Untold Legends game footage
Some small snippets of gameplay footage (see: two) for the upcoming PS3 title Untold Legends: Dark
Kingdom are available for your gawking pleasure over at IGN. The game's graphics are looking very nice at
this stage of the game, showing some polished detail on the enemy models and giant-hammer-wielding-hero-guy as
they run around in a grassy field littered with rocks, doing what enemies and hero-guys do.
Who else is looking forward to this one?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
kev @ May 3rd 2006 7:02PM
i dont think these graphics look any better than xbox 360
The Guru @ May 3rd 2006 8:05PM
looks ok I guess. I had this game for my psp. Was pretty fun, but got a little repetitive.
Not sure if if excited for this game or not.
Scott Krueger @ May 3rd 2006 9:26PM
Not every developer makes next-gen games 1st time around. It looks like this game will be this way.
I'm suffering this on the XBox360 Right now.
Other than Fight Night and Ghost Recon, every other game has lacked that WOW Factor that Madden Brought on the PS2.
Heck Even Madden on the 360 looked like poop.
But with Killzone, Resistance (I8), and MotorStorm, Ghost Recon, and Fight Night the PS3 Line up looks like it will finally bring that WOW Factor to the Next Gen, because Microsoft forgot to bring it.
Best Regards,
Future PS3 Owner, and current disappointed 360 owner.
The Guru @ May 3rd 2006 10:10PM
Yeah, but the funny thing is....is that Sony makes this game. The same people who showed CGI videos that wowed us all. And then the game they make is looking like this?!?
I will give them the fact that they still have 6 months to make this into the graphical beauty Sony has made us all believe the games are capable of. Hell, this E3, they should have made some more CGI vids to please us all.
See, the thing is is that this game really represents what a resonable ps3 game should look like. Not the movies that were shown.
And Scott, you forget Oblivion. Oblivion has that "WOW" facter.
MR.X @ May 4th 2006 12:11AM
well I do think this game does suck but look at turok for the ps3 these are in game shots so no bashing by random 360 fanboys or rabbid "oh yes 360 sucks commets" by ps fanboy
http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/773/773516/img_3562975.html
http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/773/773516/img_3562976.html
boots (former bd) @ May 4th 2006 12:19AM
The Guru:
I disagree on "Oblivion" having a "WOW factor". I have played it and I'm unimpressed. It started fun, but not a graphical masterpiece. Look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HHsUfConpY
So MGS3 looks and plays better on PS2 than Oblivion on 360, which is pathetic. Don't flame me, because Project Gotham Racing 3, Burnout and Fight Night Round 3 look gorgeous though... the only problem for me with that, is that these aren't my type of games. So I'm still waiting for a game on 360 where I can say "WOW" and at the same time want to play it. Admittedly, the graphics on these 3 are not the best I expect for this generation, but they are pretty damned good to belong to the first titles of the next-generation. Perhaps I'll get my next-gen fix until Devil May Cry 4, Resident Evil 5 or MGS4 come out... anything better (like Killzone, for example) is just vanity. I do expect the next final fantasy to look flawless, just like FFX did in its time, just like all metal gear solids have looked and will look.
Back to the topic, this game looks like utter crap if it's supposed to be next-gen. What's more disappointing is that Sony is making it... Of course not all games should look next-gen, but this is a Sony game. As said above though, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt till PS3 and the game are out.
Not like I'm really eager to play this game anyway... I'll be happy if Lair is a launch game.
Duscrom @ May 4th 2006 4:01AM
"But with Killzone, Resistance (I8), and MotorStorm, Ghost Recon, and Fight Night the PS3 Line up looks like it will finally bring that WOW Factor to the Next Gen, because Microsoft forgot to bring it."
I'm sorry, i think this is funny. You had a PS2 at launch and you find the Xbox 360 launch Dissapointing? Even if Madden isn't wow.. look at NBA Live and FIFA. But, of the games you named... 2 are ports, and already look great on the 360, 1 of them you've seen nothing of, but a pre-rendered movie, and is the 3rd in a series that still hasn't seen the release of 2, and the last 2 we haven't even seen yet. Motorstorm is only supposed to look half as good as the E305 footage.
Fear @ May 4th 2006 8:19AM
Is this a 2004 Fable video?
T-bone @ May 4th 2006 8:55AM
The gameplay looks an awful lot like LOTR: The Two Towers to me...
And that sucks. Big time.
The Guru @ May 4th 2006 4:22PM
"Don't flame me"
Are you kidding me?? You link me to an anti xbox site, and you don't want me to say anything. The only thing that is pathetic here is you.
And don't tell me oblivion doesn't look good. I gaurantee you haven't played it, you're only judging the graphics from some biased website. Yeah....don't flame you.
"But with Killzone, Resistance (I8), and MotorStorm, Ghost Recon, and Fight Night the PS3 Line up looks like it will finally bring that WOW Factor to the Next Gen, because Microsoft forgot to bring it."
Um...two of those tittles are on the 360 if I am not mistaken. And your rite, MS didn't show the CGI videos. Sony did.
MR. X.
Turok is on the 360 also.
I really can't wait for the ps3 to launch. Not so I can play it, but so I can come back and say, "those graphics aren't anything near those pretty movies Sony shows at E3."
boots (former bd) @ May 4th 2006 6:54PM
"Are you kidding me?? You link me to an anti xbox site, and you don't want me to say anything. The only thing that is pathetic here is you. "
What the hell is wrong with you, Guru? I didn't link you to an "Anti-Xbox" site, and you have to admit these are interesting videos, and you should realize Sony is not the only one that lies. Anyway, the purpose wasn't to piss you off. Seriously, you got to admit that it is pathetic that MGS3 looks better than Oblivion. If that bothers you, don't worry, so does Untold Legends for PS3.
