Slamman Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 I feel strongly GTA should be a benchmark for the very reasons people favor this game... But if you haven't already...JUST take a look for some videos showing the characters in Uncharted reacting to the water.... How they swim and walk in it, how the clothing gets glistening wet then dries again, R* did a small example of the same thing compared to Naughty Dog's result, there appears a drastic difference. The water we've seen in GTA4 is looking pretty good so far, but it still lacks that reach out and get wet in it feel that Uncharted delivers. If you opted for Xbox 360, show me a game with the graphical depth of Uncharted already out on that platform, I want to have a look, honestly. The game play is still good and doesn't suffer as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crux989 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 I guess if its water you seek Bioshock is where its at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rykane Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Lets not start another flame war,okay. Its going to look brilliant on both systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookPassBabtridge Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Water effects etc wouldnt really add anything to GTA. As long as the more general elements are solid and working smoothly, it should be a decent game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Deuce Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Remember, Rockstar never intended to make the game graphically life-like such as some of the other games out there (CoD4, for example, like I pointed out before). If you read the previews from months and months ago, they comment on how the graphics surpass any of today's "next-gen" games in graphical terms (although that was some time ago... Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed were released since then). That has to count for something, especially since they were really early beta builds of the game. The graphics we see when we actually play it will be stunning, BUT... not as nice as they could be. Why? As others have been saying, you just need to take into consideration how fully-interactive and living the cities will be, without loading times, and the ability to walk into almost any interior without a single loading screen (like we've seen in the past GTA games). Taking all of that in, I think Rockstar are doing a pretty good job in doing what they're doing (what they do best); and that's making the best video games that we all crave for. This will be one to remember, mark my words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrel Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 the graphics overall dont suck.....the surroundings, the cars all look good its the player models that look crap in areas, in that third trailer it looks as though those player models are from the original xbox.... Ya, I can't see the difference between the two. Looks just like last gen. If you cant see the difference between those character models, you need your eyes testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slamman Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 I agree in some ways, but it's hard to form a solid opinion. In much of pics, it looks pretty awful, but then the next set of pics looke awesome. The quality in the images is extremely random. On the other hand, the game looks AMAZING in motion. I thought that the hanging from the helicopter and truck bits from the second trailer was f*cking amazing graphically. I think the graphics in some shots are absolutely stunning, like this shot in the trailer for instance: edit: I'm ashamed Better then San Andreas but it can be done way better. The end. I agree that the heli shot gives some idea of how different things we did in the past GTA environment will be much better here. Even though the reply is a bit, I'd say done to humorous effect, I feel it sums up my opinion. I also mentioned that the water effects of Drake's Fortune and the intricacies (sp?) of the graphics on a whole don't detract from gameplay... The main thing I think detracts is more of it isn't open to wander in and the fighters shooting at you move in predictible and rather rapid fashion... In those terms, the game is held back, but all in all, they've come out of the gate swinging, in terms of giving us the prerequisite Killer App! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crux989 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 the graphics overall dont suck.....the surroundings, the cars all look good its the player models that look crap in areas, in that third trailer it looks as though those player models are from the original xbox.... Ya, I can't see the difference between the two. Looks just like last gen. If you cant see the difference between those character models, you need your eyes testing. He was usin sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoneZ.NY Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 this topic is pointless 1. the game is still is production 2. textures and all those little things that makes the graphics look complete comes close to last in the development phase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luffy2305 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 im slightly confused how can u even say the graphics suck when only pre game screenshots and trailers have been released .. the game isnt even out yet and wont be till next march so they probably still need to tune them up .. and for a map which is huge gta has never let themselves down gameplay wise and graphics wise and is always pretty much upm to standard as the other games out so before you start trying to say about the graphics just thionk that still the game is being worked on hence thats why it isnt even out!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 If you want to debate something I said, do it intelligently, you can say R* cars look great. Yea, well f*ck you forzas look better. You get my drift; it’s tit-for-tat, stupid. Look at the last paragraph and respond to that. Please. I've said this a billion times, so I'll just quote it this time... "Video games are never be considered art, while we have RPG nerds judging them solely on things like graphics and framerate." