Socom Confrontation (PS3)

RickTheRipper · 07-31-2007

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.

oxfordfreestyl · 08-01-2007

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.

OME6A · 08-01-2007

I don't even know why I bother.

This is what a next-gen shooter should look like, and that game's not coming out for almost another 4 months.

Marvin Wong · 08-01-2007

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.

Scuba Steve · 08-01-2007

Omega, you don't know what you're talking about.

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.

OME6A · 08-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuba Steve

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.

OME6A · 08-02-2007

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.

To be like me at 27? You should be so lucky.

oxfordfreestyl · 08-02-2007

I think you just reminded everyone why we don't like you DF...

Negative Creep · 08-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by OME6A

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.

EAsTon · 08-02-2007

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.