"And don't tell me oblivion doesn't look good. I gaurantee you haven't played it, you're only judging the graphics from some biased website. Yeah....don't flame you. "
You guarantee I haven't played it? OK, you can't do that, and just to prove you I have, you start the game inside the dungeon of a castle. Or that's how it starts if you choose "Nord" (my friend told me it was different with other characters). Oblivion looks "good", but not as good as PGR3 or Fight Night. Oblivion looks like a polished current-gen game at best (no offense). Look at the video and admit it! That doesn't mean the game isn't fun anyway.
"But with Killzone, Resistance (I8), and MotorStorm, Ghost Recon, and Fight Night the PS3 Line up looks like it will finally bring that WOW Factor to the Next Gen, because Microsoft forgot to bring it."
Um... Microsoft has also gotten CG videos for 360 (Examples: Madden, Gears of War, Ninety Nine Nights, Lost Odyssey). The difference is that Sony has "proven" a good chunk of them to be real-time (even if unplayable), and most playables shown for 360 have looked current-gen. That doesn't mean either or the other is better, that only means Demos.
"I really can't wait for the ps3 to launch. Not so I can play it, but so I can come back and say, "those graphics aren't anything near those pretty movies Sony shows at E3."
And you think of yourself as a mature 17 year old?
Fear @ May 4th 2006 7:46PM
^ You just said that Oblivion looks like a polished curren- gen game. You are either, A) A fucking retard. Or B) You played the game in Low settings.
Go play the game on Ultra High Settings, right now. Right fucking now. The game is gorgeous. The game makes you fucking drool. As for MGS3 looking better, what the fuck. Go book an appointment for your eyes testing. Book it right fucking now.
Oblivion is a full-fledged next-gen title, the graphics are enchantingly beatiful, better than any other game to date, possibly except PGR3 and Fight-Night Round 3(I know PGR3 is most photo-realistic and I know Fight-Night Round 3 has the best human characters ever seen but Oblivion is still beautiful)
Oblivions graphics > MGS3's graphics. I don't know why i'm saying this but you brought it up. Fucking comparing two different Gen games, you're a lost cause. So what if your MGS3 has bouncing rain, yours lacks gameplay/rest of the shit that matters.
lol @ May 4th 2006 8:54PM
every xbox fanboy here is pathetic and scared......scared cuz they know that ps3 will dominate
first of all oblivian is a huge ripp-off from world of warcraft
second:there is no need for getting mad and using fuck in every one of ur sentences...yes im talking to u (fear)
also i say this with 100% confidence....the PS@ is better than 360
ex:god of war! god of war 2 wen it comes out, madden 06
socom 3 all of these games are amazing and may i remind everyone taht games dont rely on graphics alone its how fun the game is and sitting at home for 12 hours playing (oblvivian) is not a lot of fun
while playing an hour of socom will take out ur rage and is an amazing shooter (better than halo2)
so fuk all of u xbox fanboys u have ur own site so stik to it
peace-im out
boots (former bd) @ May 4th 2006 10:22PM
"^ You just said that Oblivion looks like a polished curren- gen game. You are either, A) A fucking retard. Or B) You played the game in Low settings."
Well, I played it on a Standard definition TV, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but still, if you need an HDTV to notice something new... hmmm (that applies to PS3 games too).
"Go play the game on Ultra High Settings, right now. Right fucking now. The game is gorgeous. The game makes you fucking drool."
My 360 owning friend told me the same. "You gotta play it in HD". I told him "Fight Night looks awesome... really good for the time being, but there's still room for improvement" and he said: "You gotta watch PGR3 LIVE TV" (or whatever it's called), so I watched PGR3 and it's gorgeous, but I told him "there's still some room for improvement" and he said "wait till you play it in HD".
" As for MGS3 looking better, what the fuck. Go book an appointment for your eyes testing. Book it right fucking now."
Watch the video above. Look at the vegetation in MGS3, how the strands are 3D and have movement, as opposed to the "grass" in oblivion which looks terrible. I know that's up to the developer, but there's no excuse when you have 16 times more RAM, a processor that is around 20 times more powerful than the "Emotion Engine", let alone a supposedly cutting-edge GPU.
"Oblivion is a full-fledged next-gen title, the graphics are enchantingly beatiful, better than any other game to date, possibly except PGR3 and Fight-Night Round 3(I know PGR3 is most photo-realistic and I know Fight-Night Round 3 has the best human characters ever seen but Oblivion is still beautiful)"
There is no way Oblivion looks better than Fight Night or PGR3. I would putt Oblivion competing graphically against a polished Final Fantasy 12. Seriously, the game might be a lot of fun, but the graphics can be improved and a lot. That's Bethesda's fault, and at some degree Microsoft for not demanding quality.
"Oblivions graphics > MGS3's graphics. I don't know why i'm saying this but you brought it up. Fucking comparing two different Gen games, you're a lost cause."
Dude, the reason I compared it is because I watched the video. Ironically, MGS3 runs at 60 FPS also and it looks much better. I would have never thought that if I hadn't seen that video.
"So what if your MGS3 has bouncing rain, yours lacks gameplay/rest of the shit that matters."