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrel Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 the graphics overall dont suck.....the surroundings, the cars all look good its the player models that look crap in areas, in that third trailer it looks as though those player models are from the original xbox.... Ya, I can't see the difference between the two. Looks just like last gen. If you cant see the difference between those character models, you need your eyes testing. He was usin sarcasm. That's not a sarcasm icon, but if he was fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slamman Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 I hasten to add, things like rocks and textures of the dwellings in Uncharted are about as good as one can get on any platform, that's why this game is so astounding, it doesn't amount to water effects only. Since GTA4 has been in development for about 4 years, it will not be re-written in terms of it's graphics base. Alot are expecting improvements surmounting what we just recently saw, I would be VERY surprised if they could manage that, but let's hope maybe they can build off the new platform technology, and so to speak, their learning curve is far lessoned now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReevusGTA Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Im happy with the graphics, when you compare them to the last few GTA's im just happy that they are largely improved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crux989 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 If you want to debate something I said, do it intelligently, you can say R* cars look great. Yea, well f*ck you forzas look better. You get my drift; it’s tit-for-tat, stupid. Look at the last paragraph and respond to that. Please. I've said this a billion times, so I'll just quote it this time... "Video games are never be considered art, while we have RPG nerds judging them solely on things like graphics and framerate." Maybe the reason why you gotta keep saying it is because you're not saying it right. "video games are never -going?- to be considered art"? or "Video games -have?- never been considered art"? "-becase?- we have RPG nerds judging them soley on things like graphics and framerate"? See, Im just not sure what it is you're trying to say or even how the two points you made are related. What does RPG gamers have to do with GTA? And why are you bringing up art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cps82 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 If you want to debate something I said, do it intelligently, you can say R* cars look great. Yea, well f*ck you forzas look better. You get my drift; it’s tit-for-tat, stupid. Look at the last paragraph and respond to that. Please. I've said this a billion times, so I'll just quote it this time... "Video games are never be considered art, while we have RPG nerds judging them solely on things like graphics and framerate." Why not? Hints towards Bioshock. If I understood your quote correctly WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ph3L1z14n0 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 I hasten to add, things like rocks and textures of the dwellings in Uncharted are about as good as one can get on any platform, that's why this game is so astounding, it doesn't amount to water effects only. Since GTA4 has been in development for about 4 years, it will not be re-written in terms of it's graphics base. Alot are expecting improvements surmounting what we just recently saw, I would be VERY surprised if they could manage that, but let's hope maybe they can build off the new platform technology, and so to speak, their learning curve is far lessoned now What the f*ck are you smoking man ??? Uncharted??!!!?!!??, seriously? that game was merely made to break the ice from the anime freakshow that the PS3 has when it comes to games. Of ALL the PS3 games, you had to pick such an inferior game in terms of graphics?, you really haven't played Bioshock, that's a game you can make a graphic comparison! but seriously NOT uncharted, for christh's sake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cps82 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 On topic: I wouldn't say they suck, not the best but I wouldn't expect that anyway on an open sandbox game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackMamba47 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 It pains to read so many posts complaining about how the graphics presented in the third trailer suck and whatnot, so the only way I see fit to solve this problem is to no longer present an intellectual argument with a bunch of fools, and instead deride them on their stupidity. To all those saying that the characters in the trailer look like those from the XBOX, allow me to tell you one thing, the cutscenes are being rendered in real-time, as said before there will be no load times following the initial load. All of the XBOX titles that I know of rendered the cutscenes separately from the ingame graphics. Anyone who wants a good example of what I'm saying, go check out some of the Playstation Final Fantasy titles. The cutscenes had graphics far surpassing any of the titles during that era, console and PC, but they were rendered separately from the actual game, which is why the graphics had a drastic dropoff between the two. GTAIV, on the other hand, renders the cutscenes in real time, something that no other game I've seen currently or on the horizon does, especially with the amount of detail that GTAIV is doing. You critics must be absolutely blind and stupid to think that GTAIV and its graphics are anywhere near comparable to a FPS or Uncharted. None of those games are tasked with rendering an entire city, complete with full traffic patterns, hundreds or thousands of people wandering the city on any given day, and then have the main character affect the city in any way we choose. Instead of spewing out a bunch of incoherent bullsh*t and foolishness, and trying to compare games which have little to no connection with one another, be it graphically or otherwise, try to use that very important organ sealed within your skull to think about what you're going to say, and let that sh*t go, because none of you are making a point that is in any way valid, and is clogging up this wonderful website with trash and pessimism that is not needed whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-lasto Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 the graphics overall dont suck.....the surroundings, the cars all look good its the player models that look crap in areas, in that third trailer it looks as though those player models are from the original xbox.... Ya, I can't see the difference between the two. Looks just like last gen. If you cant see the difference between those character models, you need your eyes testing. He was usin sarcasm. That's not a sarcasm icon, but if he was fair enough. It was sarcasm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gangster07 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 what do you expect,graphics like cod4,that wont happen.Look at the size of gta compared to cod4 it too big have graphics to match cod4 plus a working,living city. Shut up and stop complaining,your like a whining little girl,I would rather have a real life city than graphics and so would 99.9% of the people in here except for you,you little girl. The graphics look great anyway,not mind blowing but they are great.