Tech Analysis: Alan Wake

By Richard Leadbetter Published 8 May, 2010

Midnight feast.

Page 1 of 3

As console exclusives for PS3 and Xbox 360 become rarer, the attention from media and gamers on first-party software has become more intense. Multiformat software does and will continue to break new technological barriers (Bad Company 2 anyone?), but the focus is on the exclusives to see the consoles pushing back the boundaries, unencumbered by the need to accommodate the limitations of a competing platform.

Few can argue with the assertion that Sony's mammoth network of first-party games studios has produced astonishing software in recent times. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and God of War III see the PS3 producing state-of-the-art visuals and gameplay that seem to hurdle the hardware limitations of the console running them almost effortlessly. But what of Xbox 360? Recently the focus from Microsoft has shifted elsewhere (most likely towards a certain camera-based device), with the platform holder seemingly happy to let third parties cater for the core gamer.

The emergence of Halo: Reach and Alan Wake looks set to change things. We took a look at Bungie's latest beta test last week, and today our gaze shifts towards Remedy's five-years-in-the-making survival horror epic, Alan Wake. Digital Foundry's love for Nordic games and their developers is well documented and an initial look at the Remedy game merely reinforces our belief that game-makers in this part of the world seem uniquely equipped to produce stunning titles, each with their own distinctive, impressive tech.

Of course, Alan Wake has not been without its controversies - for example claims that the game falls short in running in "proper" HD on a console designed for the high-definition era. So, to begin with, let's get the resolution issue out of the way once and for all.

Is Alan Wake rendering at 960x540? Is it full-fat 720p? Or is it somewhere in-between? We talked about Remedy's response to the pixel counters in a previous DF blog post. While the developer was implying heavily that the game was running at the standard HD resolution of 1280x720, there was nothing in the text that outright denied what screenshot analysis revealed - that the base resolution of the framebuffer itself was 960x540.

There were initial reservations expressed about the source of the analysis - Remedy talked about downscaled videos, for example. However, the screenshots themselves that were the basis of the discussion emanated from German games site VideoGamesZone.de, and we can attest to the quality of the shots since these guys use Digital Foundry capture gear and have done for three years.

Therefore, perhaps not surprisingly, our own internal analysis matches what the pixel-counters say: Alan Wake's native resolution is indeed 960x540, with 4x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. This is not to discount the very pertinent points Remedy raised in its statement - the framebuffer is put together from a range of different elements each with their own specific technical make-up and resolution and this has a big bearing on the overall image quality.

Alan Wake features some unique rendering technology, and the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts, of which framebuffer resolution is just one. Yes, it's significantly sub-HD, but the visual composition of the game makes this far less of an issue than you'd expect.

'Tech Analysis: Alan Wake' Screenshot res1
'Tech Analysis: Alan Wake' Screenshot res2
'Tech Analysis: Alan Wake' Screenshot res3
'Tech Analysis: Alan Wake' Screenshot res4

A combination of high levels of anti-aliasing and high-quality scaling easily cloaks Alan Wake's 960x540 framebuffer. These shots, with their bright and clear polygon edges, should expose any basic 'gotchas', but image quality remains very high. More pixels is always good, but concentrate rendering resources elsewhere and a low framebuffer need not be an issue.

Now then, scaling can be very good (especially on well anti-aliased images), but inevitably, more pixels is always better. We have some idea of how Alan Wake would have looked at 720p since earlier development footage was indeed running at the native HD resolution. Indeed, you can see it yourself by looking at one of Remedy's earlier developer diaries, which we had a go at analysing back in August last year.

So, resolution dropped since then, but it also appears that anti-aliasing has been bumped up from the more standard 2x MSAA. Why? The footage displayed some performance issues, which is perhaps not so surprising. Alan Wake's heavy use of alpha must surely be a massive drain on the GPU. But bumping up to 4x MSAA means that Remedy can make use of the "cheaper" transparencies afforded by using "alpha to coverage", safe in the knowledge that the sub-pixel multi-sampling offered by the 4x would blend away almost all of the "screen door" effect that you get with this implementation. Look closely and you can see that Remedy even used alpha-to-coverage on Wake's hair.

Let's be frank. Atmosphere is one of the key components in making Alan Wake the game it is. There is no other game quite like it in that regard. Advanced lighting and shadowing and a masterful implementation of volumetric fog are essential elements in building the look and feel of Bright Falls. It's because of that approach that the softness of the image and the relative lack of resolution isn't so much of a big deal. Alan Wake is far from a perfect piece of software, it's definitely not without its faults, but the comparatively low pixel-count has little, if any, negative impact on the final, shipping game - and that has been borne out by the reviews, none of which have mentioned much in the way of visual drawbacks.

Alan Wake's expert use of light, shadow and atmospheric effects is one of the highlights of the game. There's nothing quite like it on any other console game and it's a substantial tech achievement.

The 4x MSAA doesn't just allow Remedy leeway in its transparencies, it smooths off the majority of harsh edges, meaning that the ugliness of upscaled "jaggies" is not an issue. Bearing in mind the extended development time Alan Wake has had, and the fact that no developer is going to run the game at a lower resolution unless they really had to, we have to assume that Remedy's chosen solution here is the right one for what the studio set out to achieve. Upping resolution would have meant a reduction in anti-aliasing and almost certainly in performance. This is not to say that a native 720p framebuffer wouldn't look clearer and better (and it's a real shame that there's no PC build to provide that comparison) but in the context of Alan Wake's visual make-up, it's simply not as much of an issue as it would be on a vast range of other games.

Performance then. Alan Wake is a pretty consistent 30FPS game, as you would hope when the resolution has been reduced from the standard 720p down to 960x540. However, even with this reduction, there are performance issues, and you'll notice them within moments of picking up the joypad.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (208) Latest comment 8 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • uglygamer #1 2 years ago

    So they scraped the sandbox approach and made it more of a shooty shooty bang bang title?

    More like Alan Quake!
    Edited by 2 at 08/05/10 @ 12:58

  • tiny_Eggy #2 2 years ago

    It needs a PC version where the engine is not limited by the console's aging hardware. Come on Remedy.

  • lockload #3 2 years ago

    "Where Remedy does deserve kudos is in the fact the game maintains 30FPS to the point where dropped frames are mostly unobservable to the human eye."

    Thanks got what i needed.

  • Rodchenko #4 2 years ago

    Good article, which basically reinforces what Ellie was saying, albeit in a less polarizing tone. I also wish to know why they scrapped the sandbox approach.

  • Guitarnerd87 #5 2 years ago

    It all looks good, the lighting especially is very good. But I do notice the low resolution in those screenshots.

  • lockload #6 2 years ago

    #STORY SPOILER in page 3 first video##

    Holy crap i wish i hadnt watched the draw distances video there a pretty big story spolier towards the end regarding alans wife

    Thanks eurogamer, fucking morons
    Edited by 1 at 08/05/10 @ 12:16

  • Cjail #7 2 years ago

    So Alan's Wake is a 540p game even if, thanks to its "visual composition", it seem in 720p.
    For me this solution is just like saying that a bald man with a wig is no longer a bald man!
    Edited by 1 at 08/05/10 @ 12:09

  • EmiliasHorse #8 2 years ago

    I must be honest and say I have little interest in the native resolution on a game I cannot go out and buy. Watching your gameplay video clips is basically giving away chunks of the story, so I avoid them and thus take your word for now.

  • The-Bodybuilder #9 2 years ago

    So yeah, why exactly did they scrap the sandbox approach?
    When I found out about that, I lost interest almost instantly.

    Why would they do that?

  • Darren #10 2 years ago

    The game looks quite nice visually overall, especially the lighting and fog, but the Xbox 360 seems to struggle a little with the engine hence the resolution drop and decision to switch to a linear game design. That would be fine if it wasn't for the screen tearing though, which is disappointing when you consider this game is basically standard definition with AA. Nothing takes me out of a game more than tearing, I'd rather have jaggies personally if it means being able to enable v-sync.

    It's a shame the PC version was dropped really, I'd have liked to have seen that version as it seems to me that this was a PC game shoehorned and cutdown to fit onto the Xbox 360.

  • Darren #11 2 years ago

    @The Bodybuilder - My guess is that Remedy wanted a certain level of visual detail and lighting that just isn't possible on the Xbox 360 with 512 MB of memory using an open world format. Or it could be that they thought the sandbox format would be less atmospheric and more confusing for the gamer so decided to concentrate on delivering a more linear, focused, story-based game. You'd have to ask them really

  • GreyBeard #12 2 years ago

    Its obvious why they dropped the sandbox approach. From day #1 Remedy hyped the psychological thriller aspects, and to get that kind of effect you need to be able to control the pace and timing of events which isn't really possible when you allow the player to go wherever they want, whenever they want.

  • BlinxHDD #13 2 years ago

    I'm very surprised how accepting DF is of the image quality in this game, mostly during the day but even the night. And no mention of those textures!

  • lockload #14 2 years ago

    Darren,

    The game is still an open world as before that hasnt changed they just restrict where you can go through design in the environment the whole world is still there as sometimse you still travel right across the map by car

  • MeBrains #15 2 years ago

    the attacker's shadow should really not have passed QA in this shot:

    [link url=http://images.eurogamer.n et/assets/articles//a/1/0/8/6/3/6/1/DynamicShadows_002.jpg.j pg
    ]http://im ages.eurogamer.net/assets/artic...[/link]

    wow O_o

  • BlinxHDD #16 2 years ago

    Remedy said they switched away from the sandbox game design quite early, no? You'd have thought they had more than enough time to refocus the tech accordingly.

  • The-Bodybuilder #17 2 years ago

    Cheers Darren.

  • Deckard1 #18 2 years ago

    all this alanwake fanboy bullshit is really making me ashamed to call myself a gamer. The internet is like one big vaginal belch at the minute.

  • RESIDENT_nEVILe #19 2 years ago

    Game looks fantastic. I have been on a media blackout regarding the story, so next friday can't come soon enough.

    That said, I'm slightly disappointed that they bent the truth about the teari ng and the resolution. Leave that kind of bullshit to the platform holders and fanboys.

  • KayJay #20 2 years ago

    Remedy's Markus Maki, posting on the official Alan Wake forums, has some interesting insight on where the team can go forward technically.

    "The graphics side is pretty well optimised, but I think we can still push for more in the future especially on the CPU side but also on the GPU," Maki writes.

    Well you had 5 years, and its just "Pretty Well Optimised" FFS...

  • mowgli #21 2 years ago

    5 years for this shit.

  • Xeopuppy #22 2 years ago

    I would love a PC version, it's not fair that they dropped it...

    ...And no I won't buy a 360 because of it...

  • Retroid #23 2 years ago

    Given that this engine was being used to demonstrate the apparent sexiness of Intel's multicore CPUs a while back I'm not that surprised it's been cut down in resolution, but at least they've used it well with draw distance etc. 512mb of RAM is a scarily small amount for modern games.

  • Moz #24 2 years ago

    I find all this very odd, 3rd party multiplatform games tend to be slightly better on the 360 then on the PS3.

    Yet when it comes to exclusive titles 360 titles keep falling short of the mark!

  • BitmapBrother #25 2 years ago

    "Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and God of War III see the PS3 producing state-of-the-art visuals and gameplay that seem to hurdle the hardware limitations of the console running them almost effortlessly. "

    Ah, Richard. You can't even provide the PS3 with a proper compliment without backhanding it, can you?

    As for Alan Wake, Remedy did all they could to cover up the embarrassing sub HD resolution, excessive screen tearing and bad shadows, so Richard decides to focus on the quality of the 'gameplay' this time because the technical problems of this 5 year old game are so overwhelming.

    While 1st and 2nd party PS3 games are technically evolving to reach new levels of graphic fidelity and performance, Xbox 360 games seem to be stagnating or even going backwards. It's a pity that we may not see the full vision of Remedy's Alan Wake realized on the PC, but thanks to Microsoft that may never happen.

  • NightAntilli #26 2 years ago

    At all the people complaining about the 5 years. We're talking about a team that started with 30 people, and now has grown to about 50. They created their own engine during that time, and then they still needed to make the game. This feat can easily be done in 2 or 3 years, if you're big and have 100-200 people like Guerilla Games, Bungie, Naughty Dog etc.. Not for a team of approximately 30-50 people, and 5 years is perfectly normal in this case.. Yes, it is a drawback that it has been that long and some stuff are bound to be a little outdated, but it's not surprising, and it's not fair to use that against such a small team. Time is not the only thing that's important..

    If you really want to bitch about long dev time, go worry about a large team like Polyphony Digital who is taking 6 years to release their game that has been finished for "90%" for over a year now..
    Edited by 1 at 08/05/10 @ 13:55

  • TRUTH #27 2 years ago

    AW took 5yrs due to various problems in creation of the game: Only a small amount of people on the project (42), was originally a PC game; then PC & 360' then 360 only. AW got stopped several times in development due to funds, changing structure of game, re-writing game and production costs. The game was also scrapped/stopped several times; only when MS came in the game continued...This wasn't 5yrs on producing the game - it was 5yrs with problems in development and small development team that caused the delay in the game.

    MS don't really develop there own special 360 engine like PS3, because it's cheaper/easier/quicker for MS to use third party software to produce games... though this game does look pretty it is using more complex effects to a larger extent then many console games inc like GoW 2, GOW III, and Uncharted. Games with simple liner, and smaller characters, simplistic Ai, less shadows-lighting, fixed camera viewing..etc etc; can always look amazing due to less processing needed compared to games that are heavy on physics, lighting, AI, open spaces, shadows, volume effects.. etc etc.

    Personally I think Red Dead Demention, and even Assassins Creed II (surpassing UC2 due to complex scale and openness) is one of the best looking games on consoles, due to scale of the game and physics and openness. Even Metro 2033 has some amazing effects as does KZ 2 - though both a liner and simplistic (Metro 2033 is deeper game though) compared to open world games that require alot more memory, and processing to produce - effecting the graphics.