MGS3 is one of the most acclaimed games ever. Oblivion is a good game, but it doesn't compare to MGS3, at least critically. Oh, and it's not just "bouncing rain", it's also dripping rain, it's a higher frame rate, better fluid effects, better textures and higher poly count (for grass). Oblivion doesn't even have foot steps. Of course it probably has "something of its own", but there is no excuse for a single current gen game to best a highly acclaimed next-gen game.
Despite all this, I'll listen to you and give them the benefit of the doubt, and go ahead and play it on an HDTV.
Fear @ May 4th 2006 10:23PM
F.E.A.R. announced for Xbox 360. Whoo-hoo!
Sorry, you were talking about ..god of war? Bahahhaa.
boots (former bd) @ May 4th 2006 10:41PM
God of War? No, but that's another example of a game that looks (and plays) better. Why are you even excited about a Port anyway?
lol @ May 4th 2006 10:59PM
im just saying that how can 360 compete with the ps3 when ps2 is still the number one game console
and whoever hasnt played god of war seriously shuld
its the best looking game i ever played and it has amazing gameplay
The Guru @ May 4th 2006 11:16PM
There is no way Oblivion looks better than Fight Night or PGR3
Fight Night is gorgous, but think about what is on screen... two players at any one time. That means there isn't alot of environments or NPC's other than your oponant.
You are comparing MGS3 to Oblivion graphically, two almost uncomparable games. One is an open ended real time rpg. The other is a linear third person game. What I'm trying to say is it's much easier to make "rain bounce" off a person when it's a linear game. And besides, rain bouncing off someone doesn't mean its graphically better.
Look at the environments. The NPC's, the character models. You show me two things that in your opinion is "graphically better", and that makes the entire game better?? I don't think so.
"it's a higher frame rate, better fluid effects, better textures and higher poly count (for grass)."
Once again, Oblivion is open ended. It is the equivalent of 16 sqaure miles in real life. MGS is liner, much easier to make better looking graphics in certain areas.
"scared cuz they know that ps3 will dominate"
The ps3 will no doubt win the next gen war, but not because its a more powerful machine.
"there is no need for getting mad and using fuck in every one of ur sentences"..."so fuk all of u xbox fanboys"
haha, thats funny. Talk about hypocritical.
"first of all oblivian is a huge ripp-off from world of warcraft"
I think this is the stupidest thing you could have said. First off, The Elder Scrolls have been around way longer then World of Warcraft. And Second, World of Warcraft is a MMO. Oblivion isnt. WOW is turn based, Oblivion is real time.
Rip off.....you make me laugh pretty hard. lol
boots (former bd) @ May 5th 2006 1:07AM
"Fight Night is gorgous, but think about what is on screen... two players at any one time. That means there isn't alot of environments or NPC's other than your oponant. "
It doesn't matter, since Oblivion is supposedly next-gen, and it doesn't look as good as MGS3. Any next-gen game should look better than any last-gen game.
"You are comparing MGS3 to Oblivion graphically, two almost uncomparable games."
Almost...
"One is an open ended real time rpg. The other is a linear third person game. What I'm trying to say is it's much easier to make "rain bounce" off a person when it's a linear game."
lol... it's easier to make "rain bounce" for linear games? I thought it took the same amount of code, except you needed more hardware resources to do both at the same time (that shouldn't be hard for a next-generation game). Isn't 360 supposed to be blowing PS2 out of the water on any game, graphicswise? I thought procedural synthesis, a much faster DVD drive, DirectX 10, 16 times more RAM and a CPU/GPU combo to die for would beat the "weak... emotion engine".
" And besides, rain bouncing off someone doesn't mean its graphically better. "
Uh... in part, it does. It looks much better when rain is bouncing, dripping and even staining the camera. It means physics are being displayed well on it. Ironically, it's running at 60 FPS on PS2 with all those effects, when Oblivion is at 30 FPS... and that's just the beginning of the generation. Oh wait... is that thanks to its High Definition features? (Or lack thereof...?) I doubt it.
"Look at the environments. The NPC's, the character models. You show me two things that in your opinion is "graphically better", and that makes the entire game better?? I don't think so."
Nobody talked about the "character models" or how "every single part of MGS3 is *Graphically* better than Oblivion". Look at the grass on both. Rain on both. Water effects on both. Of course, not everything looks better, but these are too many things which are inexcusable for a next-gen game; and yes, those effects make the game partially better, at least more believable, more "HD era" like, or more "Next-gen" like. Of course, the raw fun is not there, but then again, MGS3 has been acclaimed much better than Oblivion.
"Once again, Oblivion is open ended. It is the equivalent of 16 sqaure miles in real life. MGS is liner, much easier to make better looking graphics in certain areas. "
That would be understandable if we were comparing two PS2 games, or even PS2 with Xbox. But Xbox 360 is supposed to have all these hardware features (plus better software features, etcetera), that it should be opacating *any* Xbox 1 game, let alone *any* PS2 game.
Just because a game "looks great" itself it doesn't mean it looks great compared to other games, especially when they are supposed to represent a next generation of games when comparing to the current/last one.
And by the way, you think anyone gives a shit about the excuse "Oblivion is open ended"? Seriously, do you think any casual gamer will find it credible, let alone acceptable that since Oblivion is open ended, graphics should end up looking the way they do?
