http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218 Just another bbPress community en-US Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:42:03 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://www.vg247.com/forum/search.php http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3088 Tue, 05 May 2009 10:54:15 +0000 DrDamn 3088@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>360 version. There was pop-in (certainly of textures) - shadows weren't all that bad (not as bad as inFamous) - Jaggies are very hard to judge from a vid with a fair amount of artifacts. Though this is the PS3 so they are more or less a given. </p> <p>Whilst there was screen tearing it also looked, on the face of it, to be a smoother frame rate than GTA too. I also still contend that there is more detail in the close up areas - maybe making the LOD issues a bit worse in the process. </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3087 Tue, 05 May 2009 10:45:07 +0000 Psychotext 3087@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>Not sure what version you played DD, but the only thing I mentioned there which I'd say applies to GTA was the dodgy shadows (360 version). Pop-in was no-where near as bad as it is in that infamous vid, nor was the LOD, jaggies or animation. </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3086 Tue, 05 May 2009 10:40:16 +0000 DrDamn 3086@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>@Psychotext<br /> I agree GTA was a good from a technical perspective, but a number of your criticisms of the graphics in inFamous also apply pretty much to that too.</p> <p>I'll wait for the demo and judge on that. I do really like the climbing/jumping stuff but want a decent frame rate to go with it. </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3085 Tue, 05 May 2009 10:27:05 +0000 Syrok 3085@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>My opinion obviously. :)<br /> The last two mission and one or two characters were good though. </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3084 Tue, 05 May 2009 10:25:40 +0000 Blerk 3084@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>I thought GTA was fun. :-/ </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3083 Tue, 05 May 2009 10:23:48 +0000 Syrok 3083@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>Yup, it wasn't fun, but GTA was definitely very good from technical perspective. </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3082 Tue, 05 May 2009 10:21:26 +0000 Psychotext 3082@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>Saints Row... yeah, but I strongly disagree with regards to GTA. GTA may not be a graphical powerhouse, but it's eminently more polished than Infamous. </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3081 Tue, 05 May 2009 10:05:36 +0000 DrDamn 3081@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>Not that bad considering the sand box nature of the game. Certainly no worse than GTA or Saints Row, in fact the close up stuff is much better and more detailed. There was some obvious screen tearing in the vid though - which is more worrying. Early vids had this but there was no evidence of it in more recent ones. </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3079 Tue, 05 May 2009 09:17:41 +0000 Psychotext 3079@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>A lot of things. The aliasing, the pop-in, the dodgy shadows, the massive amounts of blur on any building that isn't right in front of you. Animation too... but that's an obvious one. </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3078 Tue, 05 May 2009 08:33:41 +0000 Blerk 3078@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>Hmm - I thought that look alright, although I didn't watch the whole vid, just snippets from throughout. What did you think looked rough, Psycho? I see they didn't fix his silly run animation or idle pose. :-) </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3077 Tue, 05 May 2009 02:02:46 +0000 KingCharMing 3077@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>I donno, I reckon prototype and infamous would be very different. I'm probably going to buy prototype at release and decide about infamous based on the reviews. </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3072 Mon, 04 May 2009 17:37:07 +0000 Syrok 3072@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>:/</p> <p>Looks more fun then Prototype, though. </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3071 Mon, 04 May 2009 16:47:56 +0000 Psychotext 3071@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>Looks real rough around the edges: <a href="http://www.playscope.com/@@@19479-showroom_-_infamous.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.playscope.com/@@@19479-showroom_-_infamous.html</a></p> <p>Any chance this isn't actually the proper retail build? </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3070 Mon, 04 May 2009 15:16:21 +0000 KingCharMing 3070@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>Apparently not ey. </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3069 Mon, 04 May 2009 14:32:28 +0000 Gekidami 3069@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>Promo copies i bet. </p> http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=218#post-3068 Mon, 04 May 2009 14:14:18 +0000 KingCharMing 3068@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ <p>... WHY COULDNT IT BE ME! *cries hysterically* </p> <p>At least two different people were able to acquire a copy of Infamous more than three weeks early. They were nice enough to share their exploits on GameSpot and NeoGAF forums. </p> <p><a href="http://au.gamespot.com/ps3/action/infamous/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-49329693&amp;pid=942025&amp;page=0" rel="nofollow">http://au.gamespot.com/ps3/action/infamous/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-49329693&amp;pid=942025&amp;page=0</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=358430&amp;page=24" rel="nofollow">http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=358430&amp;page=24</a></p> <p>Game looks like the Shizz-Nizz, lucky bastards. </p>