SPOnG: "Naughty Dog has told SPOnG that the graphical leap between Uncharted 1 and Uncharted 2 is something that can only be achieved once per generation - and that you won't see a similar jump again on a PlayStation 3."
Never mind the graphical jump between 1 and 2, what makes me sad is how many games out there dont even look as good as Uncharted 1! :(
they could still make the same kind of jump with animation quality and diversity though :)
The jump between 2 and 3 is smaller, but it's still present. I call this Naughty Dog being modest.
I like the fact that Naughty Dog are just modest guys who know their stuff very well. Some developers will go out there complaining about reasons like the PS3 just has limited I/O memory bandwidth and the such...or that they are their games are the best looking game on either platforms, then fail to deliver on this.
well many others and i have been saying this forever now and getting tons of disagrees because apparently im ignorant or something. but ND says it and all of a sudden it "Makes sense"? sigh... let them live in chains *facepalm*
Decrypt Translation: I'm not that smart, read the translation then proceed to ignore me.
Heartnet I hear what youre saying. Artistly, graphics can always improve, nut Uncharted 1 animations are already better than 98% of games. In fact, all I can think with better in UC2 and UC3.
I think we're getting close to the point where improvements start to slow down with the current generation consoles. I think they'll still look very nice, and perhaps a greater percentage of games will look really good, but I don't think we're going to see any more huge leaps that we've seen in the past. With the PS2, we got God of War II and Shadow of the Colossus at it's peak. That was about the best they could get with the hardware, although don't misunderstand, it still amazes me that these games even ran at all on a PS2, especially Shadow of the Colossus. I'm not sure if we're quite to that point with the PS3 and 360, but I think we're getting close. Maybe a year or so max before they start suggesting it's time to upgrade the hardware.
Autodidactdystopia - ND has what some may call credibility. They are developers, who are well known for really pulling all of the PS3's potential out. They probably know that system inside and out by now. People listen to them because they are credible.
Credibility is the problem with modern media. only credible sources are listened to regardless if they are lying to you. Ill take educated truth over credibility any day. suit yourself :)
@Autodidactdystopia other studios can only say they cant make a great leap forward in graphics when they have come close to Uncharted 2 level of graphics!!!
Uncharted 3 still looks UNBELIEVABLY great! the attention to details is second to none and without any install, the game runs smooth as butter! I still can't believe what I've seen!
maybe the next challenge will be making an open world game with the same level of graphics. anyway i wish other developers come close to U2&3 level graphics on consoles(yes you can get better on PC with 1 game called Battlefield 3 if you are rich)
When you troll as much as you do, you can't blame people for not reading your comments anymore! "I'll get this game on this console", but then proceed to troll the game, console and everyone who owns the console. You also can't blame people for thinking you don't actually own a PS3!
@Sub4Dis I'm in total agreement with everything you've said, the graphical qualities of Uncharted are way overrated, they're good, not amazing. I've also noticed how linear the whole experience is, it's like the Modern Warfare of third person adventure games, but, like Modern Warfare's campaign, the spectacle of the cut scenes & set pieces makes you forget about that, which is something the series has to be commended for. I'd say for the peak of graphical excellence and attention to detail for this generation both Arkham City and Skyrim have U3 trumped.
Naught dog are truely masters when it comes to visuals and graphics and in my opnion uncharted 2 is the best looking game this gen. Not only the graphics are great, but the art style is why (IMO) is better looking than god of war 3 or killzone 3. couple that with solid 720p, vivid colors and very very minor frame rates issues (if any) makes it the absolute king of graphics and a true benchmark to developers everywhere.
It is defintely the best looking console game this gen.
How either of you could have disagrees astounds me. I love it when people say, "It looks so good because it's so linear." Actually, it makes me want to scream. There are ton of linear games out there...show me one better. They can't, but they still disagree.
I personally think that God of War 3 looks better, but thats my opinion, and "no" i didnt disagree with anybody.
I thought God of War III had the better art style, but Uncharted's was fairly good as well.