Bethesda forgot to do the game right, and Microsoft forgot to ask for quality on 360 games, not just 720p capabilities and LIVE awareness. Or maybe the "next-gen" simply came too early, or is not even as next-gen as we'd like it to be. In the worst case scenario, which is unlikely, both 360 and PS3 will underdeliver, which could happen in the case that graphics are each time harder to advance, i.e. you will need exponentially more power to reflect some significant changes on graphics; perhaps Nintendo might have been right in the direction they've taken. We'll just have to wait and see how games look on 360 and PS3 in the end of the next 5 years if they actually surpassed Fight Night (or MGS4) and by a long shot.
Fan @ May 5th 2006 9:14AM
To all of the people saying that Microsoft never lies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFf7AtAOagw&search=anti%20xbox%20360
All companies lie. Microsoft is as bad as Sony. But, Ive never ever seen an official Sony rep outright lying like this.
JJ @ May 5th 2006 3:25PM
This looks a lot like guild wars...
The Guru @ May 5th 2006 4:04PM
boots talking to you is almost as useless as talking to a boot. One of your arguments is almost?!? It suddenly makes sense to me, you explaining it like that.
"Nobody talked about the "character models" or how "every single part of MGS3 is *Graphically* better than Oblivion". Look at the grass on both. Rain on both. Water effects on both"
That is EXACTLY my point. You took a couple of things that are "better", and it suddenly makes the 360 an underacheiving machine and oblivion a shitty game.
By the way, I'm curious. Did this rain "not bouncing off the character" ruin the game for you? Cause if it did, I don't know what to tell you.
Just think about what I'm saying for one minute. Just try and imagine....On a linear level, there is only one way to go about doing something. So if on that particular level, the develper wants it to rain, then it would be much easier for rain to bounce off a character on that cerain level.
Now in an open game, such as oblivion, the weather is always changing. You can never predict what the weather will be like in a certain area, then it becomes more difficult to program for this, in your opinion, experience changing bounce of rain off your characters body.
Why I'm arguing about this with you, I have no idea. I could care less about the rain bouncing off a character. It in no way changed the games level of fun or my enjoyment with it.
And rite now, you are talking about the ps2 beating the 360 graphically. Well look at these screen shots. I think the dreamcast could've put out these graphics.
"do you think any casual gamer will find it credible, let alone acceptable that since Oblivion is open ended, graphics should end up looking the way they do?"
And once agian you have shown to me, as well as everyone, that you have judged the entire games graphical capabilites on a couple of elements shown in, what can only be described as, an extremely biased video.
"It doesn't matter, since Oblivion is supposedly next-gen, and it doesn't look as good as MGS3. Any next-gen game should look better than any last-gen game."
It's really interesting to see the way you have convinced yourself that Oblivion isn't a beautiful game.
"All companies lie. Microsoft is as bad as Sony. But, Ive never ever seen an official Sony rep outright lying like this."
No, you're right. Ken never said the ps3 would launch this spring. Sony never described the ps2 as an emotion engine. Sony never said games should be running at 120 fps. And it wasn't Sony that showed the CGI videos that got people like you so excited. Sony also never said gamers don't want to play online. And a hdd is stupid.
But, yeah, you are defenatlly right bout that one.
And by the way Fan, who was the person(s) that said MS never lies??
Nick B @ May 5th 2006 5:18PM
Just thought I'd throw my two cents in here.
A better comparison would be a playstation2 game released within 6 months of the system launch vs oblivion.
It really isn't fair to compare something developers have gotten so familiar with to something that is brand new. Ps3 launch titles will be 'decent' or maybe even 'crappy looking' 5 years from now when developers can push every aspect of the PS3.
I agree oblivion has its downsides, but I think the game looks better than almost everything I've played on consoles, I can't wait for next week so we can all just see what everything will look like.
boots (former bd) @ May 6th 2006 3:38AM
"boots talking to you is almost as useless as talking to a boot. One of your arguments is almost?!? It suddenly makes sense to me, you explaining it like that. "
And talking to you is the opposite of talking to a Guru. "Something" tells me you don't get sarcasm... Seriously, you say "You are comparing MGS3 to Oblivion graphically, two almost uncomparable games." Now, why would they be "almost uncomparable"? As opposed to "somewhat uncomparable" or "totally uncomparable"? Even if you didn't get how was I making fun of your "argument", you can in any language make any comparison to make a point; especially when comparing a *next-gen* game, as opposed to a *current-gen* game. That's how you compare games. Wasn't Shadow of the Colossus open ended too anyway? And it has some effects that the 360 version of oblivion doesn't on a much more powerful system.
"That is EXACTLY my point. You took a couple of things that are "better", and it suddenly makes the 360 an underacheiving machine and oblivion a shitty game."
I'd love it if you pointed out where did I say: "Oblivion is a shitty game". Stop pulling stuff out of your ass.
"By the way, I'm curious. Did this rain "not bouncing off the character" ruin the game for you? Cause if it did, I don't know what to tell you."
You are just not getting the point, silly. There is no excuse for a next-gen system to perform worse, at anything not related with gameplay, than the worst common denominator of last gen.
"Just think about what I'm saying for one minute. Just try and imagine....On a linear level, there is only one way to go about doing something. So if on that particular level, the develper wants it to rain, then it would be much easier for rain to bounce off a character on that cerain level."
"Now in an open game, such as oblivion, the weather is always changing. You can never predict what the weather will be like in a certain area, then it becomes more difficult to program for this, in your opinion, experience changing bounce of rain off your characters body."