    Edited by 5 at 08/05/10 @ 14:07

  • bladdard #28 2 years ago

    From the footage I've seen aw is the most atmospheric game I've seen since the original silent hill game and I'm gutted it won't be coming to pc.

    On a seperate note anyone who thinks ac2 looks better than uncharted 2 is clearly mad. :p

  • Grievous1976 #29 2 years ago

    "Lets be Frank", or Alan for that matter. Lol!

  • BitmapBrother #30 2 years ago

    "If you really want to bitch about long dev time, go worry about a large team like Polyphony Digital who is taking 6 years to release their game that has been finished for "90%" for over a year now."

    The difference is that PD will exceed expectations yet again on what is capable on the PS3. Like I said, PS3 exclusive games are setting console benchmarks on what can be done.

  • Cjail #31 2 years ago

    @TRUTH
    you are the first, and only, person to say that Uncharted 2, Killzone 2 and God of War 3 are: "simple liner, with smaller characters, simplistic Ai, less shadows-lighting, etc..." and that they only looks better "due to less processing needed compared to games that are heavy on physics, lighting, AI, open spaces, shadows, volume effects, etc..."

    Have you noticed that every developer in the world (Kojima in the first place) is praising these games!
    Edited by 4 at 08/05/10 @ 14:41

  • Badassbab #32 2 years ago

    To be honest those videos in the article have made me want to play it more.

  • IonOnion #33 2 years ago

    @Badassbab
    "To be honest those videos in the article have made me want to play it more. "

    You and me both, Badassbab.

  • Widge #34 2 years ago

    Red Dead Demention?

  • Postumo #35 2 years ago

    God of war 3 state of the art gameplay???? uncharted 2's innovative gameplay?

    Not the games i've seen then...

    hack'n'slash haven't evolved too much... but even Bayonetta's effort seems more innovative and "state of the art".

  • drumbaby #36 2 years ago

    "Few can argue with the assertion that Sony's mammoth network of first-party games studios has produced astonishing software in recent times. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and God of War III see the PS3 producing state-of-the-art visuals and gameplay that seem to hurdle the hardware limitations of the console running them almost effortlessly. "

    The graphical fidelity of these games, and also games like Killzone 2 and Heavy Rain begs the question: 'What hardware limitations?'.

    I think these games look as good as they do BECAUSE of the PS3 hardware, not despite it.

  • waggy79 #37 2 years ago

    "The difference is that PD will exceed expectations yet again on what is capable on the PS3. Like I said, PS3 exclusive games are setting console benchmarks on what can be done. "

    Will they? As far as im aware no-ones played a finished GT5 yet. On top of that, pretty graphics arent the be all and end all. How about some original gameplay in those exclusives too?

    Also slagging Leadbetter off when your posts are obviously anti 360 is kinda hypocritical.
    Edited by 1 at 08/05/10 @ 15:10

  • VandelayIndustries #38 2 years ago

    Widge: "Red Dead Demention?"
    I hear it's non liner too.

    ;P

  • Badassbab #39 2 years ago

    The engine created looks great now they need to license it and use UC2 type motion capture for the animations and facial expressions.

  • des #40 2 years ago

    This reads more like some Sony fantard drivel than tech article...lolz
    Even that pathetic EG Ellielol review is mentioned.
    Meh

  • IneptPercy #41 2 years ago

    To me I am past for they get there and just like the end product.

    Like the 540p thing, how many of you would have noticed?

    With that most of my gaming in on the PC these days as I do like 1080p, I hope this does make an eventual appearance on PC as that engine at a native 1080p could be something else.

  • Diomedes #42 2 years ago

    The text in these articles never fail....so predictable.

    Great PS3 game ,720p,post processing effects ,stable framerate,HDR ,MSAAx2 ,great texture work and animations......Richie looks DESPERATELY to a drop of a millisecond in the controller response to be able to speak about the "compromises" that had to be made and says the game runs "almost perfectly circumventing somehow the hardware problems".

    X360 game ....540p,screen tearing ,drops in the framerate,robotic animations ,average textures.....Richie is perfectly comfortable with it and praises shamelessly the few strong points of the game as the draw distance and lighting effects.


  • Retro_ #43 2 years ago

    Another DF article that for some reason just falls short in highlighting what is obviously a sub standard (technically speaking) game. Can't think what the reason could be though *raises eyebrows*

  • T3TSUO #44 2 years ago

    If this was on PS3, EG, DF or whatever would be going NUTS!!!! over that image quality and framerate.
    Consistency is the key when it comes to concise journalism. I think it's very obvious how people perceive this site now.

    Let's be frank though Alan Wake will be appearing on other platforms very soon as 360 is just too dated now to handle it.
    If I was a 360 owner I wouldn't know what to think about this. All their hopes dashed for a ground breaking, Uncharting 2 matching engine.A Game that plays out like Max Payne with a torch and is about as long game wise.
    A good rent that's what I think

  • miiiguel #45 2 years ago

    @ cozeny: more, do some dancing too. Entertain me, that's your job, remember? Dance for me, say funny stuff!

  • JediMasterMalik #46 2 years ago

    Overall the game seems to manage some great visuals, but it sacrifices a lot on the process. There's no doubt that on more powerful hardware it would be much less compromised game in the visuals department. Please bring it to PC MS, I still want to play it. :(

    No harm in trying is there?

  • ziggy_played_guitar #47 2 years ago

    I love this shit. My friend tetsuo with a "3" (wtf?!), and it's particulary funny to compare his posts on other DF articles with this one.
    I need to find another hobby this is way too "not a hobby" this is definetly something else.

  • Bagpuss #48 2 years ago

    Lol....960x540

    Time for new consoles is long overdue....devs are having to make ridiculous sacrifices now in order to put their visions on screen..

  • Retroid #49 2 years ago

    If the banks hadn't shafted the world we'd be looking at new hardware from MS & Sony, probably next year.

    :(

  • karooo #50 2 years ago

    "Personally I think Red Dead Demention, and even Assassins Creed II (surpassing UC2 due to complex scale and openness) is one of the best looking games on consoles, due to scale of the game and physics and openness."

    Red Dead demention? lolol

    sigh truth please keep your opinion to yourself.

  • BitmapBrother #51 2 years ago

    "Also slagging Leadbetter off when your posts are obviously anti 360 is kinda hypocritical. "

    Listing the faults of the game is now hypocritical for a tech analysis blog? Had this game been 1280x720p, had no screen tearing, had a stable frame rate, had good textures, had proper animation blending and faces which resembled human beings then there would be no need to be critical of this 5 year old game that just happens to coincide with the technology that existed 5 years ago.

    As for slagging LeadBetter, well, he can't even compliment the PS3 without following it with an insult. I've come to the conclusion that insulting the PS3 is a subconscious act that he's not even aware of anymore.

  • BitmapBrother #52 2 years ago

    "Forgot to point out: while 540p may only seem a bit lower than 720p, it is only about half the amount of pixels on screen. "

    This game is caught in visual purgatory. Over 400,000 pixels were slaughtered. I can only imagine the horror as those 400,000 pixels landed on the beaches of Iwo Jima only to be cut down.

  • ziggy_played_guitar #53 2 years ago

    Bitmap: I read no insult to the PS3, but to be honest I find it way more interesting to read the comments at DF articles (and sometimes compare posts from diferent articles) that the text itself, so I may have skipped it. Though I can't help but feel that most people spend more energy in this rhetorical "fight" than playing games. Regarding to real world, it's been proven that "brand warriors" don't mean much to the industry, for once I don't believe this "fighters" are the ones who spend more money on video games, nor this pixel-fights mean anything.
    This is getting a bit slow, I'll go and play some video-games now, which we all agree, is the least important.

  • Retroid #54 2 years ago

    How some people seem to see these articles:

    "Few can argue with the assertion that Sony's mammoth network of first-party games studios has produced astonishing software in recent times. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and God of War III see the PS3 producing state-of-the-art visuals and gameplay that seem to hurdle the hardware limitations of the console running them almost effortlessly."

    Each platform has hardware limitations. They're consoles, of course they do. There's no "insult" in mentioning when they've done something amazing inspite of them - it should be praised.
    Edited by 1 at 08/05/10 @ 17:23

  • local_celebrity #55 2 years ago

    Did you call my console a cunt?

    Outside.

  • BitmapBrother #56 2 years ago

    Retroid: Pointing out that consoles have hardware limitations is like pointing out that the Pope is religious. It's redundant, superfluous and irrelevant so why does he even bother mentioning it? Perhaps an editor is in order. It is rather amusing that he praises the technical prowess of God of War III, Uncharted 2 and then says the PS3 has hardware limitations, but at no time does he mention that the 360 has hardware limitations. Why didn't Leadbetter attack the developers at Remedy like he attacked the developers of Final Fantasy XIII for the 360? Shouldn't the developers be accountable for the visual train wreck that is Alan Wake? Or is it the hardware limitations of the 360? Apparently, it's neither according to him.

  • miiiguel #57 2 years ago

    @ BitmanBrother: you're taking this way too seriously, me thinks. Lighten up, it's video-games and a hobby for consumers, and a buisness for the suits, they're boxes sold by multinationals to make money, looing focus is bad for your skin. Personaly I read no "insult" (think about, it is funny, that "insult" thing), but maybe I didn't look hard enough.

  • Cider-X #58 2 years ago

    While I don't care much for PC gaming anymore, this is one title I would liked to have seen a PC version of. The opening boat-ride to the small town looks epic in scale but the 360 visuals are really really blurry. I'm not a "pixel counting" guy but it was obvious even to me that this runs at lower res than 720p.

    Other impressions after having completed 4 chapters:

    -As I said, the game looks blurry to me
    -Lightning effects are stunningly brilliant
    -Tearing is evident but it's not horrible.
    -Characters' faces look freaky and much worse than say Uncharted 2
    -Shooting feels very tight and satisfying
    -Many places in the game during daytime feel like they were once part of an open-world game.
    -Sound effects are great, especially during nighttime
    -Amount of ammo, weapons and batteries is very nicely balanced
    -Story is so-so, voice acting ranges from ok to poor.
    -Repetition sets in around the middle of chapter 3 (for me at least)
    -Eurogamer review is mostly spot on. 7/10

  • dsmx #59 2 years ago

    Despite what xbox fanboys think the ps3 is more powerful than the xbox 360 BUT your only going to see it on ps3 exclusives. Which is because the coding required to make the games look better on the ps3 require you to offload some of the graphical rendering to the cell processor.

    That's the reason why games like U2 and killzone 2 look as good as they do it's also why you've seen a much bigger jump in graphics of ps3 games than in xbox 360 games. As devs get realise what you can offload and how much you can offload to the cell you will keep seeing the graphics in ps3 games get better.

    The fact that the ps3 is harder to program for does mean that you will see much bigger leaps in the visuals on the ps3 than the xbox 360.

  • Zappa #60 2 years ago

    predictable analysis by richard the xbot.

    its the 2nd lowest rez game on 360 but its ok....LMAO and you call yourself the elite IQ site.

  • T3TSUO #61 2 years ago

    @ziggy_played_guitar
    My name has a "3" in it simply because other names were taken and I couldn't think of anything else.
    I couldn't give a monkies about my name to be honest.

    @Dsmx
    There are plenty of none exclusives on PS3 that look better it just needs abit of work from a half decent developer to get the most out of.
    Xbox is a little bit of a cash cow, not as bad as Wii.
    Gone are the days (Amiga days) when dev's were proud to show off the latest code trickery. Now it's slap it in a box and try and make as much cash as possible
    Edited by 1 at 08/05/10 @ 18:10

  • Cjail #62 2 years ago

    @T3TSUO
    Don't be so hard with yourself: it could be worst! Your name could be...Alan Wake!

    I am joking guys so please don't curse me!

  • xentar #63 2 years ago

    this was one of the few disappointing DF articles for me. I played AW for few hours yesterday night and was underwhlemed. Yes, the game can be scary and can look nice when looking on the environment. The gameplay itself is working but its far from revolutionary, the story isnt all that original to anyone who have read horror books and watched horror movies. I just dont understand how AW was being compared to Heavy Rain.

  • TRUTH #64 2 years ago

    I meant as a more complex game and more open game UC 2 does not compete with AC 2. Therefore the liner approach can be processed into the game looking better as in UC2, rather then the open world as AC 2 - with more characters and sandbox gameplay. Also I mentioned AW was not delayed to get the best out of the console; it's main delays where more to cost/small development team/changes to game on several occasions/ stop-cancel-start-stop-cancel..etc development of the game/funding and due to change of PC to 360; then back to 360/put hold for funding etc...all these problems delayed the game!.
    Edited by 1 at 08/05/10 @ 19:04

  • azix2 #65 2 years ago

    Disappointed in how the game looks overall tho there are some nice character graphics. Still want to play the game

  • TRUTH #66 2 years ago

    Also if you look at reviews on Metacritc the game has scored a healthy 85/100 from 46 game critic reviews. Many praising the atmosphere and graphics.

    The highest percentage are:

    90-100...19 reviews
    80 to 89... 25 reviews
    70 to 79... 2 reviews (this includes 7/10 by Eurogamer)

  • onyxbox #67 2 years ago

    This says it all: "Sony's mammoth network of first-party games studios has produced astonishing software in recent times. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and God of War III see the PS3 producing state-of-the-art visuals and gameplay that seem to hurdle the hardware limitations of the console running them"

    WTF!!?

    So how exactly do developers do more with the machine than it's technically capable of?

    Nonsense I tell ya... and smells of a mindset not fit for an objective analysis.

