It might be one of the biggest games of 2011, but has anyone noticed the widespread gamer opinion that the visuals are lacking...? Will this really hurt the game?
Going from HD vids, I personally have yet to find any part of Resistance 3 to be visually lacking in motion (which what you'll be in 95% of the game!). Seems like just another unnecessary facet to complain about when we should be happy to see the series meandering closer to it's FoM roots.
I don't Understand. First off it's Beta Build. And also i don't see how this game looks bad at all. The story trailer they provide us look amazing, and the other beta footage of the other maps look amazing as well.
If it's on par with the last one i'm more than happy!
more proof that we need a new gen and even more proof that insomniac wasn't even worth a purchase from sony
/\ Proof of why you have 1 bubble.
There goes that 'FoM roots' BS again.... even though it only has like 2/50 gameplay elements in common.
Sony exclusive. It must be scrutinized and attacked in every way. Just business as usual. You must take every tool you can find to discredit it before, when and after its launched.
Looks much better than R2 did. The fire didnt even glow in that game. Resistance 3 may not look like Uncharted or Killzone 2 but if they bring back the R1 magic, it wont matter.
Unfortunately, the sub-HD resolution is rather apparent when playing it first hand. However, the details in everything else as a whole seems to have been stepped up significantly, which I feel helps brings a much better visual experience than the previous Resistance games offered.
Resistance 3 has looked amazing in everything I've seeen so far... not killzone standard or crysis but still.... and anyone who says COD looks better than resistance 3 needs an eye test lol That still sells well yet must have the worst graphics of any fps on the main consoles as of late :s
The games great but from a tech perspective, nothing special, sub HD, QAA (jaggies and blur) etc But if nothing else, the art style is leaps and bounds ahead of R2.
"Gamers ignorant to anything but graphics."
The only thing I find unappealing about the multiplayer graphics is that the atmosphere from the campaign isn't there. It's not dreary enough.
Gamers are CoD idiots then... or blind... or stupid enough to understand that they look at Beta code...
Why COD idiots? everyone knows cod fails in graphical terms, so I doubt they have their say when it comes to graphics
I think most of the resources go to the gameplay instead of graphics. As long as I can tell the enemies from the background im good.
It looks great! :)
They are judging the game on multiplayer beta code, lol. We already saw just how amazing the graphics look for this game on single player final build!. It's amazing. It's not quite kz3/uncharted but its much much better than 2, in fact is say its as pretty as Resident Evil 5/ Vanquish. And those games were very pretty!
Those same losers are going to buy cod mw3. Resistance3 looks amazing
First Battlefield 3 for PS3's graphics are lacking and now this. I will respond the same way DICE responded to those who complained, "BULL****".
I'm in the R3 beta at the moment. Obviously as it's a beta it's hard to comment on the graphics as we don't know how they'll change between now and the final release. As they are right now I would hope that they will be greatly improved. The textures and effects are ok (at best), but it's the character animations that I'm not liking.. the way players move isn't fluid. In my opinion that's what makes it look quite old school. Oh another annoying this is how objects and scenery go in and out of focus when you aim down the sights. eg. I'll aim down the sights then there will be a slight delay and then things in the foreground/background will intermittently go in and out of focus. Like I said, it's the beta so it would be stupid to pass full judgement, but that's my impression so far.
i played the demo on the battle of la movie and i was not impressed. i have not liked the direction insomniac has been taking ever since they first started to patch R2.... r3 is not horrible, but i feel like r2 was superior at a noticeable 720p resolution...
Demo beta nuff said
"one of the biggest games of 2011" ?
Surely if the multiplayer graphics have to take a slight drop so the game runs smoothly that's a good thing. With everyone popping up shields, throwing hedgehog grenades etc it's important it RUNS properly. If the resolution was high but the game had major frame rate issues the same people would be on here saying they should have made it run properly first. I don't think the devs can win either way. Trouble with gamers, most of them think they are developers as well.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.