Hot new Gears of War screenshots released by Microsoft

this game looks awesome

*drool*

this is the game that is selling the 360 for me.

That Looks really nice, Can't wait to Pick up this game.

Freaking awrsome... this looks like one of the hottest titles coming for xbox360. Too bad it isn't a luanch day game. Off topic but... does anyone know where i can preorder a 360 premium without all the bundled crap like 9 games???

Normally I would say, "Who cares about screenshots?"

But after seeing so many actual gameplay videos, I can honestly say this game will be great.

This, Kameo, PGR3 and PDZ will Keep Me happy with my Xbox 360 for years to come :D

Gee...I am forced to post this again...

What does "in game" means here?

If these are frames from pre-rendered scenes that will be included in the final product, it means nothing.

If that's how my game character will look when fully animated and moving in response to my controller, then I am impressed.

---

Again...

Pre-rendered CAGs/CGs/footages/scenes/reels/sequences ("in game" or "for promotional use") are produced on any kind of hardware. Somtimes, the computation involved requires an entire array of super fast computer. Sometimes, it can be done on a high-end workstation.

Once pre-rendered, the CAG/CG/footage/scene/reel/sequence can be played back using any kind of hardware: From a $25 DVD player you buy at Wal-Mart to a super powerful PC or home theater.

I hope this is clear now.

Example: Toy Story

Pixar created a cluster of 117 Sun SPARCstation 20 workstations--each containing at least two microprocessors--to render each of the 114,000 frames in the 77-minute movie. On such enormously powerful hardware, final processing required from 2 to 13 hours.

Yes, that's what it took to render Toy Story in real time.

Now, you all know you can play Toy Story back on the cheapest DVD player out there.

That's because playing back pre-rendered materials requires virtually no power.

OK, now, you should all understand that pre-rendered materials ("in game" or "for promotional use") mean nothing.

Dralt, judging by the many comments on our MGS posts, I'd say that "in-game" or "real-time" screenshots and trailers mean something, even if they aren't absolutely representative of the final product. At any rate, most people aren't going to be convinced to leave one camp for the other, so I highly suggest that people not get into _too_ heavy of an argument about what those phrases mean.

Dralt. Gears of War was playable behind closed doors ffs.

And if you ever see the developer interview. It shows the actual game being played. So quit bitching, and go make me a pie!

um, in game means:

it has been played. adam sessler got a behind closed doors session with Gears of War at E3 and said it was amazing.

[quote] Xbox VP Peter Moore certainly doesn't seem perturbed by the MGS4 video - telling GamesIndustry.biz at TGS that "Cell processor or not, when I look at the technical specs, I don't see anything that concerns me overly from a performance point of view. Quite frankly, having the ability to move first in this space, I think, provides us with the opportunity for a huge advantage."
"If we look at the capabilities of the Xbox 360 from a technical aspect, and we lay against it the capabilities from a technical aspect of the PS3, everybody that works at a technical level that I respect says... It's a wash," he continued. "It really is. Both companies have incredibly powerful machines, and it will be about what the developers can do with them."

"Gamers are a very smart bunch, and gamers who still haven't seen a PS3 or seen one played, will make the determination. The English expression is, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Having videos, having characters in videos... The fact that they feel the need to have Snake tell you that it's powerful, that could be seen as a sign of worry, or weakness, potentially," Moore concluded. [/quote]


Source: GamesIndustry.biz

Dralt, don't be so pompous. I'm sure most people understand the concept between pre-rendered video and real-time rendering.

Anyways, these "in-game" shots are amazing! You can actually see enough "imperfection" in the images to know that they are real-time rendered. Not to mention the visual similarities between these images and the real-time demo from E3.

From a professional video ompositor: ... you guys say this is ingame footage, but the image you have at the top of this article (showing the closeup of the two guys facing left) is a clear composite. They were both rendered seperately and were two different images that were composited ontop of eachother. For easy proof you simply need to look at the left edge of each character's face. See the major contrast between their face and what is behind it? Each character was originally rendered in 3D with a bright backdrop (due to the backlighting of the left edge of their faces). So dropping them on top of a dark background shows obvious compositing. I'm not a fanboy or anything, but it is the first thing that I saw after it was mentioned these were game engine renders.