    I still enjoy the articles because no one on the Internet does this level of article on the subject but the favoritism for 360 is jarring.
    Edited by 1 at 08/05/10 @ 19:18

  • TRUTH #68 2 years ago

    I suggest people read other reviews not just EuroGamer - plenty have praised this game, and the graphics and atmosphere. It may be sub HD (though you don't notice) but has some very impressive effects - some of the best in fact...I personally will be buying this as don't read and judge on one review; once I've completed Mass Effect 2, Metro 2033 (this also looks awsome), and God Of War III - and stop playing King Of Fighters XII (Ps3); which I really enjoy more then SF IV.


    Vide0gamer/IGN/Gamestar:

    Much has been made of Alan Wake's less-than HD resolution, but the bottom line is that it's a stunning looking title. No game released so far this generation features lighting effects more impressive, or so much going on. At times, with the wind blowing, smoke in the air, objects flying around, flares alight and enemies coming at you, there'd be an argument for this being one of the most visually striking games ever released. It's that impressive. During certain dramatic moments the game even pauses and pans around Alan, giving you a chance to take it all in.

  • Calgon #69 2 years ago

    Infact I find it all so pathetic these days, its an embaressment I want no part of it anymore, people so deep in denial and desperation making complete tits of themselves pretending they know what they are talking about(seriously almost everyone who tries to get technical makes the most obvious gaffs its easy to spot when someone is informed or confused themselves over on B3D and is waffling as a result)... over whats essentially a toy. No thankyou I will sit and laugh instead. :D
    Edited by 4 at 08/05/10 @ 19:59

  • Guitarnerd87 #70 2 years ago

    "Sony's mammoth network of first-party games studios has produced astonishing software in recent times. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and God of War III see the PS3 producing state-of-the-art visuals and gameplay that seem to hurdle the hardware limitations of the console running them"

    That really is an awful quote, so obviously trying to imply that the ps3 is more limited than the 360. So it must just be amazing developers on ps3 and not more powerful hardware, trying to imply the 360 could do it better.

    More than just bias, it's fanboyism.

    *Massive facepalm*
    Edited by 1 at 08/05/10 @ 19:31

  • azix2 #71 2 years ago

    I doubt alan wake is any bit more open than UC2.

  • FooAtari #72 2 years ago

    @Calgon
    "So basically, the tech has...
    *snip*
    ...than your average Sony fan."

    You do realize that, with that post, you look every bit the fanboy as the people you are having a go at?
    Edited by 1 at 08/05/10 @ 19:52

  • Calgon #73 2 years ago

    FooAtari I'm not quite with you... I just said the tech has it's strong points but isn't a benchmark on the 360. I think you should have thought about your choice of quote a little better there as it doesnt really fit... at all. ;)

    You know whats funny half the people here were defending Ellies review... you all act like children, only happy when you feel you are gettin everything your own way(basically looks like "be more like a PS3/Sony fanboy and bash MS/360 with us";) rather than whats fair and I know most of you are "technically" adults which is the sad thing in all of this. As I said in my last edit, I've decided I want no part in it anymore, I wont lower myself to that level.
    Edited by 1 at 08/05/10 @ 20:01

  • DoctorFouad #74 2 years ago

    when reading this article, I have a feeling the writer is trying to apologize for the sub HD resolution...why the writer needs to do that ?!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is sub hd and so ??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    sub hd + 4X anti aliasing, honestly i would have preferred a 720p game with only 2x anti aliasing...we are talking here about : a 940*540 resolution, thats unacceptable today....thats half the resolution of uncharted 2, killzone 2, gears of war 2, bayonetta...etc what the hell developers were thinking ?!!!!!!!!!!!

  • DoctorFouad #75 2 years ago

    at least ratchet and clank games are 60 fps games, not 30 fps...

  • TRUTH #76 2 years ago

    The fact is no one notice if it's 540 or 720p...just people who blow it way out of proportion to justify a exclusive title is crap (though it's not if you read many other reviews)...Also there is a lot of complicated detailed effects in AW that is not in many games to this degree, so don't just gwap just because it's 540 - why don't people also mention as in other reviews that AW has some of the best effects seen on a console ?
    Edited by 1 at 08/05/10 @ 20:46

  • DoctorFouad #77 2 years ago

    960*540 ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    thats one of the lowest resolution games this generation of consoles....for a game set to push the 360 to its limits, thats not at all impressive...compare this to the fll 720p 2x AA 60 fps bayonetta...

  • Clover4ever #78 2 years ago

    "ask the ratchet and clank a crack in time team, didn't that have the same low res for that ps3 exclusive?"

    Well, at least Ratchet ACIT is triple buffered (no tearing at all) and is running at a much higher resolution (960 x 704) even if it's still sub-hd.

  • DoctorFouad #79 2 years ago

    I am sure the 360 could do better than that, it could have run the same alan wake game at full 720p if tiling was used effectively (like in bayonetta (720p 2x AA 60 fps), dirt 2 (720p 4x AA + motion blur), gears of war 2 (720p, 2X AA + motion blur and some amazing normal mapping, parallax mapping)...)

    There is no doubt alan wake is a technical achievement incredible looking game on 360 (unbelivebale atmospheric effects and lighting/shadows never seen on consoles before) but 960*540 with alpha to coverage instead of full resolution transparencies like bayonetta which was running at 60fps ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! come on !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!they could have done better, maybe 1024*540 ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    why the hell they didnt use tiling ?!!!!!!!!!! at least 2 tiles........I just dont understand....how dirt 2 developers achieved that gamewith full 720p 4X AA per pixel motion blur ?!!!!!!!!! and bayonetta at 60 fps ?!!!!!!!!!!

    Why they didnt use tiling is beyond my understanding.....

    when we see what uncharted 2, god of war 3, killzone 2, heavy rain (and the next motorstorm, resistance 3, GT5 those games will be technically mindblowing this E3) have done with the ps3....
    Edited by 2 at 08/05/10 @ 22:48

  • TK9lulz #80 2 years ago

    It's pretty clear that this game was starving for RAM from start to finish given the pitiful texture resolution and the native res of the geometry. And as a separate issue the character models and animation (mainly facial but body is also stiff) in general is some of the worst in the business. It's about as stiff, lifeless, and robotic as they come.Takes some nerve to criticize Heavy Rain's mo-cap when you're arguably in even worse shape when it comes to your game. Sub-HD games like Alan Wake and Halo: Reach are just more mounting examples of Microsoft needing to upgrade their stables because the talent they currently have is a poor reflection on the console. It's a shame that going forward 3rd parties like Crytek, iD, and others will have to swoop in to continue to save the day year in and year out to show that the 360 isn't tapped 5-6 years into the console's life. You would have thought the two Gears of War games bought enough time for someone on that side to get their act together and stop thinking about exclusive DLC. 3rd parties, Crysis 2 or not, cannot keep the system afloat in terms of tech. All the research and unconventional methods going into Killzone 3 will once again prove that while a 3rd party game can look amazing 1st party games will be the ones that redefine.

  • DoctorFouad #81 2 years ago

    I agree with the following argument :
    - If it wasent for technical scientific analysis, almost no one could say for sure if alan wake is running at 720p or at sub hd + sub hd allowed alan wake to have 4x anti aliasing, consitent 30 fps and a lot more and better visual effects.

    Ok thats true, but thats what we see (to use frederic bastiat analogy), what we dont see is : imagine if the game was running at 720p with only 2x anti aliasing ? I am pretty sure the game would be sharper and more defined and better looking. and EVERYONE could notice this if the two versions have been put together (the 720p and the sub hd version)

    I prefer the polyphony digital philosophy : no compromise when it comes to image quality and responsiveness and smootheness of the game, always using the highest possible resolution ! (GT4 on ps2 run at 60 fps at 480P resolution !) GT5 runs at 1440*1080 with 2x AA at 60 fps ! thats why GT games have been ALWAYS the best looking driving games on each generation of consoles (GT1 and 2 for ps1, GT3 and 4 for PS2, and GT5 for ps3)

    I was hoping if remedy had the same philosophy as polyphony digital : always the highest possible resolution, sharpest possible image, best possible image quality ! than comes textures, particle effects, post processing effects...etc, get the basics right and than see what you can add as visual effects....(same philosophy for gears of war 2, dirt 2, bayonetta, killzone 2, uncharted 2, god of war 3, heavy rain, resistance 3...) NO COMPROMISE for the image quality...720p 2X AA and than we talk about visual effects...

    because if they used the resolution 960*540 just to add some visual effects, so why they do not go all the way and use a 640*480 Wii resolution so they could add even more visual effects ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    that sub hd thing gets me nervous, it doesent make any sense, we bought HD TVs to watch true HD movies and video games resolutions...it is disappointing....
    Edited by 1 at 08/05/10 @ 23:09

  • BuckEntropy #82 2 years ago

    Well lets see what we have here...

    A third party PC developers' game, becoming an exclusive to 360 after development troubles, and still they pull it off nicely.

    But no, that's not nearly enough! Compare it to ALL THESE FIRST PARTY PS3 games and it's shit!

    Not like I expect anything else when I open up these comments, but you've all lived up to my expectations so thoroughly!

    -

    Kudos to Remedy for pulling this game out as well as they did, people who're used to the indefinite resources of PC usually don't.

    But shame on Remedy for getting so defensive about it, and overselling expectations a few crucial times.

    And to all whiners and cry-babies over perceived bias, I'll ask again: where was the uproar over God of War 3's "unstable framerate" again? Oh that's right... THERE WASN'T ANY.

  • Bulbatron #83 2 years ago

    It would have been good if, once the story was finished, the player could then free roam around the (presumably) monster-free Bright Falls.

  • T3TSUO #84 2 years ago

    @BuckEntropy
    I think we can all agree to forgive God of War 3's unstable framerate (if you can call 40-60 frames unstable)
    when you see its utter mind blowing graphic set pieces making it one of the best looking games ever made. Even most PC games struggle to match it. Pretty much why people leave it be.
    Alan Wake for shame on thee.
    I use to run Quake 1, yes that's 1 at a higher resolution using Scitech Display Doctor in Dos 15 years ago and it hovered around the 20-23 frame mark.
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/10 @ 00:04

  • Retroid #85 2 years ago

    onyxbox: "So how exactly do developers do more with the machine than it's technically capable of? Nonsense I tell ya... and smells of a mindset not fit for an objective analysis.''

    If you really think that's what he said then I suggest you go back to school.

  • BuckEntropy #86 2 years ago

    @T3TSUO

    Clearly "everyone" has agreed to forgive GoW3's framerate, that's the point. But that sort of forgiveness only seems to land on one side of the divide here, and this particular example is egregious to me, as AW looks so DIFFERENT from anything else around. And as good as GoW3 looks, it's mainly down to production and some sweet custom polish, not any defining technical achievement, or even any distinct technical priority.

    Believe me I understand the rules of this whole game, the Sony camp has always had it's sacred cows. But anyone with an iota of objectivity can see which side actually continues to gain the most in the exchange... they're still reaping dividends on the hype, precisely because it's such a religion, and people tend to avoid offending zealots.

  • sfp_noodle #87 2 years ago

    "Perhaps an editor is in order. It is rather amusing that he praises the technical prowess of God of War III, Uncharted 2 and then says the PS3 has hardware limitations, but at no time does he mention that the 360 has hardware limitations. Why didn't Leadbetter attack the developers at Remedy like he attacked the developers of Final Fantasy XIII for the 360? Shouldn't the developers be accountable for the visual train wreck that is Alan Wake? Or is it the hardware limitations of the 360? Apparently, it's neither according to him."

    This. Whilst I see no favouritism when it comes to reviews I do take issue with the DF team and especially Richard. He seems incapable of admitting that the PS3 has superior hardware and the so called 'limitations' he speaks of are only present in his beloved 360. Don't get me wrong, I heart my 360 but it's starting to show it's age now. The fact that the original Gears of War still looks better than any other 360 exclusive speaks for itself. The DF team actually published TWO, not one, but TWO apologetic articles regarding the piss poor FF13 conversion. Richard blamed the dev multiple times in both of those whilst trying to undermine every single advantage the PS3 had even though it was superior in every department.

    Why didn't he slag the devs off this time? This is an exclusive aswell, so if anything, this game has more reasons for him to slag the devs off. It's not just visuals, the game could not even achieve 60fps and what happened to the almighty v-sync present in all 360 games that cut out tearing? It doesn't matter how many people Remedy had working on the game, it was only on one platform and they had FIVE YEARS to develop. No excuses.

    If GT5 ends up having similar problems (even though videos suggest otherwise minus tearing) then I fully expect Richard to rip the game apart in his DF article about it. We'll get loads of rubbish about how supposed technical limitations prevented the game from being as good as it could have been, how it doesn't have the 360's anti-tearing hardware thingy and other reasons as to why it's all the PS3's fault the game isn't what it should have been.

  • Retroid #88 2 years ago

    Again: let's see what the other tech comparison sites have to say on this game.

    Either they'll agree with DF, in which case there's (no / MASSSIVE BIAS MS HAS PAID EVERYONE TO HATE SONY) bias, or they won't.

    The fact that the other tech comparison websites rarely disagree with eachother (other than barely-any-difference occasions when it comes down to something like controller / friendlist preference), and that no journalists have smelt blood and gone for anyone's throats, makes me think that it's a matter of perception.

    Now, if you'll excuse me I'm off to see if the latest HDNation has downloaded on my PS3.

  • Retroid #89 2 years ago

    sfp_noodle: Creating a sock account is not only against forum rules, but it's also deeply dodgy to use it to vote your own messages up.