You see Guru, your argument is as ridiculous as saying "at least give credit to the producers and director!" about a Fantasy/Sci-fi movie that is supposed to take you to new world but that it is noticeably fake, even when it came out long after earlier movies that performed a lot better. When you go watch a movie that includes special effects or CGI, you don't expect it to look *worse* that movies that came out before. Same thing applies to videogames: when you buy a next-gen system, you expect every game to look better than any last gen game, even if it is comparable. The problem this time, is that it looks worse, which is something that had never happened before on a next-gen transition.
"Why I'm arguing about this with you, I have no idea. I could care less about the rain bouncing off a character. It in no way changed the games level of fun or my enjoyment with it."
You are arguing with me about this because this apparently is hurting your ego (when it shouldn't). Not only that, but you are trying to justify inadmissible flaws, even if these flaws "don't affect gameplay". So if these flaws don't affect gameplay, then why even bother making a next-gen System? We could still be playing SNES right now.
"And rite now, you are talking about the ps2 beating the 360 graphically. Well look at these screen shots. I think the dreamcast could've put out these graphics."
Dreamcast has little to nothing to do with this. This is not a comparison between dreamcast and PS2, it's a comparison between 360 and current/last gen consoles. Screenshots? Please, don't look at screenshots. Look at videos. Look at things *in motion*. That matters more, just as the last videos I showed you.
"And once agian you have shown to me, as well as everyone, that you have judged the entire games graphical capabilites on a couple of elements shown in, what can only be described as, an extremely biased video."
Extremely biased? How can a video be biased? So if you make a video or take a picture, you can make it biased? That's one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. Anyway, you've proven to everyone that you aren't getting the argument. The problem here isn't gameplay; the problem here is that people fail to see "lucid dreams" and "HD era" on Oblivion (among others), especially when comparing it to PS2 in motion. If you are going to say "but it's all about gameplay", then why even get a 360 right now? After all, it's not graphics, it's gameplay, and there are a ton more good games on all current gen consoles than on 360. But of course you don't mean that, of course you think graphics *are* important, you are simply conveniently turning the argument on your side to defend 360 (or your ego).
"It's really interesting to see the way you have convinced yourself that Oblivion isn't a beautiful game."
It's really interesting to see the way you have convinced yourself that I think Oblivion isn't a beautiful game. More interesting is that you think that just because a game is beautiful, it shouldn't be compared to other games to see which is better, especially when compared to a last-gen game.
"No, you're right. Ken never said the ps3 would launch this spring."
PS3 was scheduled to come out in Spring; delays weren't scheduled. They could have launched PS3 in Spring (in Japan), but it would have ended up like 360 (i.e. rushed).
"Sony never described the ps2 as an emotion engine."
That's so relative. "Emotion Engine" is PS2's processor, so by definition, PS2 is an Emotion Engine + more things. Also, don't even call the "emotion engine" a weak processor if it can deliver similar graphics to the first Xbox (that had a "faster" CPU, and a GPU, whereas PS2 had a negligible GPU), let alone outperform 360. "Biased video", that's hilarious. What's next, biased light? Biased sound?
"Sony never said games should be running at 120 fps."
Could you prove that is a lie, or are you, like the supporters of this theory, supporting the opposite out of nowhere?
"And it wasn't Sony that showed the CGI videos that got people like you so excited."
As opposed to Microsoft, that did the same?
"Sony also never said gamers don't want to play online."
Uh, most gamers didn't play online this generation. Not even on Xbox. So that's more true than false.
"And a hdd is stupid."
LOL, did they say "HDD is stupid"? When did they say those exact words?
"And by the way Fan, who was the person(s) that said MS never lies??"
Xbox fanboys. They say: "Sony lies". If the company you support also lies, it's stupid to even mention that the rival company does it too.
The Guru, I thought you were serious, but your last posts have the weakest arguments I've ever read. Come back when you have a decent argument, or decide to admit that even if Oblivion is a fun game and has "great graphics", it should be besting everything on PS2 (but gameplay), and it is not really doing it; in all games at least. You should also admit that there are no excuses to what kind of game that is, since buyers don't care about giving credit to a developer for making a half-assed product if they paid for it.
The Guru @ May 6th 2006 1:46PM
"Uh, most gamers didn't play online this generation. Not even on Xbox. So that's more true than false."
So then why such a priority on the ps3??
"As opposed to Microsoft, that did the same?"
Which video did they show that was CGI?
"If the company you support also lies, it's stupid to even mention that the rival company does it too."
I thought you might give a vague answer.
"How can a video be biased?"
Is this a serious question? If you lived in the US, you would have heard of a movie called Farenhiet 911. You might have heard of it anyway. If you have seen/heard of it, then you would know it is biased against bush/government/and what "really" happened on 9/11. So you are telling me that this movie isn't biased?
The name of the video you gave me is Anti Xbox. Yes, that is a real objective video name. No favortism in any way.
"Screenshots? Please, don't look at screenshots. Look at videos. Look at things *in motion*. That matters more"
haha, yes apparently those Killzone and MGS4 CG videos do matter more. You would rather believe those then actual in game pictures. lol....yeah, video's mean more.
"since buyers don't care about giving credit to a developer for making a half-assed product if they paid for it."
I believe you are the only one I have heard say Oblivion doesn't look good. Besides, you haven't bought the "half-assed" product, nor does it seem you ever will, so it seems you are not a buyer, and have nothing to worry about.
You keep playing the ps2, waiting for the CG video quality games of your ps3 to come along, and stay away from the "half-assed" products that come to the 360.
http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=SWo3Memcbxs
boots (former bd) @ May 7th 2006 11:27AM
"So then why such a priority on the ps3??"
