Best Looking Console Game this gen.

Kreeeee · 26 Jan 2009 at 20:37

Sinny said:
Over exagerating a bit their Kreeeee , I thought 60fps was the max until the human eye could see no difference?

No exaggeration mate, try it!

Wyrdo · 26 Jan 2009 at 21:05

Sinny said:
Over exagerating a bit their Kreeeee , I thought 60fps was the max until the human eye could see no difference?

Why do people keep saying things like this? It's simply not true.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

LabR@t · 26 Jan 2009 at 21:14

lol i can remember this argument in the pc forumn a few years ago, but it kind of pointless in console thread seeing how hardware is locked so you cant tweak/upgrade to get more fps .

so if you like the game play it regardless .

NorthstaNder · 26 Jan 2009 at 21:41

Gears 2 is stunning
GRID is also a superb looking racer. PGR3/4 just look bland after playing GRID
Assassins Creed for the win though.

kidloco · 26 Jan 2009 at 22:03

Gow2 for me. Although killzone 2 is looking very impressive.

Lee2k4 · 26 Jan 2009 at 22:43

COD 5

Margaret · 27 Jan 2009 at 04:29

dalin80 said:
gta4 barely runs at a constant 25.

very true.

thevet · 27 Jan 2009 at 08:39

Robert1986 said:
eh? The human eye can't tell the difference between 35fps to 60fps.

lol ok.

you can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps..i had to rma one of my cards this week so my fps has dropped a lot in games that are on ultra high...you can notice the difference...i cannot wait for my new card to arrive....i dont like playing with one gpu

gt_junkie · 27 Jan 2009 at 08:49

Tunney said:
Assassin's Creed looks gorgeous and the draw-distance is amazing. It gets my vote.

Same here!

Like Gears of War and Burnout Paradise as well.

gt

Alexrose1uk · 27 Jan 2009 at 09:29

I'm gonna lob in a vote for Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts. Was playing it last night round the families, and I was pleasantly surprised. It slows down a little sometimes, but the view distance and textures are miles ahead of most xbox games atm. Looks great if stylised.

Johnz0r · 27 Jan 2009 at 10:24

Would probably have to say judging by the trailers it would have to be Killzone 2. However, after recently getting a 1080p capable screen, I would have to say that GT5: Prologue is stunning particularly on the Nordwand track, if you put it on replay it is simply sublime. Just wish PD would hurry up and release the bloody thing.

Tom84 · 27 Jan 2009 at 13:44

I'd say out of the ones I've played Gears of War, Uncharted and Metal Gear Solid 4

Although I've still yet to fire up Gears 2 and obviously haven't got my hands on Killzone 2 or Resi Evil 5

Sutters · 27 Jan 2009 at 13:52

On 360 I'd say GOW2, COD4, also an oldie now but fight night 3 was quite stunning too. For ps3 maybe motorstorm out of my games.

PiKe · 27 Jan 2009 at 13:57

Isn't 60fps the maximum on consoles though as the TV refreshes at 60hz? Any more is just a waste.

KNiVES · 27 Jan 2009 at 14:24

PiKe said:
Isn't 60fps the maximum on consoles though as the TV refreshes at 60hz? Any more is just a waste.

You'll get screan-tearing yeah. That's why many console games have v-sync enabled (limits the maximum framerate equal to the television's refresh rate and syncs them). Unfortunately unless games utilize triple-buffering (and they never do), vsync can result in reduced frame-rates as it's more work on the GPU to try and syncronize the output with the display's refresh rate.

Some developers seriously have no idea and seem to whack on vsync anyway even if they don't need to, which kills the framerate needlessly. Heavenly Sword is a prime culprit of this.

Spyhop · 27 Jan 2009 at 19:34

KNiVES said:
Some developers seriously have no idea and seem to whack on vsync anyway even if they don't need to, which kills the framerate needlessly.

Ideally all games would use v-sync - disabling it is just a grotty way to improve performance vs. a loss of image quality (frame tearing).

Though it can come hand in hand with input-lag on some engines. IIRC this was the case with the original HL/CS, etc..

Kreeeee · 27 Jan 2009 at 19:54

KNiVES said:
You'll get screan-tearing yeah. That's why many console games have v-sync enabled (limits the maximum framerate equal to the television's refresh rate and syncs them). Unfortunately unless games utilize triple-buffering (and they never do), vsync can result in reduced frame-rates as it's more work on the GPU to try and syncronize the output with the display's refresh rate.

I don't think that's right, I'm sure naive v-sync doesn't take any extra power and it just adds a latency to the system. Also, the main issue with naive v-sync is that if the frame rate dips below the synced fps then it takes a big chunk out of the frame rate to sync them again.

e.g.

60hz sync frequency
game dips to 58fps -> game forced to display at 30fps to maintain sync

Triple buffering allows this drop in fps to be far less drastic at the cost of extra buffer memory.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a LONG time since I read up about this.

Wyrdo · 27 Jan 2009 at 20:19

Kreeeee said:
60hz sync frequency
game dips to 58fps -> game forced to display at 30fps to maintain sync

Triple buffering allows this drop in fps to be far less drastic at the cost of extra buffer memory.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a LONG time since I read up about this.

You are correct.

KNiVES · 27 Jan 2009 at 20:28

And I stand corrected.

Yungstar 2006 · 27 Jan 2009 at 21:08

Just Cause

perhaps until Just Cause 2