    Don't do it again.
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/10 @ 01:22

  • sfp_noodle #90 2 years ago

    @ Retroid

    It is not about who agrees with Df or not. It is about the derogatory comments Richard continually makes regarding the PS3. He is simply incapable of praising it without immediately shooting it down. I couldn't care less which version is better, 90% of my purchases go to the 360 anyway, as my game collection points out, so I'm not part of the mythical band of Sony elitists. My judgement is completely unbiassed and and I read all articles for what they are. But, as a member of EG for over 4 years, I can see a pattern when it exists. Richard simply cannot compliment the PS3, and when he does, it will be a very small mention that appears to be uttered through tightly gritted teeth.

  • Retroid #91 2 years ago

    He's praised the use of Cell and the devs who've got their heads round it on several occasions, hell, even devoted an article to Naughty Dog's work on doing just that!

    An article which, I may add, is at least partly responsible for the impending arrival of a copy of Uncharted 2 (shiny art card edition). It came out when my 'phat' 60gb was YLOD but now I've bought myself a new Slim I'm catching up on some stuff. And rather spiffing it is too.

  • womble #92 2 years ago

    Goddamn, fanboys suck.

    Just look at all the PC and PS3 whiners here. It's embarrassing to read.

    Hey dimbulbs, here's a solution to your problems: (a) get a girlfriend, and (b) buy a 360 as well as a PS3. Then you'll be able to play every game, instead of wanking on about just one particular platform. Oh, also, you might get laid, which would be a first for you.

    If you tards can't see value in something like this game, then frankly, that's YOUR problem.

  • sfp_noodle #93 2 years ago

    @ Retroid

    Why is it that only the Uncharted 2 article is ever brought up when discussing DF and its lack of love for the PS3? That is one game where, technically at least, you could not find significant fault with. I havent seen any article where the PS3 is showered with praise or 'wholeheartedly reccomended' over the 360. Both the FF13 articles were spent doing the same thing - blaming the devs for not porting properly rather than the hardware. It has been pointed out many times that Bayonetta was torn apart in a DF feature and all its shortcomings were blamed on the PS3 hardware. So why then does Alan Wake not get the same treatment?

    It is an exclusive sure, but that should be even more reason to blame the hardware surely? Especially after 5 years of dev time? In fact, I would not find these DF articles so irksome in places if Richard did not take a dig at the PS3 for no reason. PS3 exclusives are praised because they cater to the system's strengths. Now a 360 exclusive, which has had more dev time than most PS3 exclusives has so many technical flaws yet the ageing hardware inside the 360 doesn't even get a mention? C'mon Retroid, you cannot deny it.

    You are a moderator, and as such, your job is to keep order. But countless times you attempt to defend the articles when many people find fault with them. It is not just Sony fans either as I myself prove. If you believe I am blatantly trolling a 360 thread, I invite to add me to your Xbox friends list and see for yourself that I am not having some kind of rant. I like to see integrity in an article, especially on a professional games site, but with DF, it is not always the case.

    The fact that EG had time to review some Facebook games, the L4D2 dlc and MW2 dlc but did not bother reviewing either of the Uncharted 2 MP packs backs up my arguement. Hell they even reviewed a 360 exclsuive that is only available in America and stated that their reason for reviewing it was that American users use this site. Thats fine of course, but how then did they not have time to review a map pack for a game that is available to the whole world? I look forward to your response to that.

  • VandelayIndustries #94 2 years ago

    Fair point.

  • Retroid #95 2 years ago

    The Bayonetta article blamed Platinum games for being too specific with their coding to make it easy to port across in a short time, and Sega for farming the conversion off to a different dev for only a short amount of time.

    The FF13 article blamed lazy development and praised the PS3 version, offering up ways the devs could've (but didn't) used to get a more equal version out of the door. It praised the PS3 version and pointed out that while the game engine itself was 720p it upscaled *very* well to match the 1080p of the video cutscenes.

    As for editorial and what EG choose to review, that couldn't be further from my purview. I'm not staff and I don't write for them. If I have issue with something they write then I can freely take them to task just as any other poster would - all I've ever done is offer my own personal opinion.

  • sfp_noodle #96 2 years ago

    @ Retroid

    "The Bayonetta article blamed Platinum games for being too specific with their coding to make it easy to port across in a short time, and Sega for farming the conversion off to a different dev for only a short amount of time."

    So they were lazy then right? Then you say this -

    "The FF13 article blamed lazy development and praised the PS3 version, offering up ways the devs could've (but didn't) used to get a more equal version out of the door"

    Here you openly admit the port was lazy. What is the difference? Also, which other article does DF go to extensive lengths to explain how a dev could have used the PS3 hardware better? There was no such analysis with Bayonetta, which deserved it as much, if not more than FF13 on 360.

    "As for editorial and what EG choose to review, that couldn't be further from my purview."

    I did not blame you or accuse you of posting format specific news. I simply highlighted a fact, one that has been given no rational explanation and only serves to enhance my arguement

  • cozeny #97 2 years ago

    lol, what the hell are the limitations of the PS3? And if it is so limited why do its exclusives' visuals and technical standing (fps, tearing etc) knock anything on the 360 into a cocked hat?

  • flanker22 #98 2 years ago

    double teaming... not only is this getting bashed by sony fanboys but the pc crowd as well. which are infamously known as quite possibly the two worst groups.

    the game has excellent scale, free camera, and draw distance, its still very much graphically impressive. and the ppl thinking that somehow this game is being held back by the hardware are full of shit, maybe resolution wise and framerate that doesnt greatly impact a games vision.
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/10 @ 05:57

  • Machiavellian #99 2 years ago

    "Few can argue with the assertion that Sony's mammoth network of first-party games studios has produced astonishing software in recent times. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and God of War III see the PS3 producing state-of-the-art visuals and gameplay that seem to hurdle the hardware limitations of the console running them almost effortlessly."

    This line seems to be the stick point to a lot of PS3 fanboys and the true bias of Richard. This is one of those statements that clearly shows the bias in the reader more than Richard and I sometimes wonder if such statement was made on purpose for just that effect.

    With this statement it actually praises the developers who have mastered the PS3. For all the PS3 glory and power, yes it does have limitations. You have big time developers telling you about the limitations of the PS3 all the time. No one need to list those limations because you can easily find that information on the net. Its interesting that making such a obvious statement is the center point for Fanboys to latch on to. Ohhh you praised the PS3 but had to knock it down. The thing is, Richard did not praised the PS3 at all but praised the developers who are able to leverage the PS3, over come it shortcomings and produce great results.

    The thing is, the statement doesn't criticize the PS3 because its common knowledge. Instead what it does is elevate the developers because they can work with limited resources to produce excellent results. Its all about perception and in this case it clearly shows just how people lose site that games are made by developers not the console.

    When I first read that statement, I thought nothing about it. Probably because I totally agree with the statement so my perception was totally opposite from people that took issue. One of the main reason I did not see anything wrong about the statement is that I am a developer (enterprise applications not games) and I took the statement to mean that Sony developers have mastered the PS3 and can pull out more power from the system where others cannot. This is true no matter how you look at it because it has been proven. There is no dig in the statement unless your perception is limited by your experience.

  • BuckEntropy #100 2 years ago

    @sfp_noodle(s-for-brains?)

    Did you also get up in arms when EG failed to review any Gears of War 2 map packs? They don't even seem to have a review for Dark Corners, which has more than just MP maps. If you're going to make (always self-incriminating) claims about being unbiased, you might at least try to be less transparent in your desperate search for anecdotal slights against just one console.

    And your use of false equivalents is truly despicable. The only examples of DF making judgments about something extra a developer could have done is in face-offs. And while I don't wish to beat this horse to death, the parallel is appropriate once more: if you think DF should be "blaming the hardware" in AW's tech analysis... did you also cry foul when they didn't "blame the hardware" for GoW3's inconsistent (and no, never truly 60) framerate?

    I could find out, but I think it's safe to say you didn't.

    But OK, since this garbage keeps cropping up... to all the people still so upset over the Bayonetta face-off, I'm offering a challenge to defend the honor of your delusions once and for all:

    Bayonetta set out to exploit the bandwidth of the 360's eDRAM to it's utmost limits... and beyond actually, it still chugs down to like 20fps in at least one spot. The game dispenses with any and all considerations that stand between it and that one pristine exploitation, such as MSAA. And it's not sophisticated or even subtle about it, it just does one main thing over and over... and over and over...

    So if anyone can come up with a clear and verifiable explanation for how a machine with 1/5th the render target bandwidth - a bandwidth that Bayonetta is already taxing to the breaking point - should still have 'no problem' replicating that performance...

    Well then, and ONLY THEN, you may have a case against the DF face-off. As things stand, it really is just fact vs fiction.

    I myself would prefer a more 'unvarnished truth' approach to these articles. But I also understand the zealots would be even more violent if that were the case. But given the fantasy world the only people bitching about DF so plainly live in, by being RL's enemy, you only prop up his credibility by contrast.

  • lagoonalight #101 2 years ago

    "Assassins Creed II (surpassing UC2 due to complex scale and openness)"

    I just shot my dog because of this statement. NICE try, dude. Nice.

  • cozeny #102 2 years ago

    If only Bayonetta had been developed from the ground-up on PS3. QQ

  • BuckEntropy #103 2 years ago

    ^Then it would have been a significantly different looking game... other than that, what's your point? 360 doesn't deserve nice things?

  • cozeny #104 2 years ago

    My point is I'm a weirdo and I can't bring myself to play Japanese games on my 360 :__(

    Can't believe all those delicious looking shmups are coming out on 360 :___(

    Silly I know but we all have our idiosyncrasies.
    Edited by 2 at 09/05/10 @ 08:04

  • BuckEntropy #105 2 years ago

    Then I also, will feel sad for you, my friend.

  • Retroid #106 2 years ago

    sfp_noodle: "So they were lazy then right?"

    Who were? You seem eager to jump on that as if it proves something with the next. All it proves is that the conversion of PS3 should've been better planned and given more time.

    (Now FF13)

    "Here you openly admit the port was lazy. What is the difference? Also, which other article does DF go to extensive lengths to explain how a dev could have used the PS3 hardware better? There was no such analysis with Bayonetta, which deserved it as much, if not more than FF13 on 360."

    I've already said it'd be very interesting to read Bayonetta could've been done differently. To me it smacks of Sega wanting a conversion as quickly as possible because they know the 360 version wouldn't sell well in Japan and the PS3 version would.

  • zztopp #107 2 years ago

    Too much ps3/360 tech talk here.

    BTW, for what its worth, the lighting/shadows/volumetric fog on display in Alan Wake is beyond what the PS3 can handle (due to its limited texture cache, etc).

  • IonOnion #108 2 years ago

    [link url=http://www.videogameszone.de/Alan-Wake-Xbox360-109 080/News/Alan-Wake-vs-Max-Payne-2-Grafikvergleich-offenbart- Grusel-Texturen-im-Xbox-360-Blockbuster-746960/galerie/12860 20/?fullsize
    ]http://ww w.videogameszone.de/Alan-Wake-X...[/link]
    [link url=http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/a rticles//a/1/0/8/6/3/6/1/Res_000.jpg.jpg
    ]http://im ages.eurogamer.net/assets/artic...[/link]

    If this is true then for what its worth, lighting/shadows/volumetric fog on display in Alan Wake is actually hiding low rez textures.
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/10 @ 09:22

  • Pablo2k5 #109 2 years ago

    GFX are fuckin' awful...

  • BuckEntropy #110 2 years ago

    I don't get your problem? As near as I can tell it's a win / win for all of you Sony subjects.

    You think the game looks bad, and fortunately you'll never see anything like it on PS3.

    (again, if only for the overdraw required to build an image like that)

  • Geordiemp #111 2 years ago

    Blown out of all proportion, you have avery small company (someone said 30 or so people) making a game and there own engine from a PC background where it waas originally written to use latest DX. Is that correct ?

    If so, Remedy have done well with what they have got - how can they compete with say a Naughty Dog 2.0 engine, 100 + coders plus sharing engine technology with Killzone 2 and other key devs.

    Its hardly a contest. Most of the graphical prowess of sony first party is clever use of the CPU for everything and complex parallel processing, its going to take a company with more resources to stretch the 360 in similarly clever ways. Its a shame MS seem to be fully focussed on camera stuff, they should invest ina first party dev and really push the boundaeries.

    Lets see what Cryengine can do on 360, thats allot more interesting. I doubt Cryengine could match some Sony First party on Ps3, but with Xbox being PC grounded in architechture and crytek the experts they 'could' raise the bar, or at leats the most likely to do so.
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/10 @ 10:34

  • Geordiemp #112 2 years ago

    @ Entropy, UC2 does SSAO, depth of field, MSAA HDR and all stuff using CPU, so any lighting effects would be done 'Differently' to the EDRAM post processing.

    The 360 BENEFIT is any dev can do the EDRAM tricks, only sony first party can do the CPU tricks until now.

    360 for multiplat, Ps3 for first party. Best of both worlds.

  • Widge #113 2 years ago

    How could Remedy compete? They probably wouldn't have had to if the game wasn't constantly built up to be some sort of technical and storytelling masterpiece. Its the equivalent of having to live up to the Motorstorm/Killzone E3 video.

  • BuckEntropy #114 2 years ago

    @Geordiemp

    There's different considerations for "lighting" though, some elements are more bandwidth intensive than others. In terms of post processing, as you seem to be referring to it, the only "eDRAM trick" likely taking place is the 4x MSAA. Other than that it's simply the bandwidth, which in this case a lot of it's getting soaked up by the higher res rendering for multi-sampling and then of course tiling, but some advantage remains. And the quality and amount of shadow rendering is certainly bandwidth intensive.

    However, since PS3's CPU doesn't have any greater render target bandwidth than the RSX, if someone figures out a way to make the Cell accomplish this sort of imaging... that would indeed be a "trick". I'll give em mad props when I see it, but just, don't anyone hold their breath.

