downgraded pic like that is simply bias 


BlackScout
  • BlackScout

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#66

Posted 25 November 2013 - 12:42 AM

PC Version will be incredible.
The game is really impressive on the old-gen **current gen is X.ONE and PS4**, awesome graphics for such old hardware, the Aliasing hurts the eye, but at least the performance is good.
The weather is amazing, the sunsets are awesome to take a nice picture, nights are cool, daytime too. Ground textures aren't the best, on Xbox is worse but that's not a problem IMO.
A Xbox One / PS4 version would be cool, but it's a little bit unlikely to come out for these platforms, but I still have some hope...
PC Version is almost confirmed, we just need a word from R* :D
But to be honest, what really matters is the fun you have playing the game.  :lol:


Punk Noodles
  • Punk Noodles

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013

#67

Posted 26 November 2013 - 10:34 AM

Yea, I'm honestly not sure I follow all the jaggies and draw distance complaints in here. The jaggies are no worse than in so many other games and the draw distance is honestly quite impressive. You can pretty much see the entire map from Mt.
Chilliad. Sure there's a bit of a drop in the FPS from time to time, but it's been incredibly rare for me so far. 

 

Game is still the most impressive game I've ever played from a technical standpoint. And everything else is pretty amazing too.


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#68

Posted 26 November 2013 - 10:44 AM

Over two months later, I still find it impressive. 

 

I love how we're 2 weeks into the new generation of consoles and people are calling this hardware old, or saying the graphics look bad. If this had arrived a year earlier, people would have been blowing chunks in disbelief at the graphics... except the Pissy PC gamers, who would have just waved their cocks around and gloated that their superior hardware looks better.

 

No sh*t it looks better, it's more powerful. Same goes for the new consoles. 

 

The 'old' generation has a LOT to be proud of. 

  • stobe187 likes this

Drake1212
  • Drake1212

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Feb 2008

#69

Posted 26 November 2013 - 10:56 AM

Are people seriously complaining about the draw distance? the draw distance in GTA V is the best i've seen in any open world games yet.


Tashan
  • Tashan

    Li'l G Loc

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2010

#70

Posted 26 November 2013 - 10:58 AM

How the hell did R* make a game this good looking? 

 

Wait. Hold On. The most beautiful, the most pleasing and the most excellent gorgeous game (PC) hasn't arrived yet :D 


stobe187
  • stobe187

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 May 2013
  • None

#71

Posted 26 November 2013 - 11:44 AM

Where are all the guys who kept stating that the graphics will be well below expectations? I distinctly remember a lot of people saying "it's gonna look sh*tty on old tech....but it's all about gameplay anyways so it doesn't matter"..


stobe187
  • stobe187

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 May 2013
  • None

#72

Posted 26 November 2013 - 11:54 AM

Over two months later, I still find it impressive. 

 

I love how we're 2 weeks into the new generation of consoles and people are calling this hardware old, or saying the graphics look bad. If this had arrived a year earlier, people would have been blowing chunks in disbelief at the graphics... except the Pissy PC gamers, who would have just waved their cocks around and gloated that their superior hardware looks better.

 

No sh*t it looks better, it's more powerful. Same goes for the new consoles. 

 

The 'old' generation has a LOT to be proud of. 

 

This.

 

I despise the way some PC neckbeards keep talking really big sh*t about how their 2013 built computer runs games better than a 2005 console. Woah. That's a huge surprise. f*cking huge. That's like saying a 2005 Nokia N90 is less powerful than a 2013 Samsung Galaxy S4.

 

 

Anyway, I think Rockstar has achieved improvements on pretty much every area: the lighting, textures, draw distance, how the lights look from a distance, weather effects...

 

For such ancient hardware, the game looks fantastic.


UndraftedTalent
  • UndraftedTalent

    Square Civilian

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2013

#73

Posted 26 November 2013 - 12:08 PM

Look at saints row iv, San Andreas looks better than that crap.

How could you be so gattttdamn stupid, sir?

ilXUP0GgsVwmH.gif

 

 

carlton-banks.jpg


bensons
  • bensons

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2013

#74

Posted 26 November 2013 - 12:43 PM

 

Look at saints row iv, San Andreas looks better than that crap.

How could you be so gattttdamn stupid, sir?

ilXUP0GgsVwmH.gif

 

 

carlton-banks.jpg

 

lol this guy cried on "I'm a celebrity get me out of here."