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nego00 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 i love gta but i must say the fat sa looking fat dancer did not help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookPassBabtridge Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Yes cutscenes are rendered realtime, which is why the characters should be looking the same detail as the peds currently do. The ones in trailer 3 were looking like placeholders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackMamba47 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Also, another gripe of mine. I find it so bloody silly to see people months before the game has been released, saying that the graphics won't be mindblowing. Well, for all I know, to put the graphics that we've seen in the trailer, which I found amazing and have blown the graphics of most games I've played out of the water, in an entire, living, breathing city, those graphics will be mindblowing, and will keep us entertained until the next GTA is released, and amount of entertainment that I hope will far surpass that of GTA:SA, which I felt was a terribly disapointing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hope Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 I kind-of agree - they don't look as good as they were hyped to be. I think the first trailer was definitely misleading, since it didn't show much - only buildings from usually far away with little to show off blurriness, "jaggies," and other not good looking sh*t. The screenshots look a lot worse than in the trailers I've seen. But that makes sense, since it's a still motion of probably action and when it's all moving your mind can't analyze all that. As long as there's no orange sunsets like in San Andreas and terrible jaggies and blurriness like SA on PS2 - then I'll be fine with whatever. One would think.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 (edited) If you want to debate something I said, do it intelligently, you can say R* cars look great. Yea, well f*ck you forzas look better. You get my drift; it’s tit-for-tat, stupid. Look at the last paragraph and respond to that. Please. I've said this a billion times, so I'll just quote it this time... "Video games are never be considered art, while we have RPG nerds judging them solely on things like graphics and framerate." Maybe the reason why you gotta keep saying it is because you're not saying it right. "video games are never -going?- to be considered art"? or "Video games -have?- never been considered art"? "-becase?- we have RPG nerds judging them soley on things like graphics and framerate"? See, Im just not sure what it is you're trying to say or even how the two points you made are related. What does RPG gamers have to do with GTA? And why are you bringing up art? Oh sorry, I typed it up really fast. I have said it before, and I'm sure I said it correctly then, but right now I'm exhausted from all the finals studying I've been doing. I'm sure you understand. Explanation: I'm of the belief that the majority of people don't feel video games have any artistic merit. Think about a game like Bioshock; it has an important message, but in the end all you're doing is running around, picking up money, and killing freaks. Plus, all the tough moral decisions are so black and white, that it almost seems childish. Killing an innocent girl who doesn't know what she's doing is obviously morally wrong, especially if she can be saved. I called him an RPG nerd because he compared GTA to Mass Effect. I wouldn't go too deep into it. I was simply saying that they won't be considered art, until we start judging them based on content. P.S. You're right, 'have' would've been the correct word to use. Edited December 8, 2007 by Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Burbank Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 How exactly can you get "too old" for an 18 rated game? Or videogames in general? Video Gaming in general not too old to play them, but too old to be really enthusiastic about them I'm 40 and will be 41 by the time the game comes out. It seems like not so long ago I was saving up money and mowing lawns to buy Colecovision. One day it dawns on you that life is rather short. A year, one revolution around the sun, they add up, the seasons pass, the days flicker by, and boom, your heart and spirit hasn't changed much but your "age" has. People don't change much unless they make a conscious effort to do or think they are supposed to. I never had that problem. I don't care what people think about me, because I know one day they will say to me, you know what, you were right, we took our lives too seriously and now that we are 60 years old we are going to take your advice and just be ourselves. It's at that point you realize who you were as a kid is pretty much who you are your entire life, deep deep down. Okay, enough talking grand. I have some cooking to do. So I'll be in and out of the boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phs1234 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Wait, didn't Assassin's Creed do 3 cities? I haven't played the game extensively, but it seems to me that the two maps might be of similar size. And if you look at AC's graphics in comparison to GTA4 so far, well... it just seems that GTA4 is a bit behind. However, I'm not a graphics whore; IMO, gameplay is the deciding factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Burbank Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Wait, didn't Assassin's Creed do 3 cities? I haven't played the game extensively, but it seems to me that the two maps might be of similar size. And if you look at AC's graphics in comparison to GTA4 so far, well... it just seems that GTA4 is a bit behind. However, I'm not a graphics whore; IMO, gameplay is the deciding factor. No way. You think AC is all that? AC = GRAW = DiRT = the same old lighting effects they had in R6V. The only game that has made a little step in raising the bar in graphics is Drake's Fortune. AC is standard fare. Or maybe you need a 1080p TV to see the differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Who the hell cares about graphics? It's the gameplay that counts! If you're playing GTA for it's graphics, you're definately playing the wrong game, so go play Crysis or something. The graphics are great for a GTA game, I'm sure the final product will look better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now