From a professional video ompositor: ... you guys say this is ingame footage, but the image you have at the top of this article (showing the closeup of the two guys facing left) is a clear composite. They were both rendered seperately and were two different images that were composited ontop of eachother. For easy proof you simply need to look at the left edge of each character's face. See the major contrast between their face and what is behind it? Each character was originally rendered in 3D with a bright backdrop (due to the backlighting of the left edge of their faces). So dropping them on top of a dark background shows obvious compositing. I'm not a fanboy or anything, but it is the first thing that I saw after it was mentioned these were game engine renders.

Maybe it will turn out to be the spectacularly misrepresented cr4p that Brute Force was.

I have Alredy watched the Gameplay Videos, I was blow away by good the Graphics AND gameplay were.

Why did this thing send me two emails to confirm my post? Weird.

i admit that it looks a little odd, but that's actually a close up version of picture 2.

please try again.

All right, all the 1024-pixel-wide versions are now up. Just click on the 425-pixel-wide thumbnails to see 'em. We'll see if we can post bigger, even higher-resolution versions later. =)

Yeah, I am being pompous.

The fact remains. There is no way your game character will be rendered with as much detail when you control it during gameplay.

Taking 3 frames from a pre-rendered scene that gets played at some point during the game and calling them an "in game" proof of real-time rendering capability is ridiculous.

Now, believe what you want.

To 14: The effect of the bright outline is caused by the lighting coming from the armor of the soldier behind him. It's called bloom lighting and is a very popular "nex-gen" effect.

And Peter Moore's word is worth nothing, BTW.

When he was working on the Dreamcast, he did not "see anything that concerned him overly from a performance point of view."
We know how the Dreamcast turned out.

I have not been this excited for a game since Halo 2. This is a definite for the 360. I've stopped being critical years ago and just learned to play and be merry.

Gamers words to live by:
"Play and be merry, biatches!" - Spartan 6453

GoW is going to set the bar for visuals on the 360 this winter - mainly because it's Epic, and the designers have an inside track for maximizing the UR3 engine.

Jake's actually right - regardless of the lighting effects, in the picture from which the headshots is taken you can see that somebody dummy'd this up and messed up - the #2 shot (marcus and dom) has two creatures on the left. The creature in the background is holding a gun that extends into the foreground, over the creature in the foreground. Looks like somebody got slap-happy with the Photoshop Magic Wand and failed to overlap the images properly.

Which is not to say that these "in game" shots aren't "gameplay" shots, but they're clearly enhanced in some way.

Dralt (#22), the differences in technical performance between the PS2 and Dreamcast may be noteworthy, but I believe we're comparing screenshots, not the future of these two consoles (where you'll find graphical heavyweights MGS4 and GoW) right now. It might help to stay on "target" if we want to avoid a potential console flame war.

Dralt:
I agree totally, which I hold the opinion that the recent deluge of MGS4 media has been utter BS. Good post.

Actually, n8 (#25), check out the 1024-pixel-wide version I uploaded of that second picture. You'll see that the background gun is not overlapping over the foreground character. Also, the jaggies that you see on Marcus and Dom's faces could simply be a result of hardware anti-aliasing not being turned on yet. That's my best guess, but CliffyB would have a lot to answer for if these purported screenshots were simply comprised of composited 2D/3D images.

Spartacus,

Yes, both Sony and Microsoft are playing a shameful game when then try to fool us into thinking their new hardware can render fully animated character models with that level of detail. (maybe they could if they completely neglected the rest of the frame)

I wish it were possible, but I don't think it will happen this turn around.

These shots are impressive but graphics don't make the game, gameplay does.

For example, do you think people are going to buy MGS4 just because of the graphics? I hope not. I'd think that most people would buy it for the gameplay.

@ n8 (#25)
if you some in you see that the monster in the foreground merely has a thin wast, the gun is not coming in frount of him, you can simply see it beside him.

word of caution, examine closely before saying anything

Haha n8, #25, good catch I didn't see that! LOL Photoshop composition FTW, 360 fanboys :)

"Why did this thing send me two emails to confirm my post? Weird."