When Sony said: "People aren't interested in online gaming", It was true since even on the game with "the best online service", around 10% came online.
They also said it looking towards *PS2*, not PS3.
That's obvious given the way both are constructed. PS2 needed a peripheral for those who *wanted*, while PS3 not only is online, and wireless out of the box, but supports the fastest speeds available in the market, unlike 360.
Even if they did mention that referring to an eternal timespan, who cares if they said that? They "lied" on what they *thought*? Thoughts are not lies, even when they can be wrong (Nintendo did the same, not because they were "lying", but because they were being truthful on their thoughts), and by that reason, saying they "Lied" pointing this particular phrase is one of the most idiotic criticisms I've ever read or heard about.
"Which video did they show that was CGI?"
99 Nights, Gears of War (before they showed gameplay, which looked a lot worse; the best looking title for 360 can't match MGS4), Lost Odyssey, Madden (and it ended up looking like an Xbox game, lol)... just to name a few.
The truth is, all companies do this. It's Microsoft's problem to tell developers to show Real-time footage, but it seems that they too support FMV. What a crock. Why do you criticize Sony for the *exact* same thing that Microsoft does?
"Is this a serious question? If you lived in the US, you would have heard of a movie called Farenhiet 911. You might have heard of it anyway. If you have seen/heard of it, then you would know it is biased against bush/government/and what "really" happened on 9/11. So you are telling me that this movie isn't biased?
The name of the video you gave me is Anti Xbox. Yes, that is a real objective video name. No favortism in any way. "
It's stupid to compare these two videos. First of all, a title doesn't make a video biased. Second, visual and animated facts (such as the Oblivion video) don't make a video biased, just like images aren't biased, or sound isn't biased. Opinion does, such as documentals (Fahrenheit 911), voice, and edition. And third, a video with no genre whatsoever can't be biased (much less like a documental can be) by just being a succession of images, as the one I just showed you (well, the second and third videos; the first video IS biased because that one explicitly tells you an opinion plus it has added cinematic effects and edition).
In politics, you might need to show all sides of the coin to get a decent perspective. On the other hand, this situation with 360, you don't need to show how some games *do* look next-gen, because having games that look current-gen on a next-gen console had never happened before, and that is the problem. Even if there are indeed "next-gen" games.
"haha, yes apparently those Killzone and MGS4 CG videos do matter more. You would rather believe those then actual in game pictures. lol....yeah, video's mean more. "
MGS4 was proven to be real, you ditz. Too hard to believe? Just because Xbox 360 has shown nothing like that it doesn't mean it isn't possible on PS3, much less if Kojima was the one bragging about real-time rights. Hell, if it makes you happy, it was made on an alpha dev-kit, so it's natural you could also play it on 360. Even Kojima said it.
Oh, and till Killzone comes out, you can start talking shit. I had seen that video before, and until you see that the *real* killzone, you can start doing what you love to do (you know, the same thing you said you will do when PS3 comes out). It's retarded to criticize games that aren't even out.
"I believe you are the only one I have heard say Oblivion doesn't look good. Besides, you haven't bought the "half-assed" product, nor does it seem you ever will, so it seems you are not a buyer, and have nothing to worry about."
I thought I explicitly mentioned "Oblivion looks beautiful itself". Are you even reading? I said it looks good, but when compared to some current-gen games, it leaves some things to wish for. You are the only one I've met that isn't disappointed by the videos I just showed you.
I expected a Fight Night or a PGR3 from it, not a "Summoner for PS2". Besides, I *do* have something to worry about... Worry that when I buy a 360, games will keep looking like they are not worth what I paid for.
"You keep playing the ps2, waiting for the CG video quality games of your ps3 to come along, and stay away from the "half-assed" products that come to the 360."
I keep playing PS2, Gamecube, and possibly 360 in the future (when some decent shit comes out for it, i.e. it has some games worth 60 dollars, not some games that sell for next-gen prices with current-gen quality). I'll play whatever has good games right now. Who said I'm waiting? I already have some great games right now. But I guess Xbox owners waited 4 years to have a decent machine... then again, the "decent" thing is relative.
Ironically, *I* am the fanboy despite your justification for half-assed products. I mean, who cares if the developer *can't* do something? The public doesn't, only fanboys after their dreams are broken. A game doesn't look "beautiful" if it doesn't beat the shit out of everything that came out last-gen.
Stop criticizing Sony about "their evil lies" when Microsoft does the same. Microsoft, like Sony, once promised "Toy Story Graphics", don't forget. "Lucid dreams", "Next-gen system", "Powered by human energy" (?), "HD era", "Backwards compatibility". What a joke. Oh, and save your PS3 criticism and quotes till it comes out. PS2 delivered more than Xbox, which ought to tell you something... just look at the videos I sent you.
The Guru @ May 7th 2006 6:49PM
"Even if they did mention that referring to an eternal timespan, who cares if they said that? They "lied" on what they *thought*?
Microsoft, like Sony, once promised "Toy Story Graphics", don't forget. "Lucid dreams", "Next-gen system", "Powered by human energy" (?), "HD era", "Backwards compatibility". "
Wait, I thought you just said that you can't lie about what you think? I'm confused now.
"99 Nights, Gears of War (before they showed gameplay, which looked a lot worse; the best looking title for 360 can't match MGS4), Lost Odyssey, Madden (and it ended up looking like an Xbox game, lol)... just to name a few."
Yeah, but at least they were running on actual 360 hardware. Thats the key difference.
