CGI-Quality said:
DaBuddahN said:
selnor said:
DaBuddahN said:
selnor said:
DaBuddahN said:
CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
From what Ive seen, GOW3 dioesnt surpass alot of games already out. GOW3 wont even be in my top 10 when it's treleased based on the gameplay footage. I have never viewed GOW3 as a graphical contender, but a good series. Thats my 2 cents anyway. |
You haven't played the demo I presume? There aren't many games that can compete with it graphically at this point, and the final build hasn't even been unveiled yet.
|
Selnor, you have the most laughable comment in this thread... oh, wait, I forgot, you still think MW2 is a graphics king. =/
|
I have a strong stance on graphics. And think that it is far more important for how it looks onscreen than how many people go on about a game being technically better. Alot of art is technically better than other art. But that doesn't mean it looks better. See my point? No I havent played the demo, but GOW 3 has never shown as a graphics powerhouse to me. I have watched alot of footage. For example Bad Company 2 has me more excited graphics wise. It looks and feels so gritty at what it represents.
|
No "art" is technically better because art is not objective in nature! Hence why it is art... go to a museum or something, and have one of the guides explain this to you. Graphics is about textures, polygon count mixed with some good physics. I played the demo, twice, and I must say this game is at least in my top 5 for graphics (not sure about the order yet). Videos take away a lot of detail to games, especially Youtube ones. I suggest you download the demo yourself. I actually have a code, when I get to my apartment sometime next week, I can give it to you so you can have a first hand experience, maybe then your opinion will have a it more of weight to it.
|
Graphics is art. It's a form of art. It's expessing. If you said to a game developer it isn't art they would walk away from you and never talk to you again. LOL.
About the code. Yeah I'll get it from you soon.
|
What? Can you READ properly? I said "art" is not objective! You can create art through CGI, but CGI is not art. My point still stands; art is not objective, therefor art is not technical in nature! You said and I quote "Alot of art is technically better than other art", which is complete bs. =/
|
I mean it!
|
lmao. re-read. You can create art through CGI, but CGI itself is not art. Like, people don't go around calling a pencil art! But pencils make art.