    @Widge - Yeah but AW still looks how it always looked, maybe not quite as sharp but... I don't think most people care about all this shit. If the game isn't a big hit, it wont have anything to do with the tech (or lack thereof).

  • miiiguel #115 2 years ago

    That's more like it cozeny, dance my boy.

    What's the "QQ" , btw? I realy like you, like my own personal clown.

  • HokutoNoKen #116 2 years ago

    Frame buffer for Bayonetta:

    1280x720 no AA = 7.03125Mb so it fits the 10Mb eDRAM.

    Xbox 360 has a problem with 1280x720x2AA = 14Mb which exceeds the 10Mb limit especially when the aim is 60fps. Its the very same reason why Ninja Gaiden 2 is running with suh-HD 1120x585 with 2xAA which fits perfectly in the 10Mb eDRAM.

    / Ken

  • dingo75 #117 2 years ago

    I find it funny that the Xbox fanboys are up in arms that PS3 and PC people rip AW to shreds now.
    Of course they do. It's a big exclusive and shows where the Xbox stands right now + the PC people have not forgiven MS to steal AW from them by buying out Remedy.
    Judging by the first trailer that was shown to promoted multi-core CPUs and DX10 on the PC this game looks like a disgrace now and that's why it is attacked by the PC and PS3 crowd.
    Simple as that.

  • patchbox360 #118 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    gonna keep it simple

    could the 360 run uncharted 2, god of war 3 and killzone 2 at the same level or better than the ps3?

  • Retroid #119 2 years ago

    As with anything to do with fanboys, I rather think it's "because they can" tear it apart rather than much else. The fact that it's on a platform they don't 'support' is reason enough, anything else is ammo.

    Why adults with the option to don't own as many games platforms as possible is beyond me.

    edit: changed the wording as some people misunderstood what I was trying to say and thought I was having a go at them :(
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/10 @ 14:38

  • Guitarnerd87 #120 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    Because not all of us can afford it, many of us are students. Considering you're supposed to be a mod that comment is incredibly ignorant.
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/10 @ 13:16

  • Retroid #121 2 years ago

    patchbox360: "@Retroid

    gonna keep it simple

    could the 360 run uncharted 2, god of war 3 and killzone 2 at the same level or better than the ps3?"

    Probably things very close to them, but lacking chunks of the SPU-specific effects. That's where a lot of the PS3's grunt is.

    As I've said before, the formats this generation are much closer than before.

  • Retroid #122 2 years ago

    Guitarnerd87: "Because not all of us can afford it, many of us are students. Considering you're supposed to be a mod that comment is incredibly ignorant."

    I'm a social carer for my grandmother. My income is *very* far from average, yet I manage - because I'm careful with money.

  • Guitarnerd87 #123 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    I live off £51 a week, which is probably the best I've had all year, was £18 at one point. A large portion of users here will probably be students on similar budgets, blowing £400-500 on two consoles, more on a gaming pc just isn't possible. And that's not even taking into account the cost of games.

  • aidey6 #124 2 years ago

    I'm a PS3 (only) owner and have accepted that the majority of 3rd party titles are better looking and usually smoother on the 360, it does not make me any less satisfied with the games I play, when I see them on my friends 360.

    So what, I blame Sony for this console resolution pissing contest; as they were the ones touting how it isn't HD unless it's in 1080p res. How many retail games on the PS3 are in native 1920x1080 have we played?! The easy answer not very many!

    It hasn't lessened my enjoyment of games such as Uncharted 2, God of War 3, Killzone2 or Heavy Rain (that are "only" 720p)

    I have watched some the EG vids in HD and i'd say AW looks pretty good imo, all i'd say is enjoy your exclusive game 360 owners!!

  • sfp_noodle #125 2 years ago

    @ Retroid regarding Uncharted 2, God of War 3 and Killzone 2 being managble on 360 -

    "Probably things very close to them, but lacking chunks of the SPU-specific effects. That's where a lot of the PS3's grunt is.
    As I've said before, the formats this generation are much closer than before."

    In terms of visual punch I strongly disgaree. If there was ANY exclusive game on the 360 that could outperform a PS3 exclusive it would have come by now. How long are you going to wait? The 360 has been around 5 years already, longer than the PS3 by at least one whole year. Gears of War and its sequel are far and away the best looking games on the 360. No question about it. Forza cannot touch GT5 visually, or in the number of cars it can manage on one track at a time. Halo has awesome gameplay, but again, as Reach has proved, the console is limited with how far it can stretch its graphical capabilities.

    It's not just graphics either, but MAG, Resistence 1 and 2 have managed to get an enormous number of players together in one game on an apparantly inferior platform. With no lag. Oh, and its absolutely FREE. Where does all this 'technical limitations' bullshit aimed at the PS3 even come from!?

    Also, your comment that everybody should own all platforms was a little ignorant. I am a student myself and could only afford a 360 in 2007. I was very lucky to have got a PS3 for free as a birthday present. Many people do not have a limitless wallet, regardless of what job they have or how well they manage their money.

  • Guitarnerd87 #126 2 years ago

    @sfp_noodle

    Well said, for someone to just say "oh you mustn't manage your money well enough" if you can't afford multiple consoles, pc, games and hdtv is incredibly ignorant and arrogant. It annoys me the more I read that comment. I run a ps3 I got through a phone contract through a 21" sdtv, only getting 2nd hand games through trade ins. I have more important things to spend my money on than a 360, namely eating and paying bills.

  • Retroid #127 2 years ago

    Guitarnerd87: "I live off £51 a week, which is probably the best I've had all year, was £18 at one point. A large portion of users here will probably be students on similar budgets, blowing £400-500 on two consoles, more on a gaming pc just isn't possible. And that's not even taking into account the cost of games."

    Asking for a bit of cash instead of gifts from friends and family. 360 one year, PS3 the next. First PS3 was pre-owned and I buy most of my games for £10-15 when they hit that price. I only say it's possible because I know it is, and at least I'm preventing my grandmother from having to go into a nursing home.

  • chessboxer #128 2 years ago

    @ zztop

    "BTW, for what its worth, the lighting/shadows/volumetric fog on display in Alan Wake is beyond what the PS3 can handle (due to its limited texture cache, etc)."

    Erm, tell that Killzone 2 which did volumetric fog, smoke and had a silly amount of light sources all in real time in both the campaign and multiplayer at 720p.

  • drumbaby #129 2 years ago

    Why not do a tech' analysis on a lowly Wii game or an XBLA title? This is hardly the zenith of Xbox graphics, is it?

  • sfp_noodle #130 2 years ago

    @ Retroid

    "Asking for a bit of cash instead of gifts from friends and family. 360 one year, PS3 the next. First PS3 was pre-owned and I buy most of my games for £10-15 when they hit that price. I only say it's possible because I know it is, and at least I'm preventing my grandmother from having to go into a nursing home."

    Let's get this stright - I genuinely appreciate what you do for your grandmother. It is touching and refreshing to see someone caring for the elderly when, from my own experience at least, I have had a bunch of dicks to call family. But I do think you are straying off topic here. Instead of explaining how you can afford both consoles, you should be tackling the real questions that have been directed your way. Namely that, as of yet, there is no exclusive game on the 360 that can match a PS3 exclusive in terms of visual performance bar Gears of War. Even online, where the 360 is apparantly better, it does not have a game where more than 32 people can play with one another. The PS3 has a game like that since day one in the original Resistance.

  • Guitarnerd87 #131 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    What point are you trying to make? That I should be ashamed to call myself a gamer or am not welcome on this site because I've not put every last penny I can afford into owning multiple consoles or just pouring as much as possible into gaming? My point is that as a student, as many visitors to this website will be, putting so much money into multiple consoles is just too big an investment. Maybe there is a possibility for me to own multiple consoles, but I would have zero money for anything else. I don't have a problem if thats your choice but I think it's arrogant to look down on others, or put down others opinions just because they haven't done this.
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/10 @ 14:18

  • Retroid #132 2 years ago

    @Guitarnerd87

    Good GOD I am not saying any such bloody thing! You're making me sound like a Tory.

    Apologies if I touched a nerve or something with what I said, obviously there are always going to be some people having hard times, most of us have been there. There was a time I simply couldn't afford to spare £40 for a replacement Gamecube, so I've been there.

    I was, of course, speaking generally, about the people who *could* have both main formats but have chosen not to, and hence miss out on a lot of good games.

  • Guitarnerd87 #133 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    Fair enough if all you meant was about people who could have both, but what you said was "Why we all don't have any many games platforms as possible is beyond me." And after explaining that not all of us could afford it you basically said it must be because I'm not careful with money! I think it's quite obvious why I would get so pissed of with it, I don't like not being able to afford more, I'd have both if I could but to say it must be my fault is just insulting.

    Oh and to send me an alert for disagreeing with you *facepalm*

  • Retroid #134 2 years ago

    @sfp_noodle:

    Probably the Cell being utilised better, along with some of the very, very talented developers like Naughty Dog. Plus, who knows - we know the 360 is capable of Gears of War (obviously) but it's a matter of art direction after that.

    As for online play - who knows? There's no technical limitation that I'm aware of, and 360 games can use dedicated servers (a XBLive restriction which was lifted when EA started doing online games on the original Xbox), so who knows - different priorities? No idea.

  • Retroid #135 2 years ago

    I sent you a PM before I'd seen you respond on here, simple as that. I could see you'd got the wrong end of the stick with what I'd said and just wanted to try to prevent any more misunderstanding, that's it.

    And I was talkiing about CONSOLE GAMERS, I know full well that pretty much any PC will kick arse.

    God, I'm really not having a go at anyone :(
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/10 @ 14:34

  • sfp_noodle #136 2 years ago

    @ Retroid

    "Probably the Cell being utilised better, along with some of the very, very talented developers like Naughty Dog."

    So the 360 isn't utlised properly after 5 years and MS devs are less talented than Sony devs? That's what it sounds like you are saying.

    "We know the 360 is capable of Gears of War (obviously) but it's a matter of art direction after that"

    Yes, but that is it. You seem to forget Gears of War was released over 3 years ago, and its sequel added some extra effects but kept the general art style the same but not as shiny and fake looking. Also, why can't the MS devs do anything spectacular with the hardware? Turn 10 got Forza 3 to look decent, but it appeared bland overall, especially the tracks and when you used the in-car view. Fable 2 was hardly a looker. Good game it might be, but nothing pushing the boundries of beautiful graphics.

    Once again, Halo is a fantastic game but why does it look so cartoony? Bungie has also been an exclusive MS dev for the past decade nearly. Fact is, NO 360 exclusive comes close to matching a PS3 exclusive. Until a 360 exclusive comes along that can at least equal Uncharted 2, Killzone 2 or God of War 3, I will believe that it is technically inferior to the PS3. Similarly, until the 360 gets a game that can manage as many players as MAG in one game without lag, I will believe that the PS3 offers a better online service.

    Edit - Spelling
    Edited by 2 at 09/05/10 @ 14:50

  • dingo75 #137 2 years ago

    My problem with the Xbox is that MS did position it against the PC.
    Sony, Nintendo and Sega did their thing along-side the PC and both didn't compete much in the market due to different genres on those platforms.
    This stopped when the Xbox appeared and started to "conquer" the living room.
    FPS a stronghold on the PC went to the Xbox step by step and MS only let sloppy ports of them on the PC and finally stopped porting first-party titles at all.
    The decline of the PC is mainly due to the popularity and MS's money spent on the platform of their choice and that's why I refuse to buy a Xbox 360.
    I have the money to buy it but I won't.

    A MS spokesman recently said that AW won't work on the PC because it has to be played on a big screen in the living room from the couch. I can't take MS seriously anymore after that!

  • Retroid #138 2 years ago

    I'm not a big fan of Halo or Bungie so I can't answer you there!

    Otherwise I have no particular insight into 360-specific development, I can only speculate.

  • Retroid #139 2 years ago

    dingo75: "A MS spokesman recently said that AW won't work on the PC because it has to be played on a big screen in the living room from the couch. I can't take MS seriously anymore after that!"

    Yeah, that was really quite spectacular bullshit of the highest order. I only have a netbook (capable of some of the smaller / older stuff on Steam) but guess what? I can hook it up to my HDTV via VGA!

  • dagas #140 2 years ago

    Most games on 360 run at a sub-HD resolution thanks to the 10MB EDRAM framebuffer. You can either get 720p without AA or sub-720p with AA. It seems like people think it's a big deal when they have spotted a sub-HD game while in reality it is much harder to spot an HD game on the 360.

  • ziggy_played_guitar #141 2 years ago

    until the 360 gets a game that can manage as many players as MAG in one game without lag, I will believe that the PS3 offers a better online service.

    To each its own, I don't measure an online service by how many players a below average game can put on screen.

  • TheStatics #142 2 years ago

    @ Dagas "Most games on 360 run at a sub-HD resolution thanks to the 10MB EDRAM framebuffer. You can either get 720p without AA or sub-720p with AA. It seems like people think it's a big deal when they have spotted a sub-HD game while in reality it is much harder to spot an HD game on the 360."

    Er... http://fo rum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php...

  • ziggy_played_guitar #143 2 years ago

    Another fuuny fact, which I already suspected, some people who are counting pixels play on sd-tvs and headphones.
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/10 @ 15:36

  • Dirtbox #144 2 years ago

    The funniest fact of all being the PS3 routinely comes last despite the 360 hardware being 18 months older.

    I can't believe these DF comments sometimes, why are the PS3 kids even reading this? Surely they aren't so defensive they have to read an article about the graphical deficiencies of a pretty crap game that they can't play to make themselves feel less ripped off with their console of choice?