"It's stupid to compare these two videos. First of all, a title doesn't make a video biased."
I'm not comparing videos, I'm giving you an example. And if a tittle doesn' make a video biased, then what does "Anti Xbox" tell you??-I love xbox!!-probably not.
"MGS4 was proven to be real"
Yes, I know the video was real, and not made up. I've seen it, but it was CG.
"Oh, and till Killzone comes out, you can start talking shit."
I don't know how to respond to this sentence, it doesnt make any sense.
"It's retarded to criticize games that aren't even out."
I'm not criticizing the game, I'm critizing the beautiful movie they made about the game.
"Worry that when I buy a 360, games will keep looking like they are not worth what I paid for."
Your not going to buy a 360, stop bullshitting yourself.
"I thought I explicitly mentioned "Oblivion looks beautiful itself".
"Worry that when I buy a 360, games will keep looking like they are not worth what I paid for."
Well those are two very contradictory statements.
"Stop criticizing Sony about "their evil lies" when Microsoft does the same. "
Nice way to try and put a spin on things. Fact of the matter is Sony=hype/lies/failed promises. You know this, I know this, and any gamer who isn't blindly loyal to Sony can see this. (Now that I said that, it occured to me why you can't see Sony's lies)
So my question to you is when the ps3 comes out, and some current generation games have one thing better then a ps3 game, is the ps3 a dissapointment? according to your logic, yes. But the real answer is no.
And anytime anyone tells me the 360 is an underpowered and/or underacheiving machine, all I have to do is say read this article. This game looks like shit-and it develped by the company that makes the ps3-haha.
So boots, you have seen the screen shots to this game (Untold Legends). So you not going to buy a ps3 because you're not getting all of your money's worth?-Oh thats right, the fake videos are more important.
boots (former bd) @ May 8th 2006 12:46AM
"Wait, I thought you just said that you can't lie about what you think? I'm confused now."
Come on... Microsoft never thought they were going to deliver Toy Story graphics. But how convenient though; now that I say "Sony thought people didn't want online games", you imply that Microsoft thought their graphics were that; despite the fact that *that* is what you were actually criticizing from sony (well, their evil "lies". Confused? Don't confuse confusion with lack of reading comprehension, buddy.
"Yeah, but at least they were running on actual 360 hardware. Thats the key difference."
What's that supposed to mean? So, if it runs in *less powerful* hardware, you know, such as alpha and beta dev kits, it doesn't count? Oh man, you are so funny. Besides, the games I told you about were Full Motion Video, so they were not being rendered on 360 dev kits. Sorry, you lose.
"I'm not comparing videos, I'm giving you an example. And if a tittle doesn' make a video biased, then what does "Anti Xbox" tell you??-I love xbox!!-probably not."
The *title* is biased. The title doesn't make the video. Some titles are made to get attention. Be sure to think before you type.
"Yes, I know the video was real, and not made up. I've seen it, but it was CG. "
Uh... if it was *real* and you supposedly know, then what you mean by "CG" is false. Unless of course, everything is CG. CG could mean "Computer Graphics", or "Computer Generated"; by that definition, then all Xbox 360 titles are CG too! You probably meant FMV, which means: Full Motion Video. But of course you knew that... Oh wait. The MGS4 video was proven to be real i.e. not FMV.
"I don't know how to respond to this sentence, it doesnt make any sense."
You don't know how to respond to this sentence because you lack the knowledge to do so. You say "it doesn't make any sense", but I'd like to know *what* do you not get about it. Again, don't confuse your lack of understanding ability with other's supposed lack of communication skills.
It's simple: To talk shit is to criticize with thoughts that come out of your ass, as you have been doing lately.
"I'm not criticizing the game, I'm critizing the beautiful movie they made about the game. "
I seriously thought you were more capable. Or maybe you just like to fake the fact that you might not be? Anyway, the video was supposed to be an approximation how the game will look, so who cares if it's not out yet? Of course nobody believes that, but until the game comes out and looks noticeably different to that, you can start criticizing. Until then, get bent.
"Your not going to buy a 360, stop bullshitting yourself."
I guess I wasn't clear the first time we actually discussed. You know, there are some of us that work, and can afford all three consoles with a nice 1080p TV. Just as an example.
"Well those are two very contradictory statements. "
There's a difference between contradiction and paradox, but i'll let you see the difference yourself. Anyway, way to avoid the questions I ask over stuff you take out of your ass. Did you not understand again? Here, I'll do you a favor and explain to you: Oblivion may look beautiful... that is, if it was a last gen game. Unfortunately, it is not. For example: Zelda Ocarina of Time has "beautiful graphics". That is, if technology wasn't evolving, or if there was no point of comparisson. If we compared Oblivion to the early PS2 games, you might have said: "Wow, that game looks great". So yeah, Oblivion itself might look beautiful, assuming there is no point of comparisson. But since it is a "next-gen" game, there is a point of comparisson, especially last gen games, which are supposed to look much worse in every way, with no excuses. Too bad that ain't true.
