The only thing I quoted was "the best defense is a good offense" because Wolverine says it in the 3rd movie. And even if the movie didn't "invent" that saying, they sure are the ones that made it stick in my mind. So eat it :smile:
I'm disappointed to see so many of you frothing at the mouth for this thing. I'll admit, the customization sounds really great, but I'll bet hard earned money that it'll be more of the same. By that, I mean an utter disappointment.
I don't care what anyone says, these graphics are horrible. The PS3 is supposed to be the super graphics machine, and the big next-gen socom is sporting horribly textured environments that look worse that some PS2 graphics.
Good graphics:
Bad graphics:
Good graphics:
Bad graphics:
I know one of you numbskulls will point out the obvious, that gameplay is more important, but there's still no specifics out about even that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by General_Gregory
Yes you do. You will have the option to switch between Over the Shoulder, and Classic Socom third person
The movement looks horrible. All prior Socoms had a flawless jumping movement, and in Confrontation your character shoots straight up in the air like you're David Blaine. The spider walk looks terrible and am I the only one that notices that there's never any character movement from the waste up?
Just watching this video, I'm excited to see a new Socom, but I'm disappointed by what I see.
I'm waiting for a good reason to get a PS3, and I still don't see this as being it.
There's just one thing you're forgetting, those are finished games and this is still work in progress. Supposedly all those images of Socom are Alpha, so there's still quite a ways to go before it's finished. Go look at games in their Alpha stage (usually first images released), then compare them to the final product, notice the big graphics leap?.
So until they say the game is out of it's Beta stage (or gone gold, whichever you want), then there's really no point in comparing images.
Also, those images are from offline. Whenever a game goes online, they have to dumb down the graphics (to prevent framerate drop or maybe something else, I don't know). So a better comparison would be online images of those games compared to the Socom images (since it's online only).
But as I said earlier, either compare Alpha to Alpha images, or wait until the game is finished.
______________________
I am the original baby seal clubber!
Last edited by RickTheRipper; 07-31-2007 at 07:06 AM.
It's another Sony issued Socom title. The only wildcard here is that it's not being touched by Zipper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModernCombat
I don't think they would release a product that is much worser then the past versions.
Hello, and welcome to Socom. It's obvious that you're new here...
Socom 1 was better than Socom 2
Socom 2 was better than Socom 3 and Socom CA.
So, YES, they have, could, and possibly will release a product that is worse than its prior versions.
Quote:
Also, those images are from offline. Whenever a game goes online, they have to dumb down the graphics (to prevent framerate drop or maybe something else, I don't know). So a better comparison would be online images of those games compared to the Socom images (since it's online only).
You've got a PS3 right? Go hop on R6V, play some Bordertown, or Dantes, or pretty much any map and then tell me the graphics are dumbed down.
Maybe you're right, Rick. Maybe these are just basic alpha images and the graphics will improve tremendously by the time of the release, but I think it's goofy to be promoting this game with crap graphics then.
I know for a fact that graphics get dumbed down for MP play (plenty of devs have said this), and I know for a fact these are Alpha images (Slant Six said they were in the Alpha stage).
The reason they're showing Alpha images is to show people how it looks and that it's real. Everyone does it.
If you were to go to any gaming site (IGN, Gamespot, 1up, etc) and check Resistance images, you'd see a pattern as you would go further back. The newest images would look great, but as you go farther back, you'd see that they look worse and worse. That's because the game wasn't complete and they were in Alpha or Beta.
So all I'm really trying to say is, give it some time, then when it's near completion, then compare/complain about graphics.
How are the graphics really that bad? Becuase there is no "texture" (which is of course just alot of bumps, right?)? The thing I like the most about these, is look at the base of the palm trees, or edges of buildings. You know what I want you to see? The jagged lines. Don't see them? Thats because they're not there. I'm not saying the graphics are amazing because there are no jagged lines, but its definately better to look at without them. And the fact that it is supposedly the alpha means they can only get better.
Um... Socom II is far better than Socom I and OME6A, Activision already made a PS3 game called "Call Of Duty 3" and obviously that's why Call Of Duty 4 will be far better than the previous version because they already know the PS3 aspects and what to improve. Instead of Socom: Confrontation (their 1st game on PS3)...
Just like GT: HD, do you know how the graphics almost look like GT4. Now, look at GT5: Prologue and see the difference between these 2 games.
First of all, Socom C is in its Alpha stage. To compare images of an Alpha staged game to a final product is not the same.
The COD team had COD2 on the PS3 so they have had a lot more time and experience working with the PS3. Plus, this is Socom's first game on the PS3 (COD's third) and it's still in its Alpha stages.
Stop bashing something you obviously know nothing about.
______________________
Stationed at Fort Drum, New York with the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry). SAW Gunner
Stop bashing something you obviously know nothing about.
With all due respect, you'd probably be wise to take your own advice. Your closing statement is a two way street. Essentially no one should make judgements about something they don't possess full knowledge of, good or bad.
I'm completely capable of admitting I was wrong once the final product is out, if the final product does prove me wrong.
Perhaps being around for so long has given me more insight, or more bias. I've seen this pattern before; release some images, some video, a couple details, a slew of promises, and everyone falls prey to the Sony hype machine for the Nth time.
Socom's a flagship title for Sony now. It reflects directly on them since it is their property, so common sense suggests they're making every resource available that they can in order to guarantee a level of success.
However, common sense could also suggest that history will repeat itself with the masses flocking to another Socom because of the name; The game gets put out, the money gets made, the job is done.
Maybe I'm retarded for not seeing this as the bee's knees, like the majority here seems to be, or maybe I'm just a little skeptical for good reason.
It would be outstanding if the game came out to be every die-hard's dream come true, and I'd gladly put the money down for the glossy black breadbox, but I'm not gonna get my hopes up.
So that's the way you want to go with this? Personal attacks based solely on the number of years I've been in existance?
Excuse me for having a love of gaming, among the countless other hobbies and activities that occupy my day to day life. I'm sorry, I was never made aware that there was a certain age at which playing video games was no longer permissable.
Furthermore, excuse me for having an opinion that seemingly contrasts the majority's, and for attemting to convey it in an intelligible manner, without the need for asterisks and personal attacks.
I'm sorry, I was never made aware that there was a certain age at which playing video games was no longer permissable.
You have nothing to be sorry for... I don't think there should be an age "cutoff" for playing video games either, considering I am a few years older than 27.
If anything, someone around here owes you an apology... but I wouldn't hold your breath on it - considering you're probably dealing with a child.
But I digress...
This thread had better get back on topic in a hurry... otherwise, it'll more than likely get locked... by me or some other moderator.
Socom: C doesn't look all that bad. I agree with Omega though, the game's looks don't have that "awe" feeling. The game is about 4 months away like the COD game, yet the COD game does look better. Graphics do not make a game but when a company has great backing and funding by Sony you would think the graphics would be above par.
I'm not saying the game will be crap. I just find it shocking that the game doesn't look any better will all the help from Sony.
