Originally Posted by Vhati
well. here is my picture of that section lossless png. My picture blows theirs away, im gonna have to say its not fair to compare them considering the quality of the sets of pictures.
I told myself I wasnt going to post back in here but after seeing this I had to. I wont post further than this on the subject.
Before I start, you're too close to the window to make a comparison of the robot because in the pictures they have the robot is obscured by smoke because he isn't close enough to the window. Your timing and position was way off to make a comparison of the guy and the robot, along with any other details around that window.
But just a direct comparison of Shephard - they're exactly the same. Your picture, their PC picture, and their 360 picture. All the same detail is there. Your picture is just bigger and clearer because it's the direct source PNG which we discussed before. But regardless - all the detail is there like I told you. The mesh patterns on Shephard's arm matches up to yours in both of their PC and 360 picture. His rocket launcher's circle pattern is also the same in size and clarity. There isn't any pixelation in them. It's the same resolution.
Even the smoke effects are the same, as well as the fire in the background. The lighting as well. His picture is in a different position so the lighting reflects off the glass a bit.
Also, you can catch a bit of the roof in both of their pictures and your picture. The pipes along the top are of the same textures too - no differences in texture size as well as clarity.
It's exactly the same except, again, you have AA on while the other comparison didn't. Everything
I said since the beginning of all of this
still remains the same: the only thing that ME2 on the PC has extra is the AA control and performance. The textures, effect, everything else is all exactly the same as the 360. It is a direct port, with no additional graphical enhancements. It is simply copy pasta for the most part. Any PC game should have AA control and better performance from the start. That doesn't even need to be stated.
Also just goes to show that you dont need a direct PNG to make a comparison. All the detail is there. If you believe that JPEGs are so invalid, then why do people like Eurogamer's Digital Foundry - the LEADING
people in this stuff who are paid to do what we do - use JPEGs for all their comparisons and JPEGs to accurately determine things like native rendering resolutions - then there isn't much of a discussion to be had. The same can be said about Beyond3D forums, they do the same thing with JPEGs. Your argument that JPEGs aren't valid is in itself invalid. I just proved that, and they've been proving that for awhile themselves as well. I'm not saying that PNGs aren't better. I always use PNGs myself for everything, but JPEGs certainly don't make anything invalid by a long shot.
Good day.Edited by OmegaNemesis28 - 12/28/10 at 5:44pm