"Nice way to try and put a spin on things. Fact of the matter is Sony=hype/lies/failed promises. You know this, I know this, and any gamer who isn't blindly loyal to Sony can see this. (Now that I said that, it occured to me why you can't see Sony's lies)"
False. Only Xbox fanboys "know" about that (despite the fact that Microsoft constantly lied about 360, with "lucid dreams", "HD era", "Full Backwards compatibility", among others) , but let's see here... I remember the "Toy Story Graphics" lie, a lie told by both companies; then again, my first PS2 game, Kessen, seemed at the time like near "Toy Story" graphics. FFX FMV and real-time looked pretty damned close (at least, at that time). So, which other lie? All three consoles can render pretty realistic graphics by now, so where is the lie again? Also, I know some of you Xbox tout about the online features PS2 lacked. If PS2 was to be prepared to be online out of the box, it would have been delayed; this generation proved online wasn't that important, at least for the particular one made for PS2. The important games for online gaming were played online and a lot, so where is the "lie"? Anyway, it can still play games online. Anything else? Oh, I didn't want the console for launching missiles anyway; who did want it for that? And what do you care if you don't even like Sony consoles? All Xbox fanboy scat.
"So my question to you is when the ps3 comes out, and some current generation games have one thing better then a ps3 game, is the ps3 a dissapointment? according to your logic, yes. But the real answer is no."
Ok, to be more clear: Developers and game graphics (not the console), are the disappointment. If they can't make a game surpass all of current-gen standards, then there is something wrong with them, the console or both; even when graphics are not the only thing that matters. Oblivion for 360 has a LOT of things worse than current-gen games, not "just one". Also, PS3 DEVELOPERS will be a dissapointment if Killzone doesn't look the way they said it would, not PS3. Sure, it's near impossible, so? They said it would look like that. I'm not going to trust them, I'm just going to ask for it and question it if it doesn't happen. That would be the *first* blatant lie, in my opinion. Again, I'm getting PS3 for a lot more things than the graphics, such as high definition movie playback, backwards compatibility, among other things.
I never said 360 wasn't worth it; I also said 360 had some games that do look next-gen. It's just that this "next" generation, it is the first time that games look like the games from the last one.
At least there is still Metal Gear Solid to look forward to, on the graphics side.
"And anytime anyone tells me the 360 is an underpowered and/or underacheiving machine, all I have to do is say read this article. This game looks like shit-and it develped by the company that makes the ps3-haha."
You sound contradictory. First you justify the games on 360 for being "open ended", and then you expect, despite your previous "logic", an MMO to look better? At least it looks better than oblivion, silly. I'm still not getting this game because it looks half-assed too (then again, there's a big time-frame from this video to PS3 launch, so who knows what improvements might it get?)
"So boots, you have seen the screen shots to this game (Untold Legends). So you not going to buy a ps3 because you're not getting all of your money's worth?-Oh thats right, the fake videos are more important."
As I said, I'm probably not going to get this game. I never said the graphics are all that matters. I never said oblivion isn't fun. I said that graphics leave a lot to wish for. Same thing applies for this games. It's the developers fault; but the criticism falls hard on 360 for having games that look even worse than Untold Legends (and than PS2 games), for supposedly having "great development tools" (O RLY? so where are the next-gen graphics on Oblivion?), and for promising "Lucid Dreams" and "HD Era" crap, among other things.
I'm sure criticism towards PS3 will come just as hard from X360 fanboys when it comes out, just as you said you would do. That doesn't mean 360 shouldn't be criticized.
boots (former bd) @ May 8th 2006 10:53AM
Woops, check that - in the post above, I meant "oxymoron", not "paradox".
CrAzY American12 @ May 8th 2006 4:03PM
Lies, yes, lets talk about lies:
Sony's head makes Allard look like a genius.
"Nikkei Business reported that, to date, .6 percent of the 800,000 shipped units have been returned to Sony for repair. Kutaragi was unapologetic about the issue: This is the design that we came up with. There may be people that complain about its usability, but that's something which users and game software developers will have to adapt to. I didn't want the PSP's LCD screen to become any smaller than this, nor did I want its machine body to become any larger."
"The button's location is [architectured] on purpose, Kutaragi added. It's according to specifications. This is something that we've created, and this is our specification. There was a clear purpose to it, and it wasn't a mistake."
"I believe we made the most beautiful thing in the world. Nobody would criticize a renowned architect's blueprint that the position of a gate is wrong. It's the same as that."
"According to ITmedia, Kutaragi surprised the reporters present by making several cryptic comments after the conference had ended. ITmedia quoted Kutaragi as saying that the PSP is expected to be used inside the house. No one would walk around while playing games."
"We have other [DVD] recorders in our house, but my family just uses the PSX."
"We're not going to equip [the PS3 with] a HDD by default, because no matter how much [capacity] we put in it, it won't be enough.We've added a 2.5-inch HDD bay so that users can equip HDDs, such as 80GB and 120GB, even though that's still not enough [capacity]."
"Whether consumers think a product is expensive or cheap all depends on the balance between its appeal and price," he said. "Our ideal [for the PS3] is for consumers to think to themselves, 'OK, I'll work more hours and buy it.' We want people to feel that they want it, no matter what."
"Cell is not like that. Application programs can no longer directly access the hardware; instead they will have to be written in high-level, object-oriented language. That was done for security reasons: If processors of high performance and wide bandwidth like the Cell were linked together without sufficient security, a worldwide system crash could occur with one attack."
"I'm aware that with all these technologies, the PS3 can't be offered at a price that's targeted towards households. I think everyone can still buy it if they wanted to,"
And the absolute worst one of all:
Quote:
"The PlayStation [3] is not a game machine. We've never once called it a game machine,We haven't been creating our [past] PlayStations for the sake of games.The PS3 isn't designed to lean towards games. It's not a computer for children. In the sense that our goal has been [to create] a computer that's meant for entertainment, you could say that the original PlayStation and PlayStation 2 had existed as steps towards the PlayStation 3."