Jake (#17), judging by the comment records, it appears that two copies of the same comment (from #14) were submitted in the system. Not saying it's your fault or anything--I'm just trying to explain what happened. (Well, sorta...) This kind of thing happens every so often, so it's nothing to worry about.

FULL RES versions of these screens, directly from MS: http://www.360hacker.net/articles/09-19-2005/new-gears-of-war-screenshots/

I've seen enough in game video to know this looks to be an accurate batch of screenies from the game. Most of you are just being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical! Go watch some gameplay video and then check out the screenies again. We have a lot of good stuff coming this next gen from the perfection of our traditional consoles (360 and PS3) to innovation from the Big N (as long as the controller is rock solid and accurate!).

"The creature in the background is holding a gun that extends into the foreground, over the creature in the foreground."

This is an inaccurate statement! The gun is very close, but not overlapping.

And please can we stop with the "graphics don't matter it's all about gameplay" comments. They are getting old! These two things should be advancing hand in hand.

Thanks for hosting the full-size images, Justin. (You skipped the two 1.2MB+ concept-art pics, I see. =) I'll put up a link to your site in the original post. I just hope your bandwidth isn't exceeded too quickly!

"WOW, NEVER HEARD OF AA????????????? WOW... THIS LOOKS TERRIBLE. THERE IS NO WAY THIS IS IN GAME. HAHA, THIS SYSTEM IS GOING TO FAIL"
- Joystiq commentators on MGS4

Didn't see one comment yet for the jagged edges on that one picture.

Well I mentioned this over on the MGS4 video thread; I'm currently developing a next-gen title using the U3 engine, and I have a few of those models, and they "are" that detailed. You'd be surprised how far a 2048x normals map goes to making a surface look astoundingly detailed. I may not have personally 'touched' a PS3 devkit(see the other thread :p ), I can say with all confidence these are real, 'in-game', WYSIWYP graphics. Ultimately, at this point, so close to release (the 360), there's just no reason to 'touch up' these images to improve them artificially. One of the main things that Epic is very proud of and mentions every chance they get, is that this IS the game.

Besides, if you look at the large-ass screens over on TeamXbox, you can see tell-tales signs of 'realtime', such as normals map artifacting and lowpoly silhouettes(all subtle mind you). I have no comment about the blood in the first shot, as thats a first for me, but the first time I powered the engine up and ran through the demos, I was stunned by the lighting. That first image also appears to have AA cranked up, as its very 'smooth', but all in all, its very very cool.

Oh, and as for the 'composited' comment, thats really quite irrelevent, as even if it were the case, its still the in-game assets, so it would be purely FOR composition, and not to 'inflate' the quality.

No problem Dan. I'm already completely use to bandwidth overage charges ;) And yes, I did skip the two 1.2mb+ images, just doesnt seem worth it for concept art of some guns.

"Didn't see one comment yet for the jagged edges on that one picture."

I guess it depends on what kind of comments you're looking for, LINES:

"Also, the jaggies that you see on Marcus and Dom's faces could simply be a result of hardware anti-aliasing not being turned on yet." (My comment, #28)

"...a clear composite.... For easy proof you simply need to look at the left edge of each character's face. See the major contrast between their face and what is behind it? Each character was originally rendered in 3D with a bright backdrop (due to the backlighting of the left edge of their faces)." (jake's comment, #14)

Hope that helps! =)

ENUFF SAID............... HOT

I would say that these definitely stand up to MGS4's graphics. However, I think the blood in the first picture looks kinda fishy. I'm also skeptical about the 5th picture, the part where the guy is going down the rope looks like a painting. Is that picture supposed to be a desktop wallpaper? The article said that only 3 and 4 weren't in-game. If those two pictures are authentic, then rock on!!

Damn, sometimes I wish only one system would dominate, that way I wouldn't have to buy multiple systems to play the games I want...
:)

It sure looks sweet, the foliage detail in the first shot is really nice.

I am not an MS hater. I own gladly an Xbox. I have yet to decide on a 360. There are only so many hours and so many games.