GOW3 was specail in its on way, levels you fight on are F#$%ing moving Titans, MOVING Titans
Here are just some thoughts (RE5, GEAR3, UC2/UC3): RE5 1. best texture out of the 3 (even upclose) 2. lighting is very realistic (i still think i'm looking at a real light sources, especially those light bulbs) 3. certain effects are amazing like explosions 4. quite a few enemies on screens (but not much going on compare to Gears 3 though) 5. very fluid animation for bosses fights only (everything else are horrendously animated) 6. overall look more realistic than Gears/UC Gears 3: 1. lots, and i do mean lots of things going on in the games w/ fluid split screen/4 player coop too (UC is more of sights seeing compare to gears) 2. great use of dynamic lighting (not as realistic as RE5 though) 3. decent set pieces, not as good as UC. 4. I think they use some tesselation (especially if you look at the ground texture/polygon) 5. motion blur per object which are quite good. Of course UC has these advantages: 1. better textures (compare to gear only) 2. very cinematic/best set pieces 3. better animation than both gears/RE5 overall 4. more colors 5. more attention to details than gears/RE5 Now if i think which one look the best: i'll probably go with Red Dead Redemption for now (i mean the dynamic aspects of it is untouchable) what do u guys think?
@baodeus I loved RDR and it blew me out of the water literally. The world was alive for real. What turned me down was the damn sky, it was horrible, I never wanted to look at the sky, those damn clouds ugh. but the game was a master piece fro R* that I didn't expect since my disappointment with GTA4. But I wouldn't say that it looks the best, but if you mention the fact that that is an openworld game you can make some exception but not the best still. but what you said about RE5 was almost accurate except the fact that the graphic especially inside the houses wasn't well polished enough. but great explosions all together. However I found it not that realistic. I would say the better one goes to RDR or UC3. I liked your compare of the titles. Very accurate and into the point
@kane_1371 Yeah, i agree some part in the building , especially organic materials like mutilated bodies look a bit mushy, but overall, everything look very crisp and have great textures; u can litterally zoom in and still see it clearly. The animation is much more realistic in RDR/UC (more so in UC), but textures and lighting are definetly more realistic in RE5 (RDR/UC seem a bit cartoonish). Why i think RDR is still the best looking game: 1. The lively and interactivity in RDR is second none. 2. every blade of grasses/trees/weather/effects, lighting,etc.. response/interact/evolve not just to you but to everything within the world as well. 3. NPC interactions changes (given there are some AI issues here), u might find something different everytime u walk into town. 4. details,details, and details (like blood slowly soaking through your shirt, dirt get on your pants, u get wet in the rain...similar to the details u see in UC except it is on a much larger scale) 5. even the bird in the sky aren't just for look either (I litterally didn't know until one day i decided to shoot it, just out of curiosity, and surprisingly, it fells to the ground). I left wondering what else can't i do in this game? 6. Things changes constantly and you'll always find something new everytime (ranging from freaky, brutal, sci-fi, or just plain funny; even glitches are humorous and amusing). Imagine how many people are trying to solve the mystery of the lockness monster,big foot, posessess horse carriage, or UFO sighting proves how truely dynamic RDR can get. Watching an event unfold vs living the event is the major differences between RDR and other games like UC. an example of what i mean by living: riding horse over the canyon scene as seen in the new UC3 trailers vs RDR for example. 1. It look amazing in UC (as UC fan would agree), but it will be the same scene the next time u play it (same person, same armies/trucks/etc.. running down below, same environment, etc...); it doesn't change. 2. In RDR however, that is like a part of your daily activities. You can ride in the early morning to see the sunrise or in the afternoon to see the sunset. You can observed the brutality of mother nature during the storm and see the ray of light (hope) emerges from the cloud as the storm clears out. Underneath you, things changes as others going through their daily life routine. They may takes different routes/change paces depending on the weather/day cycle, some might have to fight off wild animals occasionally, some abandon their horses to die in their place, and some got run over by other NPC or a train while doing so. "an open game", "Humorous" or "strangeness" are big understatements for what u see everyday in RDR. That is the beauty of RDR, you are living it. There is just no word to describe RDR except you just have to experienced it yourself. It is litterally the best game (in term of dynamic/openess/immersive) i have ever played.
What she said
I do not like to endorse websites but the interview by naughty dog devs on Gametrailers has been very interesting on their show the Bonus round. No spoilers so far but from what I am gathering we are in for a serious treat in a few weeks. They are claiming that this game is definitely better than UC2 in every aspect and the Story is the best part. Be excited!