  • sfp_noodle #145 2 years ago

    "I don't measure an online service by how many players a below average game can put on screen"

    So you admit Alan Wake is a below average game since both Alan Wake and MAG got 7/10 on EG. Nice one

  • headglog #146 2 years ago

    I'm sorry if this is too offtopic, but since this went so extreme, I want to ask something. I want to get a PS3 (pc user here), it will be used alomost 100% to online gaming, but I'm a bit worried that "this" is PSN community. I wasn't considering a 360, but I realy need to know where the best community is, like friendly people who like video-games (and mature, I'm 38), I have litle interest in this "thing" that's happening here. Mind you that this is not just here at EG, it seems to be everywhere, and while I was almost conviced to get a PS3, and probably that's why I'm paying more atention to this side, but it does look like PS3 users are the most vocal/annoying.

  • RodHull #147 2 years ago

    Until the 360 gets a game that can manage as many players as MAG in one game without lag, I will believe that the PS3 offers a better online service.

    The technical achievement of MAG is indeed impressive, however let's not ignore how truly dull and uninspiring the game is. Whilst there isn't a game on XBL that allows as many folks as MAG, the likes of Halo 3 that only letsyou have 32 players but its party system, community and out and out level of fun.

    As for graphics, give me good art direction over pixel counting any day. For me the most impressive games on the 360 and PS3 graphically would be BK: Nuts and Bolts and Little Big Planet respectively. They may not have the fanciest tricks out of the graphics box, but they sure are purdy.

  • Hotel_Moscow #148 2 years ago

    @headglog it all came starts at the ps3 launch when the 360fanboys had the following reasons
    ps3 has no games
    ps3 graphics are terrible gears of war 2 is the best looking game this generation
    psn sucks it cant even do 16 players
    ps3 multiplatform games are inferior to the 360 counterpart
    ps3 is a waste of money

    and then sony started churning out first party games and 360 fanboys went into hiding as the ps3 guys say
    xbox has rrod
    xbox cant even do 720p
    xbox pays for the same online that ps3 has
    xbox exclusives are mostly timed exclusive and are multiplat with pc

    that is why you see the ps3 more focal now because the 360 guys are getting rediculed in the exact same way that they ridiculed the ps3 2 years ago not to mention that the media was in on it as well bill gates him self ridiculed the ps3

    but to me the communites are the same although i do see less arguing on ps3 than i do on 360

  • ziggy_played_guitar #149 2 years ago

    So you admit Alan Wake is a below average game since both Alan Wake and MAG got 7/10 on EG. Nice one

    I can't say AW is below average since I haven't played it yet, but I played (and own) MAG (for +20 hours, at least). I like to read EG, but I do my own judgement. That said I think you made some balance posts, but I can't agree with that - Live for me is better than PSN - but as I said, to each its own, I don't think I'll be playing MAG anymore so it's not a positive point of PSN. For me.
    The problem with the brand fighters (I'm not saying you are) is that they fail to be a bit balanced, once in a while. Live is fantastic, it is. Uncharted 2 is awesome, it is. Extremism is not cool (or maybe it is and I'm just too old to "dig it";).

  • sfp_noodle #150 2 years ago

    "The technical achievement of MAG is indeed impressive, however let's not ignore how truly dull and uninspiring the game is"

    You admire that it is a technical feat yet describe it as uninspired? I'm sorry, but I don't recall having 128 player team deathmatch games or countless Capture the Flag games in MAG. MAG is a team game and encourages teamwork. What do you describe as 'inspired' if you think something like MAG, which if anything breaks the mould of FPS games is uninspired? Are you also saying that fellow devs would not want to achieve a similar feat and even surpass it?

    MAG is the first of its kind and the devs can learn from its shortcomings. Fact is, nothing like it exists. I would still pick it over rubbish like MW2.

  • LostGamer #151 2 years ago

    @RodHull
    "As for graphics, give me good art direction over pixel counting any day."

    So you prefer games with a movie appeal over visuals and gameplay? I think theres already alot of that this gen.

  • HokutoNoKen #152 2 years ago

    Developers Shift To Leading On PS3

    [link url=http://www.nowgamer.com/featu res/682/developers-shift-to-leading-on-ps3?o=0#listing ]http://ww w.nowgamer.com/features/682/dev...[/link]

    From the article - Final Fantasy XIII producer Yoshinori Kitase
    "“When you talk about graphics you can see immediately that the hardware of the PlayStation 3 offers a much higher capacity and is much more powerful,” he told NowGamer, comparing PS3 with Xbox 360. “"

    / Ken

  • sfp_noodle #153 2 years ago

    "That said I think you made some balance posts, but I can't agree with that - Live for me is better than PSN"

    I think I'm one of the few on EG who can make a balanced arguement. I don't 'hate' MS or my 360. On the contrary, I enjoy it very much. What I do hate is when 'technical limitations' are always mentioned when it comes to the PS3. I don't think anyone can deny that if a miltiplatform game was developed and the devs used both consoles to their maximum, the PS3 could reach heights that the 360 could not.

    I'm not just talking about graphics either, I mean things like much more going on screen - Bigger environments and a larger selection of online gamers able to connect one another at the same time. I prefer Xbox Live to PSN because of the cross game invites and party chat, but as an online network, the PSN has far more potential than Xbox Live. The fact that from launch the PS3 could handle upto 40 players in Resistence, and Live still has not matched that achievement backs up my arguement.

    Live is more convenient than PSN, but not £40 a year better. I only use cross game invites, and party chat on my 360. The rest is irrelevent to me. I stick with it because there are some excellent games. I regularly play Gears of War, Left 4 Dead, Halo 3 and Battlefield online, as well as Fifa 10 and World cup 2010. Reason being that I have a decent number of friends on both systems. Not to mention the 360 has some awesome exclusives.

    I enjoy both consoles, but I do not agree with anyone who claims that as a system, the PS3 is less capable than the 360.

    Edit - Spelling
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/10 @ 17:33

  • ziggy_played_guitar #154 2 years ago

    I prefer Xbox Live to PSN
    Me to, and that's why I said I didn't agree with your previous sentence (which contradicts this one): "PS3 offers a better online service", and that led me to believe it was the "brand fighter" in you (maybe a tiny, litle persona) who sudenly spoke.
    As a conceptual environement it has the "future capabilities" to be better? I don't know, and to be honest I don't care. This is as good as a topic (maybe not...) as any other to have a discussion, but in reality what you get is what you have.

  • sfp_noodle #155 2 years ago

    Sorry for the confusion, but what I meant was that the PSN has a better online network. The service itself could be improved in numerous ways of course, but I believe it has more potential than Xbox Live.

  • cozeny #156 2 years ago

    Dirtbox, it's pretty clear why the PS3 kids are reading this. DF takes every opportunity it can to shit on the PS3 during multi-plat face-offs; the pro-360 editorialising is a bit much, and so it's obvious why the PS3-minded would enjoy indulging in a bit of schadenfreude at DF/360's expense... especially since the PS3's own exclusives have been so technically stellar recently... and especially in the comments section to an article which tries to convince 360 owners everything is OK, sub-HD is fine, 30fps is fine... when there is a history of DF crowing at the PS3 for the very same deficiencies. DF is the first to call a spade a spade when the platform doing the shovelling is the PS3; they should have extended that common courtesy here.

    Also, lolololololol @ all of y'all. WhoTF cares about this FFF- game? What next, a tech analysis of Wet? If you are a graphics whore, go buy a gaming PC ffs.
    Edited by 5 at 09/05/10 @ 18:25

  • Quixz #157 2 years ago

    It would have been better had they made the game 720p and dropped the AA much like BFBC2.

  • ziggy_played_guitar #158 2 years ago

    "PS3-minded" and "lolololololol @ all of y'all" ??!!!

    Oh boy, I want my last 20 years back. I made a mistake.
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/10 @ 19:48

  • M_of_the_sys #159 2 years ago

    Y'all?

  • Retroid #160 2 years ago

    sfp_noodle: "as an online network, the PSN has far more potential than Xbox Live. The fact that from launch the PS3 could handle upto 40 players in Resistence, and Live still has not matched that achievement backs up my arguement."

    All it backs up is that those particular developers are PS3 exclusive, and they want to do large battles.

    Hello! From what you're saying that'd mean that game was somehow better than a PS3 running Resistance. Which it isn't, obviously - IIRC it wasn't that good. It's just that particular developer wanting to do that particular feature.

    Now, if such a game was multiformat and had 40+ players on (for argument's sake) PS3 and a lower number on 360 - then yes, it would lend weight to your argument.

  • miiiguel #161 2 years ago

    I hope I don't meet you online though, you're not the kind of person I would like to play with, even if you replace "cock" for "nob".

  • miiiguel #162 2 years ago

    Some ppl see insults in every thing when it comes to considerations about PS3/Sony, that's a fact. And "ps3-minded" (lol) are indeed loud, and it can be scary if you're not used to it - believe it!
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/10 @ 21:43

  • Whizzo #163 2 years ago

    This really has to be the most moronic DF comments thread ever.

  • Cigol #164 2 years ago

    Why does this analysis read more like a defence of the Alan Wake tech and how people should pick the game up? Maybe I'm reading it that way because I'm inherently biased (being a PC/PS3/PSP exclusive gamer) but I don't know, it has a different vibe to the more critical/superlative analysis's of the past.
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/10 @ 22:17

  • Killerbee #165 2 years ago

    Another + lots for a PC version.

    It sounds as though the engine is just crying out for the hardware to really flex its muscles on - with a bit more grunt it'd surely be possible to get the resolution up to 1080p with AA and a superior frame rate and that'd make for a truly stunning looking game.

    Come on Remedy / Microsoft... pleeeeeease??

  • Retroid #166 2 years ago

    No question there should be a PC version, it just stands to reason.

  • mkreku #167 2 years ago

    Wow, this comments thread turned to weird country. But I have to admit that I've sometimes gotten the same feeling sfp_noodle has about DF's articles. Especially when there were TWO articles about FF13 on the Xbox 360 and both of them sounded an awful lot like prolonged excuses why that version looked slightly worse than the PS3 one.

    For the record, I don't own either console anymore.

  • Bremenacht #168 2 years ago

    More spanners here than Kwik-fit

  • miiiguel #169 2 years ago

    Just finished FF13 (83 hours! I'll do the hunts sometime later). Can't wait for Alan Wake, wooot, in its 454x786 pixels and 3xABB rendered shader blader, or some other bullshit (got myself the special edition version). I'll be thinking about this thread when I'm playing the game, next Friday night. I promisse "y'all"!

    Good night fellow gamers!
    Edited by 2 at 10/05/10 @ 01:54

  • BuckEntropy #170 2 years ago

    @Cigol: "Why does this analysis read more like a defence of the Alan Wake tech and how people should pick the game up? Maybe I'm reading it that way because I'm inherently biased (being a PC/PS3/PSP exclusive gamer) but I don't know, it has a different vibe to the more critical/superlative analysis's of the past."

    That may be the single most illuminating assessment on this thread. Continue that line of thought then:

    Why would RL be apologetic on the game's behalf? Well, because a whole fuck-ton of haters already made a collective wind about some pixel counting.

    Why would he want to apologize anyway? Consider the possibility that he genuinely thinks the game deserves fair consideration for it's own merits. Or if you can't even consider that, then yes, perhaps look to your own soul before all else...

    Why wouldn't he just run a more "superlative" and non-apologetic article anyway? Because he is indeed being very "critical" of the game, and I don't understand how anyone could read this as otherwise.

    I'll avoid naming any names again, but there's more than enough games ON BOTH SIDES that have received similarly diplomatic treatment. One in particular could have been roundly (and rightly) thrashed for it's most glaring shortcoming, yet it was given a pass, because of it's myriad other virtues. (but also because it's a sacred cow)

    -

    The root of all of this is a single simple issue: whether or not PS3 outclasses X360

    If someone needs to believe it MUST, then of course anything that contradicts that consuming need is anathema.

    Again, try to at least consider the possibility that that's simply not the reality? Both consoles have relative advantages, and as many PS3 zealots even love to affirm, 360's advantages are much easier to tap than PS3's. But to always take it a step further and deny even the possibility of 360 having fundamental strengths that PS3 does not... that is just fanaticism.

    @sfp_noodle

    Since you've decided to carry that particular torch so long, I'll give you the answer no one else seems willing to:

    Yes, 360 could pull off Uncharted 2. I'll focus on that example because it's considered the most flawless PS3 exclusive, and because it has the best candidate for comparison. And I'll give you props for your phrasing, Gears of War (2) is indeed the most obvious, and probably best exclusive 360 has to offer against it. And overall I don't think it's even outshined by UC2 on general performance metrics, but as a showpiece there's no real contest there, Gears is severely lacking that 'hitting-the-metal' sheen that UC2 blinds you with.

    Now, for argument's sake, I'll even allow that they may have cooked up some post processing that would be impossible for 360 to do as well. And thus dispensing with any need to claim it'd be PERFECT, (if I didn't I'd be no better than the rest of you fanatics) I'm just clearing room for the real contender...

    Resident Evil 5 easily stacks up against UC2. It seems to me it's only real shortcomings in comparison are a less ambitious lighting model, no remarkable custom post-processing, and of course that dynamic animation. But in other areas, like more consistent polygon detail in the environments, and generally richer textures, it comes out ahead.

    Regardless, for anyone to sit both games side by side, and point to the one and think "that one clearly exhibits 'more power' than the other"... is pure dementia.

  • darkplacid #171 2 years ago

    Im going to take a stab here. I totally agree with every comment written here. As a PS3 only owner im sure that you all think that im going to bash this game. But lets be real here.

    Sub-HD thinggy,
    Changing the graphic in the end after promoting it greatly in the beginning is like PS3 promoting linux and taking it out in the end. So it is a big deal for xbox owners to be mad even if it was the dev. rights to change the pixels.