Metal Gear Solid 4 blows me away because I know that it will be a combination of those stunning visuals and Kojima's absolutely insanely good game design. Nothing will shake that faith for me; even those who don't like Metal Gear games. Since the original NES Metal Gear these games have stayed with me and resided in a fond place in memory eternally.

Gears of War I am skeptical of not due to its wonderful visuals but the videos we've seen so far. If there is a gameplay mechanic involving being near light sources to be safe then I dread repetituous, overly dark Doom 3 style gameplay. The cover mechanism looks the same. Move forward, take cover, shoot, move forward to the next scripted sequence. There's nothing in the world of Gears of War so far that comes close to the nicely thought out world that Halo represents or for that matter the incredible ennui and sadness I felt knowing Snake is still at it years later and not looking too well for it. That's next generation - a character I have a relationship with changing over time.

Then there's this:

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1079&Itemid=2

Is that true? Kind of stunning for next-gen to report that GOW runs at 16 fps when it hasn't looked that way in the videos I've seen on the net. What gives with the harsh comments?

I have no doubt Gears of War will look good, and I do not believe that in game playing will resemble that top screenshot. I have seen Xbox 360s running behind closed doors and they sure look purdy, they do, and damn if that controller isn't unbelievebly surprisingly good... But nothing comes close to even filtered representations of MGS4.

At E3 this year I couldn't believe what I was seeing. The XBox 360 was a great machine, and the games were impressive, but not a mind blowing leap forward. 99 Nights looks like Dynasty Warriors with more people on screen. Nothing more, nothing less. That said, I thought MS were getting some harsh treatment on the 360. Let's face facts: Killzone was prerendered. MGS4 proves nothing for the company that made that game; every dev on the floor said they knew exactly what Scottish CG company made that video. The XBox 360 however was showing running games that were drool worthy. And somehow they have shot themselves in the foot on public percpetion over and over. They need to release a teaser for Halo 3, stat. They need to push Hironobu's RPGs harder. They need to do like they are in Japan and recall their stupid SKU decision and sell a hard drive packaged Xbox only for $350 and be done with it.

Gears of War won't do it alone.

i sure hope that the stuff that guy describes in the link you posted isn't true!

the only reason i'm not TOO worried about those comments is that Adam Sessler had the chance to play gears of war and said it was amazing.

So, where are those gameplay movies you are talking about?

Damn fake. See the resolution of them well over 720p. Even if they are real in its cut scenes, do you expect X360 can run it at 30fps? No way.

Also Refinery2 is definitely not 3D.

looks like someone is gonna get pwned!

So you don't have to wade through that whole article (though it is telling)...

"Gears of War, looked, frankly, ridiculous. The frame rate ran at maybe an average sixteen per second, though it kept dropping to maybe around ten. Characters animate stiffly; although there was obviously some motion capture involved, no one thought about how to implement it, so the characters all move unnaturally, jerking from one animation to another. Brief cut-scenes keep activating, intruding into the gameplay and disorienting me even though I wasn't playing the thing. There were some nice special effects, though, with the "locust" beasts that terrorize the world in question. Aside from those effects, it just looked like a pretty advanced Xbox game. Only with more testosterone!

That said, we've seen Xbox previews before that have looked weak, and turned out okay."

Then I did some digging...

From 1up.com

"The framerate appears to be improved on the E3 version as well, and though it's still not 100% perfect in all areas -- the game doesn't come out until 2006, after all -- it's clearly well within reach and we don't see the occasional hiccups showing up in the final version at all."

So it can be ironed out, just wanted to verify that another journalist noted that. The odd thing is every video I've seen the framerate looks solid to me. Given that the game was being shown on PCs at E3, draw your own conclusions.

Then there's Microsoft's own video montage. Look at that and tell me how jonesing you and the general public in Japan are.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3143752

That's what I don't get. MS have a powerful, competent machine. Their marketing program, on the other hand, must be staffed by Michael Brown, formerly of FEMA.

Those shots look pretty nifty. I imagine they look even better moving. I really don't see why both camps don't release hi res direct feed videos to the press for internet dissemination. Not to fan any flames, but we've seen the UE-3 running in realtime on the PS3 at E3 and it looks just as good as this. From the interview with Cliff-B, it looks like they have a lot of work to do smoothing out the animations in this game though.