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#75

Posted 26 November 2013 - 12:50 PM

For such ancient hardware, the game looks fantastic.

 

 

Ah, but my point was that this ISN'T ancient hardware. It's very, very capable hardware, in the right hands. For such an early in the life-cycle game, IV looked incredible. A bit grimy and grainy, but that was right for the game. 

 

The PS3 in particular had some incredible looking games early in its life - Uncharted, for example, or the first LittleBigPlanet, all looked amazing. If it had maybe another 2 years of life (sadly not with the new generation firmly here) we could see some absolutely mind-blowing graphics as people harness the power of the hardware properly.

 

This is one of my major complaints about the current life cycle of consoles, and hardware in general. Everyone's pushing for the next model, which will introduce 58billion terra-flaps of giggle-points in the floating hubnub. Well... maybe that's possible on the old hardware, if it was just left for long enough for someone to work out how to do it efficiently. 

 

We're moving too fast. Way too fast. We could have such great games if people weren't so concerned with having something new on their desk each few years. 

 

The last gen, the 360 and the PS3, made a good crack at it, though, I'll grant that. Just wish they coul have had longer, as the games released in the last year or so have been stunning. Well, some have. A lot have been utter sh*t, but that's the fault of the fresh-out-of-college-and-cheap-to-hire developers that are pushing code through the machines.


UndraftedTalent
  • UndraftedTalent

    Square Civilian

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2013

#76

Posted 26 November 2013 - 01:16 PM

guys i have a confession

 

tumblr_lv6xl5jGdb1r0ix14o2_250.gif

 

tumblr_lv6xl5jGdb1r0ix14o1_500.jpg


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#77

Posted 26 November 2013 - 01:20 PM

So disappointed.


Grand Cannon
  • Grand Cannon

    Everywhere and Nowhere

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2010

#78

Posted 26 November 2013 - 02:15 PM

"Good looking" that's cute.


Echolex
  • Echolex

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013

#79

Posted 26 November 2013 - 03:38 PM

bad frame rate

I don't even


Murray Bunyan
  • Murray Bunyan

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013

#80

Posted 26 November 2013 - 04:10 PM

 

Far Cry 3 looked better and ran much better, though.

 

I'll elaborate on what I said ^ there, here:

 

Far Cry 3:

 

 

 

GTA V:

 

 

 

The difference is quite noticeable and Far Cry 3 ran much better, even on consoles.

 

You have to be absolutely f*cking kidding me, ran much better? Let's just snap out of this subjective bullsh*t and look at the reality, the facts.

 

This is the technical analysis on Far Cry 3, all platforms.

http://www.eurogamer...-cry-3-face-off

And here's one for GTA V.

http://www.eurogamer...auto-5-face-off

 

Eurogamer states that sometimes the frame-rates in Far Cry 3 can drop to 15FPS! Meanwhile the "Performance is a mixed bag for unscripted gameplay, where each platform has its time to shine at 30fps while the other languishes at a lower rate of refresh. There's a very slight trend towards higher frame-rates on 360, but in practise this is tough to spot"

 

This, here, proves that GTA V has it by a mile in frame-rates. Now for the graphics, a thing I'd like to add is that a lot of people here, including most of the gaming forums on the internet, when comparing two or more games graphically, post pre-release promotional bullshots almost everytime. Both the screenshots you posted, the Far Cry 3 one and the GTA V one (even the , were released sometime before the game's release (slightly having a clearer image quality, probably running on their respective platforms but having poor frame-rates) to appeal to the masses.

 

Once again, Eurogamer also has a solution for that. You can check their article for screenshots.


Echolex
  • Echolex

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013

#81

Posted 26 November 2013 - 04:17 PM

 

when comparing two or more games graphically, post pre-release promotional bullshots almost everytime.

This

 

Please stop doing this. It's laughable.

"Look at how good this looks!!" *posts heavily touched-up promotional screen not at all representative of the actual ingame graphical quality*


Valdorien
  • Valdorien

    We weren't ready!

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2013
  • None

#82

Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:02 PM

It looks awesome.

 

Who here could make better?

 

NOT A SINGLE PERSON OR GROUP IN THIS FORUM COULD EVER.


Palm Tree
  • Palm Tree

    GTA

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2013

#83

Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:05 PM

I would say the graphics are good, but nowhere near great. Nothing that I would pay more money to enhance or capture images of.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users