starcraft said:
Don't get me wrong, I think the artstyle argument has merit. But the argument you are making precludes ANY game from having a graphical advantage as anyone can say the like the art-style of the lessor game better. There are some metrics by which we can say one game has better graphics than others. I will say I saw more glitches in KZ2's campaign than Halo 3's. |
Agreed. But those metrics only apply when both games have similar themes and similar genres. There's no point comparing Mario's graphics to NBA Live's graphics. In the case of Halo and KZ, they're both in the same genre but their theme is totally different. The color scheme, design, and lighting system is also totally different.
The art style argument does have limits. For instance, I can say for sure that GT5's graphics are far better than Forza's, because their theme and genre is the same, and when you look at them, it's obvious. But I can't say GT5 looks better than Mario Kart Wii, because MK's theme and goal is simply different. That's another failure of comparison.
I can also say KZ2 looks better than COD4 because their theme and genre is the same. They're both traditional realistic war shooters, and the graphics of KZ2 is obviously better. But I can't compare it with, say, XIII (the cel shaded shooter) or Halo (the futuristic shooter) because their themes are different.
So in short, my entire argument is that it's pointless to compare games that aren't comparable. It's an endless tirade trying to compare two things that aren't even in the same classification. Sure, you can compare Halo and Killzone in terms of gameplay, but you can't compare them in terms of graphics.