Uncharted looks amazing. I can not wait to play Uncharted 3 which looks graphical beautiful. It looks better then Uncharted 2. Uncharted a graphical powerhouse of a francise that doesnt necessarily need to be bland grey and brown like games from this gen.
what doesn't make sense is that only a few developers have done on the ps3. It doesn't really hurt to make your game look good you know.
do not use the word impossible and ND in the same sentence. Weren't many saying the same after uncharted 2 and now Uc3 is looking great. I am one of those people who believe we should not see new consoles till atleast fall 2013 but would be ideal for xbox720 to come out in fall 2014 and ps4 to come out in fall 2015. But in reality in believe we will see MS announce a new console at next year's E3 and release it in 2013. Gears 3 looked great and now UC3 looks great so all the talk about we need next gen i don't buy into it at all and i believe neither do the console makers. also a lot depends on wii-u if it actually pushes the tech forward or will it match xbox360 and ps3
Here we go again, 50 fanboys talk about gameengines that they dont know shit about. No doubt that Uncharted series is one of the best looking, but when you start saying that ND are the only developers with credibility, thats when YOU loose all credibility.
Not only is it misleading, it also deliberately twisted the points ND was trying to make. In fact, "impossible" was NEVER implied at all. This is the kind of journalism that is inappropriate and absolutely disgusting. The first game only used 30% of the SPUs, naturally the remaining factor would be ginormous compared to the latest 2 sequels. Anybody and anyone who saw the latest TV spot would've easily seen the huge differences between Uncharted 2 & 3. Yes, the last game was at it's SPU peak so a 70% difference (like the 1st game) should not be expected. However it is still a graphical leap from Uncharted 2. The emphasis here is UC1 & UC2, why this site needs to undermine the effort of UC3 is uncalled for. Taking quotes out of context is the norm for most sites as it's a quick way to get hits. But to take it out of proportion to this degree is unbelievable. I rated this articles a WTF due to the lack of concern and professionalism with their site.
Try telling that to some Fanboys. They will be like "Troll, PS3 is uber". OT: Naught Dog are great developers who arent bullsh**ers unlike activision
Mmmmm croissants XD
Mmmm high calories
Mmmmmmmmmmmm boobs...wait what were we talking about again?
Speaking on Uncharted 3's graphical improvements, game director Justin Richmond revealed that much of the work made was on 'under the hood' upgrades and optimisation of code, and that future games on the PS3 will follow the same practice.
i shall hold my comment till GOD OF WAR 4 comes out...
Why is he getting disagrees? GoW3 looks better than uncharted 2. God of war 4 will most likely be in PS4.
While I admire god of war 3 graphics (my third best looking game on consoles behind uncharted 2 and killzone 3) but uncharted is way more beautiful and vivid and the has high res textures like no other, that besides the amazing art style of uncharted 2.
God of War3 looks at times even better then UC2. The amount of detail on Cronos alone is astounding. The entire fight takes place without even a stutter. Kratos looks much more detailed then Nathan Drake as well. GOW3 is a painting that has come to life!
GOW3 has some absolutely beautiful graphical moments that are the best I have seen on a console EVER. UC2 to me is more technically consistent but even the drab rain scenes in GOW3 cannot hide the absolute beauty in that game. UC3 will take the crown it seems. Naughty Dog is hiding somethings for sure based on their recent interviews. Plus they seem pretty calm. I think that they will be on the next gen PS console for their next game in a month or 2.
Im with GOW 3, UC2 looks good and all but i like GOW's graphics better, they are incredible and definitely the best on the system. Although Killzone 3 aint to shaby either.
I fail to understand how there will be a GoW4 if [spoiler] Kratos committed suicide... [/spoiler] Unless of course Aphrodite grabs a sword or something.
@Xalaris, [spoiler]Kratos didn't die, at the end of GOW3 you see a blood trail of where his body was.[/spoiler] GOW4 is possible i just have no idea what the story would be about since he's pretty much slain everyone.
thanks buddy...i agree with you mate...:) I would like to say that Santa Monica confirmed that GOW 3 had used only 50%-60% of PS3's power whereas Naught Dog claimed using 90% during UC2. i love Uncharted 2 to death and was flaunted by its graphics but i was thrown after laying my eyes on GOW3. Though UC2 is more consistent in terms of graphics than GOW3 but in detailing, no1 touches GOW3. Also, for everyone's information, UC2's space is 25GB whereas GOW3 is 40GB. Also, there was NO multiplayer in GOW3 and the campaign was also shorter than UC2. Now you assume what GOW4 will do IF it comes out. :):)
If you take out 3d and split screen you could get a pretty major upgrade on ps3. The 2 games on one disc was BS. Its a feature/fidelity trade off. Same with motorstorm etc. Not that I am complaining, the ps3 has the strongest set of exclusives of any console I have owned, and uncharted is so good i still play it after having platinum, same for infamous, motorstorm, resistance, little big planet, warhawk thats just the fresh IP too.
