All comments

There is a *slight* difference in quality between the first three and the last two. I don't know what's up with the latter, but let's just say that the first 3 were in 5120x2880 resolution.

The last 2 look like 'real' screens and they look great imo.

The last 2 is pretty old actually. I just don't think they were officially released, considering the quality...

Not bad.

EA sent them out to the press now though.

I'm still looking forward to this game, although I really hope they removed that worthless "effect" that turned the screen black and white every time a cop slams into you.

Hopefully when the next gen systems comes out, graphics will be good enough that publishers don't feel the need to put out bullshots like the first 3. It's quite sad.

"touched up" screenshots = false advertising

The last two screenshots are probably real screenshots from the game on consoles.
The first three obviously use Photoshop anti aliasing or are from the PC with unplayable settings or a PC you simply do not own.

Anyway I think it still looks okay.
I wonder how the gameplay will be. I dislike NFS since 1999, my last NFS was NFS3: Hot Pursuit that was nice… then the series turned to bullshit.

The reflections are a bit meh... But otherwise looks pretty nice, even without 64xAA or something crazy like that.

1111 days since I joined! LOL.

OT: I dont think I'll be able to stand the cheesy story line and cutscenes. Im sticking to Midnight Club.

Who cares?!?! Just press the X or A button and skip them. This isn't an rpg, it doesn't matter if you skip the cutscenes and don't follow the storyline. BTW, Midnight Club has cheesy characters and a storyline this year too.

Most Wanted was SUCH a great game. The last two NFS games SUCKED but I see enough MW in this game that I am hopeful it will turn out good. And if it doesn't, well I really wouldn't be that surprised because I've never thought EA was a good development studio and if MW was merely an accident then that is too bad but again, not surprising.

That's a lot more than just a slight difference. It makes the other images look like they were overly doctored. I know the machines are more than capable of making a game look like the first few images, but something has to be said about the jaggie images. Weird.

Those super AA'd pics you are all always wondering about. Companies send out enormously oversized renders for print magazines. If you take those same renders and resize them to what you see on sites like these, you get shots that appear to have ridiculous amounts of AA. They're not representative of the actual image quality of the final game. But they generally ARE representative of the underlying technology. I think it's bullshit personally.

Am I the only one, or does it seem to be cell-shaded?