    Ps3 limitations vs Xbox Limitations
    Lets be honost here also, i do not know what is the limitations of any console(besides reading it from news). But knowing what PS3 can throw is so far is better then any xbox game (minus the multiplatform). But as far as i can see AW is not a taxing game for the xbox cause i know xbox games can be much better. So if you wanna blame, then dev for making the game so lousy.

    On the dev side,
    It is not easy to make a game. And to make a great game is even harder. But for a game that took 5 years to make (Noted the manpower) it is still a shame. Dev should be proud of what they release for gamers because that is important. eg. Naugty Dog crew was here since PS1 era and thier are still here (starting with only the same amount of manpower). So what does this means?

    PS3 vs Xbox
    Every gamer likes a good fight. Even better if we can toss our consoles at each other but come on. For the good or for the bad every console has its ups and down and it your choice which you enjoy. In my country xbox owners cant play FFXIII because of region lock. If your trying to blame anything blame 2 things in the gaming industry, the dev and the marketing people.
    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 06:06

  • BuckEntropy #172 2 years ago

    That's a reasonable enough post darkplacid, except for one thing.

    There's absolutely nothing "lousy" about Alan Wake as a technical product. But your personal conditioning / taste clearly prevents you from responding to it's visual priorities objectively.

  • darkplacid #173 2 years ago

    @BuckEntropy

    Sorry my bad. I edited it to sound like it should too. I didnt call the game lousy cause i have no right since i don't own a Xbox. My opinion is that the game could have been made better. Well guess have to see in AW2

  • DjFlex52 #174 2 years ago

    I wonder if all the PS3 console lovers were so vocal about better graphics (producing a better game) when PS2's graphics were ALWAYS inferior to the Xbox, if it was a multi-platform game. It probably didn't matter so much then as it does now.

    This graphics war has dragged on much too long on the internet. The 360 is 5 years old and non-techies (normal gamers) could care less if God Of War or Gears of War are 720p or 1080p. That's why the 480p console has sold over 70 million this generation ^.^

  • bloodflowers #175 2 years ago

    Motion blur is an absolutely hideous graphical effect, gives me headaches - can it be turned off?

  • andywilkie35 #176 2 years ago

    Looks and sounds immense, really looking forward to the weekend to play this.

  • cozeny #177 2 years ago

    It'll be interesting to read the Face-Offs between the new PS3-led multi-plat games (Mikami's Vanquish, EA's Medal of Honour, KojiPro's Castlevania) when they come out. I predict some major RL contortion.
    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 09:49

  • Retroid #178 2 years ago

    cozeny: "It'll be interesting to read the Face-Offs between the new PS3-led multi-plat games (Mikami's Vanquish, EA's Medal of Honour, KojiPro's Castlevania) when they come out. I predict some major RL contortion."

    We'll just have to see how other sites like Lense of Truth see them, too. As I've pointed out before, they've broadly agreed with DF.

  • flanker22 #179 2 years ago

    why do ps3 fanboys always love to mention how MAG is a gauge of how powerful the PS3 is? The only reason the game supports 128 players is because they have specialized server arrays that host the games.

    xbox has FFXI which supports tons of players as well...

    and the whole PS3 as the leading platform is just for good PR. EA has been using the PS3 as the lead platform for awhile now, i guess its good to announce this thing constantly to simply to reassure the fanatical sony fanbase.
    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 10:32

  • Geordiemp #180 2 years ago

    Buckentropy.

    I hav a 360 and ps3, and have played all those games on 1080P 42 inch, and I can tell you its not just about textures.

    Try ANIMATIONS, whatch how drake moves, runs, rolls, climbs, turns. There is nothing like it on any console, PC included. To do the animations, lighting SSAO, HDR, and all the levels, it completely fills a 25 GB blu ray, and its not ALL padding and cut scenes.

    Every site and reviewer is in awe of the technical feats on display, and I have seen nothing come close.

    I dont think anyone will match it, the detail and work involved never mind the game almost runs on SPU's.

    Gear of war, putting it up against UC even the first one is embarrassing. RE5 is nice but not in same league. Get real.

    UC2 is the only game where after killing I enjoyt just looking at the visual feast.
    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 10:40

  • flanker22 #181 2 years ago

    "My point is I'm a weirdo and I can't bring myself to play Japanese games on my 360 :__( "

    you've some how managed to bring racism into consoles grats on your intolerance/ignorance.

  • DjFlex52 #182 2 years ago

    UC2 is the only game where after killing I enjoyt just looking at the visual feast.

    @Geordiemp

    I totally agree with you...now can we MOVE on. Talk about beating a dead horse...o.O
    The game is 6 months old already. Are you still playing it? Do the great graphics extend its gameplay life...NO!

  • LostGamer #183 2 years ago

    @DjFlex52
    "I wonder if all the PS3 console lovers were so vocal about better graphics (producing a better game) when PS2's graphics were ALWAYS inferior to the Xbox, if it was a multi-platform game. It probably didn't matter so much then as it does now."

    Back then Im pretty sure they wouldn't be. They know when they're beat. One has shitty texture and the other has smoother ones. But that was then when all three consoles were not lauded as HD consoles and games were designed with that in mind. Same reason why DS games and PSP games can be still be called impressive and beautiful in reviews even though had they been made for PS3/Xbox360 they would have been so much more.
    Its the norm of the segment. Portable games get portable level of praise and critisim. HD games gets.... etc.

    Take for example Last Rebellion. Im sure you would have heard of it if it didn't suck so much. Its a PS3 game but if you had seen someone play it onscreen you'd think it was a PS2 or PSP game. If it was released as a PSP game things would have been different, namely it would have sold more the 20K. They marketed it as a PS3 game but its actually a better fit for the PS2/PSP. And because of that it suffered both critically and commercially.

  • lagoonalight #184 2 years ago

    I strongly disagree with buckentropy. There is no way is freakin' hell that resident evil matches U2. It is ridiculously apparent which game can said to have the more 'richer' textures LOFL and it ain't RE5 by a long shot. Quite honestly, you sound like you haven't played the game. The water for one is absolutely second to none on the consoles. U2's water is a startling achievement in itself. But then you have the caverns, the trains, and the nepalese cities that offer up very high res textures all around. I don't see the 'quality' of U2 textures in RE5 at all in the environments. Richer textures is a dead give away that you are talking from your butt. Resident Evil 5 does not have 'richer' textures and the fact that you honestly tried to pawn that one off as fact completely shows your bias. Nor are the textures more detailed in any sense of wordage. RE5 does have great textures mostly but they simply don't compare to the level that U2 showcases. That is just a stubborn lie to say any different. Period. I'm sorry but I am indeed getting tired of the 360 can do U2 argument. Sure it could. But it would look much worse. There is no way that with the usage of a bluray and the SPU's to the max that the EDRAM could save the 360 in instances like the train ride or the helicopter that totals the building you are in while you are playing. Simply, you will never see a game on the 360 that can match U2 in performance. That is just how it is. Love each console for its strengths but don't blindly just state random crap. You have no clue what U2 is pushing on the CPU and GPU so why go out of your way to make random comments like you worked in their tech department. Killzone 3 and the rest of them coming out later this year will indeed put the final nail in the coffin for the ageing and very dated 360 hardware regardless of the great games it still has left.

    Here are some shots that basically put your argument in the trash bin: U2 has the best textures in the business.

    [link url=http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/760880/resident-evi l-5/images/resident-evil-5-20090312100226234.html?page=media Full
    ]http://xb ox360.ign.com/dor/objects/76088...[/link]

    [link url=http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/760880/resident-evi l-5/images/resident-evil-5-20090312100217046.html?page=media Full
    ]http://xb ox360.ign.com/dor/objects/76088...[/link]

    [link url=http://xbox360 media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/808/808266/resident-evil -5-20070726113942790.jpg
    ]http://xb ox360media.ign.com/xbox360/imag...[/link]


    [link url=http://ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/14225 971/uncharted-2-among-thieves/images/uncharted-2-among-thiev es-20100409091531837.html?page=mediaFull
    ]http://ps 3.ign.com/dor/objects/14225971/...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.gossipgamers.com/anothe r-uncharted-2-graphics-comparison-real-life/
    ]http://ww w.gossipgamers.com/another-unch...[/link]
    Edited by 6 at 11/05/10 @ 06:41

  • Geordiemp #185 2 years ago

    ^^

    Yes I am still playing UC2, level 42 now, my son is 26 level, the coop arena modes survival and siege are great.

    however, the hardest feat is the coop objective, beating those on crushing is just insane. Its great on-line, good matchmaking, sunk probably more hours into it bar Borderlands.

    Just to be balanced, we still play Crackdown coop system link and god that was worth every penny. My email was targeted at the silly suggestion that Gears can be spoken in same breath as UC2.

    Best 3 games if you like playing with friends coop and longevity, UC2, Borderlands, Crackdown (maybe ODST firefight).

    God, EG are really milking the alan wake thing, next article is AW game data is only 2.5 GB. Starts again LOL.
    Edited by 3 at 10/05/10 @ 11:24

  • edhe #186 2 years ago

    Good god, such manifestation of lighting technology and all people can talk about is that they had to drop the res to manage it?

    Would you rather have 720p and normal lighting? O_o.

  • HokutoNoKen #187 2 years ago

    MAG data:

    1280x720x2xMSAA @ 30fps + HDR + vsync with triple buffering, textures look better then Modern Wareware 2 even more impressive when we take in consideration the massive scale of the maps with 128 vs 128 players.

    The frame buffer is 14Mb so it doesn’t fit the xbox 360 10Mb eDRAM so it would require two tiles on 360. The problem then is the lightning which is HDR. Tiling when using a lighting model such as HDR is not recommended. So they would have to lower the resolution to fit it in the eDRAM. Halo 3, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Alan Wake, Final Fantasy XIII, Tekken 6 used this solution. Another solution could be to use simpler lightning but if their aim is 720p with 2xMSAA, tearing would be visible because of the tiling process.

    There are no games on 360 that are using triple buffering because it doesn't support it as it seems. So they would have to use double instead which would effect the frame rate. Most people seem to agree that the PS3 CPU is stronger and the amount of data that we need to process when having 256 players most likely requires a strong CPU (Nintendo Wii wouldn't be able to run a 256 player FPS due to its weak CPU), having dedicated servers won't help us if the client side is weak and so on...

    / Ken
    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 14:01

  • muscleblade #188 2 years ago

    @consensy

    "My point is I'm a weirdo"

    We knew that already.

  • ronuds #189 2 years ago

    A comments section about a 360 exclusive filled with the SDF? What a surprise! Pretty obvious just going by which comments are being voted up and which are being demoted. You guys are so sad.

    Have fun convincing yourselves that this game is somehow worse because of something as ridiculous as resolutions. I play games for the gameplay, but unfortunately the importance of that has been lost this generation thanks to idiot fanboys.

    If 1 or 2 games didn't exist on the PS3, I suspect we wouldn't have to go through this nonsense so much. 2 games out of a thousand, though, and we never hear the end of it.

    Also, I don't think anyone could deny that UC2 is a very good looking game, but nothing about it "blows" me away. It's a good looking game, possibly the best on consoles today - but not next gen technology made possible today or anything. Get over yourselves.
    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 16:00

  • waggy79 #190 2 years ago

    I can understand the PC crowd wanting it to be released, no question it would look better, but would it correct the problems in general gameplay pointed out in reviews? Polishing a flawed game won't suddenly make it game of the year.

    Oh and by the way: UC2 = better single player
    Gears = better multiplayer

    Edited by 1 at 10/05/10 @ 18:18

  • djed #191 2 years ago

    I read this comments section with Virtual Boy and all I got was a headache.

  • DjFlex52 #192 2 years ago

    God, EG are really milking the alan wake thing, next article is AW game data is only 2.5 GB. Starts again LOL.

    @Geordiemp

    Do you mean the same way that Sony fanboys are still milking UC2's great graphics? God!
    If you're still playing Uncharted 2 6 months later, it shows the dearth of quality games on the PS3 ;-)
    Why are we talking about UC2 and MAG when this is a 360 game.....SDF are still defensive to the bitter end...LOL

  • dsmx #193 2 years ago

    Or it shows just how fantastic UC2 was and still is to this day.

  • halojames #194 2 years ago

    game of the year 2010 cant wait for alan wake :)

  • DjFlex52 #195 2 years ago

    Or it shows just how fantastic UC2 was and still is to this day.

    @dmsx

    Cool, and I hope you also torment your friends repeatedly about how fantastic your favorite movie, book, music CD & your childhood toy "was and still is to this day" :- p

  • BuckEntropy #196 2 years ago

    @Geordiemp - I already gave props to the animation in UC2, though I'm not sure how you think lighting / SSAO / HDR / and animations are tied to the Blu-Ray capacity? All those in-game animations (as well as current lighting processes) have to be in memory at any given time, and PS3 still doesn't have any more memory than 360 (slightly less even). The animation stands out because it's semi-dynamic, and it is really cool and improved from the first game, but not what I'd call phenomenal just yet. But in the greater concern, the Blu-Ray capacity is certainly an advantage PS3 has, as well as the standard HDD, but it has virtually no bearing on how sophisticated the real-time rendering can be.

    @lagoonalight

    Wow, how many ways do you need to say the exact same thing in one post? Yes UC2 has great textures, and in many circumstances the Blu-Ray capacity probably does come into play for loading up the more set-piece segments with unique texture data. But in general play areas, my impression was that there can often seem to be more 'filler' grade textures employed than in RE5. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all, it's just something. And the water in UC2... I remember seeing some nice water, but I guess it didn't knock my socks off.

    But I'll thank you for supplying a great example of your order; someone dares to suggest UC2 might not be the untouchable pinnacle in every possible detail and it's basically... "BLASPHEMY! He's a witch, burn him before he can utter another word!"

