http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/4357/cell4hh.jpg

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7596/celli6xj.jpg

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3088/win6kl.jpg


_________________


http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/6850/mgs49tm.jpg

sorry this pic did not look so good cause of downsize and recording,but you all know how mgs4 trailer looked like.


But is mgs4 video the evidence of its power?
If it can show this in-game now,what kind of final resultate can we expect?
I never trust SONY,but i do trust konami and square-enix and what they shown with ps3 has just shocked me like hell,this next gen look amazing.
Ofc i havn' t seen blue dragon and lost odyssey yet,so i cant speak for them yet.
I mean lost odyssey shown at e3 did not use unreal engine 3.0 so lets see...

Damn im getting very intrested in ps3 now.

The MGS4 video was not in-game it was real time, big difference. I would expect the graphics to be close to what was shown but the animations and gameplay to me very different (not as good).

Yeah,but the importent thing is that the game looks like that from a diffrent angel.

Yeah,but the importent thing is that the game looks like that from a diffrent angel.

While it' s no doubt realtime, it' s still a cutscene, meaning no AI/physics to worry about. Which in turns means the graphics can be bumped up during cutscenes.. Look at Gran Turismo 3-4 for example. During the replays there are added effects to make the game look even better. Even the previous Metal Gears have done the same. So saying " from a different angle" is quite misleading.

I heard that in the new game they will add to the level of detail and realism so not only will you have to fix your own wounds and feed yourself with various things crawling about but they are going to make it so when your tired you have to sleep in real time, and if you if you have to use the restroom the on screen radar will turn off until you unload. Also you have to change your outfits and shower everyday or else they will notice your funk.

But so can be said about pgr3 then?
I never seen someone played it to proof the graphic is indeed as good.
And also it probably wont come out untill 2007...seeing how the next time they will show it will be in TGS 2006.

If Playstation 2 (with its 300 Mhz, 32 mb ddram and CPU CG at 150 hz clock and 4 mb of memory [Dreamcast had 8mb]) ) can run a game like Gran turismo 4.... what can we imagine with PS3 that has those specs (http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/playstation-3/playstation-3-full-specs-103733.php) ???

i think this next gen will be amazing and surely will attract new players, may be your grand pa will be interested to play a game this time because it' ll be so realistic, i can' t wait for PS3 launch it' ll be huge. when people saw Killzone video they didn' t say it' s PS3 but rather PS4... well i' m not sure that it' ll achieve these graphics (i think just in theory) but let' s hope for the best... anyway Metal Gear solid 4 was extremely close and i hope that the graphics in the game will be exactly the same ( Not polished cut scenes like in other metal gears)

as for the Cell alone, Many respected Developers say that it' s an outstanding achievement and it' ll deliver some big surprises , wait and see...

But a lot says its to complicated and shouldn' t be in use untill som years ahead.

You' ll start to see all games get more realistic graphically over the next couple of years. MGS4 is probably only using a small amount of the PS3' s power. The same can be demonstrated with Gears of War. It' s currently only using one of the three processors available and I don' t think it' s multi-threaded either. It looks amazing and there are playable builds of it too.

Developers still need more time to wrap their heads around the tech available to them. It' ll probably take more time for the PS3 however, because Sony is notorious for making consoles that aren' t easy to develop for. Only recently have we seen the full power of the PS2 in action. It' s taken a good 5+ years to do so.

I disagree that MGS4 looks like Killzone 2. It' s nowhere near that level of quality. If you look closely, the characters are the only good looking objects in the scene, the rest of the textures look terrible. Wait a couple of years before you start making comparisons to CGI.

And take everthing you see (especially from Sony) with a grain of salt. Bending the truth is what they do best in order to hype up products. In fact I' m struggling to remember the last time Sony made a completely truthful statement about the PS3 lol.

Thank Hideo for always squeezing playstation to the max

I disagree that MGS4 looks like Killzone 2. It' s nowhere near that level of quality. If you look closely, the characters are the only good looking objects in the scene, the rest of the textures look terrible. Wait a couple of years before you start making comparisons to CGI.

Hm i agree with that it doesnt look near as good as killzone2(that i think was pre-rendered btw) but anyway,i wouldn' t go so far and say that the texture look terrible,they look what a xbox could maxium made.

I think the MGS graphics are achievable on PS3. Of coures you have to remember they aren' t even sure on the final specs for PS3, and those were scenes setup specifically for show. When they do stuff like this they put all of the detail into the things in focus. In a real game where you control the view you see a lot more and they can' t just pump all the resources into a players face, the whole world needs detail and they have to balance it out.