And how do you know just how major of an upgrade you would get? Assumption? Hopes and dreams? Any hardware in question is only going to be capable of it's own limits. The wall gets hit at some point, and PS3 is going on 5 years old. There is no more 'major' upgrade or graphical leap left. Fortunately it doesn't matter, because the games themselves are great. Doubling the assets for 3D won't hinder the theoretical graphical output when it's already being pushed to it's near extent. That's why they talk about optimization.
lol first hand knowledge, actually the assets don't get doubled, you might like to think its a totally different engine but it aint. The focus on the studio becomes 3d/Multiplayer, assets, time and all. Optimization is all centred around those technologies is that simple enough an explanation for you? Uncharted 3 looks stunning as it is, just saying the next technology step up on PS3 will be The Last Guardian. And dont get me wrong uncharted 3 is worth buying a 3DTV for........................... ..
There is no upgrade without 3D mode available. It has no bearing on the non-3D view at all. The cost in visual fidelity only occurs when in 3D mode. jack_burt0n is mis-informed or/and mis-interpreted.
@gamingdroid actually your mis-informed there is no graphical hit when in 3D mode. What you not up on is that Uncharted 3 is the first game to use HD 3D which even ND have confirmed made the game run and look better. I have a 55 inch Samsung 3D and the MP beta looks great in 3D...actually it looks better than without.
Well, the stereoscopic 3d in a game like uncharted 3 does require it to draw/process 2x the frames as opposed to 2d. So ultimately, NOT having to do that, would/should increase 2d performance and visual fidelity. BUT, since you can't have a huge difference in appearance from the 2 modes, one needs to find a middle ground. The fact that is looks as good as it does, all while being able to pull of these visuals with 3d, is quite a feat in my opinion.
Except when you are NOT using 3D, it ain't rendering the second view. The second view being rendered is what is taxing, it has no bearing on the assets such as textures and etc as they are just re-used from the first view. That is why most if not all games that run in 3D results in reduced graphical fidelity compared to when NOT, but the assets hasn't changed!
From what I've read. 3D implementation is the a by-product of the actual engine and not simply amalgamated in the engine itself. Meaning it is wholly dependent product. In other words, the 3D aspect quality depends how good the engine works in the first place and has no bearing or influence in cutting down the quality of 2D itself. It's like saying slicing a pizza in half would effect the taste of the pizza. To put it in relative terms, 3D implementation is similar to split-screen. Both take 2 different points of view with a smaller resolution. Having split screen may put the engine in further stress but whether it is implemented or not would only be as effective to how capable 2D itself..
Naughty Dog said it themselves they had to cut the resolution of the frame buffer to do 3D then have it upscaled to have the 720p/ eye 3D effect.
Which is why I said precisely why 3D's quality wholly depends on how good the engine works in the first place. If Uncharted was 1080p/60FPS then this would be the most optimal condition for 3D as it would cut it by 720p/60fps. In other words, the lower the settings, the lower the 3D. Your example is only the implementation when 3D is in effect and not the 2D itself. You would still get your 720p 30fps if you turn your 3D off.
I actually think that making a game 3d, especially a shooter, is quite an upgrade. The depth of field you achieve with 3d is impossible without it and it definitely improves the gameplay IMO.
You realize they reduce graphical quality when you use 3d/splitscreen right? So no, it isn't a trade-off until you actually use the features. EDIT: looks like gamingdroid beat me to it.
I almost got linched for saying the leap between 2 and 3 was minor compared to 1 to 2. But there you have it from the horse's mouth. You have to be realistic with your expectations, still, I'm sure the set pieces will still have my jaw on the floor.
From the videos shown so far it feels like just as big a leap to me. Probably a combination of the much larger scale and the huge improvements to animation and physics.
Yeah, the leap is not as big to 3 as it was from 1 to 2, but it's quite noticable. They took a near flawless engine and just have been polishing it to all hell. I love it, and you are getting something more solid in UC3. And from what I have seen from older builds of UC3 to the current footage, the game is looking unbelievable, and the writting is oscar performance.
Sure don't see any leap between 2 and 3 from playing the Subway MP
seems you were too busy with the Subway sandwich!!!
you need to check your eyes
I'm pretty sure it was minor because of the use of 3D. I can just imagine how it would look like without it. Still, the graphics are very impressive.