    -

    But in the spirit of full disclosure, I haven't seen all of either UC2 or RE5. A friend lent RE5 to me and I wasn't into it enough to finish at the time. And I got UC1 late and cheap, didn't like it enough for UC2 to be any priority, though I finally rented it just to see what the fuss was about. I've always admired Naughty Dog's craftsmanship, but never really their actual games, every one I've tried has an underlying blandness of gameplay that leaves me cold. UC2 is probably the single most polished and 'finished' console game this gen, and an IQ second to none, but it's hardly flawless. In terms of substance, at least by the two primary performance metrics of geometry and fillrate, there's nothing about it that's suggesting 'more' than RE5.

    I'll stand by what I said, to look at both of them side by side and see otherwise is dementia... or at least a lack of understanding. And this whole thread is an object lesson in how people don't understand what they're looking at. It's like someone who decides they like grapefruit, and for the rest of their lives if they taste an orange or a tangerine, all they can do is yell "this is an AWFUL GRAPEFRUIT!" As Richard said, Alan Wake looks like nothing else around right now.

  • lagoonalight #197 2 years ago

    Well, Entropy, I cannot seem to find the best screens for the game. Two sites where there were great screens apparently don't allow access. I put another one up as IGN's screens are a bit blurry. Might as well play it for yourself lol. Anyway, the WATER in U2 you must have not seen or not been in the right places, dude, because, honestly, IT IS second to none but Crysis. You really have to play through the entirety of U2 to get everything. It goes from museum to jungles to nepal to the mountains to the shambala ruins, almost all in one seamless trip. The game of course is not flawless but in all honesty RE5 is not even close on the consoles. I used to have the 360 version as the PS3 version was an okay port and at no time did I ever even think it came close to U2. Story wise RE5 was a joke nothing more where as the full on like a movie syndrome was in full effect on U2. Are we there yet? Not quite but U2 put up a big sign that said we are coming close. If you were not impressed by the water in U2 going into the sanctuary either in coop multiplayer or the later chapters than you honestly haven't seen it. They also have great docs from their whole team about programming, acting, sound, etc., that are quite informative. You wouldn't know. And about fillrate, I damn well know they are pushing more than console RE5. It only takes one playthrough and you haven't done that for either, apparently, so maybe you are the one that needs to go back and play the games. Like I said, the train ride is crazy and there is simply nothing like that on any platform. If you think they are not pushing stuff I don't know what is. But you see the CPU is vastly helping the maxed GPU out. That is what the Cell does, it picks up all the deficiencies of the 7800, and if you are a clever programmer you can do some amazing things with it.

    On my local dimming LED it is honestly, purely, the most gorgeous game on consoles. Where they could improve is their shadows and that is about it bar some more AA or whatever. RE5 environs were just way too samey for me and many of them just didn't have me saying Oh Wow. Hard to when the story is grade D by Hollywood standards. Anyway, KZ2 still has things going that even U2 cannot touch. Wait for the sequels because they will blow some doors wide open. I hate to say it but it seems like the 360 is maxed and that is fine they have a great array of games and much success this generation.

    And honestly, you do seem quite biased that is my opinion. If anything is bland it is specifically RE5. I will admit that the first Uncharted while a blast, has many many things I was hoping would be improved. And they did in a massive way. Now calling ND a bland developer I will never agree with that statement. You should maybe be threatened with the stake on that one. The entire Jak series and the original Crash trilogy all were high watermarks for their systems. I enjoyed all of them thoroughly. I also enjoyed RE4 on the WII a heck of a lot. After that RE5 was just not my thing. I had more fun with Siren. Anyway, the only reason I responded is because I felt you hadn't even played the game. That remains true unless you actually want to spend more than 5m with it guy. There is simply no other game still that has melded story, acting, and gameplay as well as that game PC or not. And most of the special moments in that game (there are a ton) will pass by you if you are rushing through it. It might be a sight above the city, crossing a bridge with waterfalls and the ocean, or being chased by a bunch of cars in the jungle, etc. That is the point. Every stage has something new and they use every color and trick in the book.

    I will however also admit that multi in U2 is severely lacking. I should know as I quit at a 55 and never came back. You can only go so far with 5 vs 5. And for the record we are still talking about this game because nothing has come close to topping it lol. I play all the systems and most major games and I have seen nothing come close.

    Edited by 3 at 11/05/10 @ 07:11

  • RodHull #198 2 years ago

    @sfp_noodle

    Yes I find MAG uninspiring. You could have 1000 players online and it still couldn't mask the dull map design and gameplay mechanics

    @LostGamer

    Don't think I mentioned anything about movie appeal. What I meant was I prefer a well designed game to a technical showcase. Killzone 2 is technically a great game but the art direction is uniformally brown. Ditto Gears of War 2. The like of VP, BK:NandB, Little Big Planet and Super Mario Galaxy don't push the boundaries in technical limits but are much more pleasant worlds to spend time in. It goes without saying however that were the gameplay lacking even the greatest art direction would be pointless.

  • BuckEntropy #199 2 years ago

    @lagoonalight

    I don't really care if you find more screenshots, I saw enough cherry picking in the few there already. But just to be clear, I've never claimed, nor will I ever claim, to be unbiased. That's an irrelevant conceit, and a separate concern from objectivity.

    Case in point:

    "And honestly, you do seem quite biased that is my opinion. If anything is bland it is specifically RE5. I will admit that the first Uncharted while a blast, has many many things I was hoping would be improved. And they did in a massive way. Now calling ND a bland developer I will never agree with that statement. You should maybe be threatened with the stake on that one."

    Break down the semantics of that statement, and you literally appear to be saying the reason I'm biased is because I don't share *your* bias. In fact that whole post is rather odd, almost like you're implying the story and acting can't be done on 360 either? I know you're responding to my opinion, but by your manner of trying to override my opinion about the game and ND in general, you basically draw a road map of your own bias, about the game if nothing else. Which I have no problem with, but just, "glass houses" man...

    There is one notion you've expressed a couple times, and it always irks me when I see it:

    "But you see the CPU is vastly helping the maxed GPU out. That is what the Cell does, it picks up all the deficiencies of the 7800, and if you are a clever programmer you can do some amazing things with it."

    For sure people are starting to do some amazing things with the SPUs, but they can't just circumvent the RSX. No matter how much pre-cooking the data is done, the GPU is still what lays down the image, and it's ultimate limitations are still in play. Post processing is another matter, and that's obviously why it's used a lot, and looking better all the time. I am actually still hoping to see something really spiffy with image based effects, but as long as we're mostly confined to the conventional realm of geometry and shaders, RSX is still more efficient than the SPUs, so Cell must always be working AROUND it.

    Even if the Cell was doing it's own thing separate from RSX, maybe compositing elements from both processors, at some point they'll still be competing for bandwidth. But I think it'll take something along those lines to completely exhibit '360 can't do this' graphics. I totally wanna see it, and honestly, I bet I'll appreciate it more than most. Since so many people just can't understand 'different'.

  • lagoonalight #200 2 years ago

    Please tell me that this site is going to get overwhelmed just like IGN has with these freakin' merchandise mongers LOFL! I hope not.

    Anyway, I in fact do have a bias with ND. A bias that says don't go there. But let us be honest. There is nothing being done on the 360, which is clearly a year older and much further along with its online code and dev kits than most PS3 games were, (it takes a lot of resources to code online first time) and we already are arguing if any game on the 360 matches any of the exclusives (in reality they simply don't bar Gears 2 which still doesn't measure up) and this is only going to continue my friend. When GG gets KZ3 going on the new enhanced engine you can basically kiss everything goodbye. Mark my words (and not because I am a fanboy just a graphic whore in general without 3k for a PC) and maybe try to actually play the game without goggles, heh. I do this for Fable etc. and will do for Reach so....

    We all have our slight biases towards devs but in the end U2 is still Graphics King for the moment linear as it may be. And let us be sure I wasn't saying the 360 cannot do stories like U2 (and U1 was very average) it is that devs are not investing the time. I am not saying quite that it is the BEST story only that it was integrated the best. I still think Soul Reaver has the best story and acting to be honest and the lady that headed that game is the head on U2 lol. Speaks that very few people in the industry have broken through to the script side, something I am going to college for and with hope might change in 10 years or so. Anyway, I don't mean to argue or anything I just wanted to point out a couple facts with U2 bias or not. The game is simply beautiful. It was crazy pretty on my Dell 24" and it is mind boggling for a 720p game on my LG 42". I am quite sure that Gears 3 will also be but again that and KZ3 are too beefy for my tastes when it comes to dialogue and such. I really hope KZ improves this with the sequel as that is where I hope to spend most of my online time barring a starhawk release date.

    I mean, hey, I've spent too much time on warhawk and I can say with total clarity that the game is hardly even playable on my TV it looks so bad and tears so much. I am not really that biased. I just see how hard some devs work. And kudos to the devs here for AW they don't exactly have all the help in the world and 50 million dollars and 120 people. But sub HD still bothers me it always will. It bothers me on the Ratchet games to no end but I live with it through gritted teeth, though, Insomniac is going back to 30fps precisely because of what they are seeing done at 30fps (yes, they have been 60fps this whole gen), another reason I almost cannot wait for next generation. (I can because I am broke and tech is going very very slow these days as far as costs going down)

    BTW, I was cherry picking nothing! I couldn't even barely find decent picks dude! Every ten minutes there is a scene worth taking a shot from. And stuff like seeing the entire city before you or the island shots as you climb to the top or as I said before the sanctuary are mind blowing at least compared to everything else out on consoles. The inner city detail they have in Nepal is completely spot on to the real cities. A testament to how much wow factor is in that game lol, and how much you have missed. Peace out.
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/10 @ 11:06

  • E2K #201 2 years ago

    Okay, people should know by now I am a ps3 supporter. But still.

    Alan wake is one of the best looking games of this generation.
    In motion it looks absolutely stunning.
    The volumetric light dancing trough the swaying trees at night, the motion blur, everything.
    No other game uses these effects in the same fashion.

    I still think the 360 sucks, big time. The hardware quality sucks, and the fanboys/ community are, in my opinion, total losers.

    Alan wake looks great though. It's not the fault of the game, or the developers that it was forced to be an 'exclusive'.
    Blame MS for that.

    This game had great potential, and it maybe comes short, but technically there is no 360 game out there that can compete.

    If they optimize halo 3, it would easily run at native 1920*1080, even on the 360. But in the end, it would still be halo3.
    No amount of resolution is ever going to change that.

  • BuckEntropy #202 2 years ago

    Now you're getting crafty E2K! Terribly broad strokes though, Halo 3 "easily" running at 1080p? Your credibility remains as it was... lol

    @lagoonalight - Way too much off subject crap for me to address there, and I can't say you convinced me that you're not overly biased, but nice anecdotes, B+ for effort. You are perfectly free to continue seeing things as you like, but it's only staving off the inevitable. Or maybe I'm wrong... there are Sony zealots who continue to believe PS2 was really and actually more powerful than XBOX (and in every way) to this very day. And this is certainly an easier delusion to maintain than that.

    There's no question PS3 can pull off some things 360 can't, most prominently from the storage capacity. Which seems to be working out great for Sony and their 'it's like playing a movie' focus for all the high budget first party games. But if you all could just accept that there are indeed some areas... at least a FEW little details about the 360, that it has an intrinsic advantage in... then I would rarely even be motivated to get into this shit.

    But virtually none of 'you' ever can.

  • mgillespie #203 2 years ago

    "As console exclusives for Xbox 360 become rarer"

    Fixed it for ya...

    Sony have plenty of 1st and 2nd party studios (10x more than Microsoft infact).

    Sounds like this game is a turkey. You can't polish a turd, but you can tell people that it's shiney.
    Edited by 1 at 14/05/10 @ 22:07

  • HokutoNoKen #204 2 years ago

    EDGE review:

    [link url= http://www.edge-online.com/magazine/review-alan-wake
    ]http://ww w.edge-online.com/magazine/revi...[/link]

    7 / 10

    / Ken

  • ninja_dinosaur #205 2 years ago

    just got around to this article. its cool reading about unique rendering tech, evens if its old rendering tech at this stage. bit of a shock to hear its running at such a pitiful resolution, given the astonishing screenshots, obviously it hides it well. immensely looking forward to playing it after exams.

  • Hotel_Moscow #206 2 years ago

    not so astonishing just look at that shadow

    [link url=http://images.eurogamer.n et/assets/articles//a/1/0/8/6/3/6/1/DynamicShadows_002.jpg.j pg
    ]http://im ages.eurogamer.net/assets/artic...[/link]

    and the way remedy spoke of it with their trailers and the whole alan wake will set the bar
    Edited by 1 at 23/05/10 @ 14:13

  • Average_joe #207 1 year ago

    I know this is a old post and all but i have give credit to alan wake (PLEASE DONT GET MAD) its just like mgs4, its a sub title, textures not allways so pretty to look at and screen tear can get ridicilous at times (chapter 4 would be best example of bad textures, shadows and very easy to notice screen tear)

    but still at times its astonishing to look at! and like richard pointed out, details is second to none.
    its good looking game but hardly flawless (screen tear would be AW biggest enemy)

    I have to give a credit to UC2 too. its a very good looking game (must be the one of the best looking out there) but for my tastes, it lacks some of the degree, if you shoot the water theres just a small dip and explosions are just puff, no bullet holes on walls when fired and sometimes theres just isnt that much action on the screen and when the theres like chopper chasing you or something like that, the textures takes big hit. So the particle effect, for most, lacks some attention and the controls was little turn off for me, i died only a few times in battle but died buttloads in jumping, dropping off from ledge.

    All in all both games look great but obviously uc2 takes the cake.

  • ThePissartist #208 8 months ago

    Just got Alan Wake - it's the most underrated games I've played. Visual effects go nuts at moments in the darkness, shadows thrown all over.

    Really enjoying it.