If you ever played Shenmue on Dreamcast on disc 4 you can talk to characters or something, and move a camera and light around their face, only their face shows. It was insanely detailed, more detailed than the PS2 demos for emotion engine stuff. Of cousre in the actual shenmue game they weren' t nearly that detailed because they had to do multiple characters and the environment.

The first gen games coming out will max out at gears of war graphics. Until the later games come out that use a few more of the cores and hyperthreading and stuff like that. All that that will really improve though is the physics and ai and stuff like that, so if you took a still screenshot you wouldn' t notice the difference, but the way cloths move and hair react physically will improve drastically.

So anyways my prediction is games will look not a lot better than Gears of War in the end. But you just have to remember this is also being done at way higher resolution, a ton of the extra power of the machines is going into that too.

by the way i might be saying some stuff that is hard to understand because i' m so tired it is almost 4 am lol.

Well...remember how halo looked first?
We thought that was the graphic,then suddenly it blew us away with graphic how halo would finally look like.
And compare halo to halo2 for ex.
When you learn the console you can cream it to games with superb quality.
I mean what did people expect from those monster machines xbox and ps3 gonna deliver with a 512 mb 3rd card.?
Ofc the graphic would ended up as mgs4/Gears of war.

Yes I know how people thought halo was so good graphically, but I knew about the extra shader and other features they weren' t using and knew the graphics could be a lot better.

I guess maybe there are some of the direct x features that we don' t really know about still so maybe you are right and graphics will still be a lot better. But I don' t think it will be as big a difference as from Halo 1 to Halo 2 this time.

Well...remember how halo looked first?
We thought that was the graphic,then suddenly it blew us away with graphic how halo would finally look like.
And compare halo to halo2 for ex.
When you learn the console you can cream it to games with superb quality.
I mean what did people expect from those monster machines xbox and ps3 gonna deliver with a 512 mb 3rd card.?
Ofc the graphic would ended up as mgs4/Gears of war.

actually the ps3 only has 256mb allocated for the video card (rsx), it may access the other 256 mb from CELL but theres a penalty and its not worth it. By the way you make it sound like the ps3 is super advanced, the ps3 is indeed a monster but not any more so then the 360. The RSX is simply a 7800gtx clocked at 550/700Mhz, which is the best current pc gpu.

Anyone that knows about technology says ps3 is abit stronger but more raw.
The only people who doesnt say that is the xbox people,that now went from saying that xbox360 was gonna be the most powerful machine on the market,to now saying,we got a ferrari and sony a ferrari.
I do belive in ATI making better 3dcard,but as kojima says and other people,cell is much more powerfull then that 3 core bla bla thing xbox360 has.

ORIGINAL: QuezcatoL

I do belive in ATI making better 3dcard,but as kojima says and other people,cell is much more powerfull then that 3 core bla bla thing xbox360 has.

I have to disagree with you there, and I' m not a fanboy. The cell is not MUCH more powerful than the 3 multithreaded cores of the 360. From what I' ve read, both the strengths and weaknesses of both CPU' s even the playing field more or less.

EG - The raw power of the cell is countered by the fact that SPEs have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3' s main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing.

EG - The X360 CPU gets trounced when it comes to floating point calculations compared to the cell.

Trust me when I say this, the differences between the two are negligible - especially when you take into account the rest of the components/architectures on each system. Only at the end of each console' s lifespan can we see which one really came out on top. So until then, I really can' t see the point in saying which one is more powerful than the other - because we really don' t know.

Actually all the people that I have heard talk about xbox 360 versus ps3 say xbox 360 is better, expecially right away since its so much easier to take advantage of the power.

I have never heard anyone who understands what they are talking about say the PS3 gpu is better.

Also cell is way better at floating point, but the xbox cpu is better for ints which are used way more in games now. Of course I could see some adaptation by the PS3 developers to use floating point calculations more but in the end it wouldn' t have that big of an advantage even if they do get one.

Yepp,but for big companies who put years and millions of dollars into their project will like cell more.
Like konami/square-enix.

Yepp,but for big companies who put years and millions of dollars into their project will like cell more.
Like konami/square-enix.

Quezcatol do you know the difference between a fan and a fanboy? A fan is someone who enjoys something and usually supports it, a fanboy is someone who will blindly support something and will allways refuse to acknowledge that something may be equall or greater then their preference. You Quezcatol like so many that I' ve seen are a Sony fanboy. You don' t know and don' t understand the specs yet you somehow have made up you mind on which performs better. I mean xbox is literaly twice as powerful then ps2 (even Gamecube is more powerful) yet many Sony fanboys refusde to admit it. Even the experts are not yet sure as to wheather the ps3 or 360 performs better but whichever it is the difference will be negligable. So why even talk about hardware? Its all about the games.