selnor 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. =/
|
Yes graphics ARE art. and yes art IS technical in nature. It depends how that art is achieved. So what we have is 2 different methods of the way people view art.
1. Art ( graphics ) on a scale of best to worst are determined by how it is achieved ( eg. 640p, 720p, specular lighting etc. )
2. Art ( graphics ) on a scale of best to worst are determined by exactly what you see and how it pleases the individuals eyes. Regardless of resolution, methods of lighting etc.
Many people around the review world base their graphics scores nearly whole sole on option number 1. as do many sites that say x exclusive is better than y exclusive.
But I prefer method 2. I couldnt care less how something was achieved. Hence why Banjo Kazooie is high on my list. As is Tales Of Vesperia.
|
Art is not technical in nature. Get this through your head. Art is abstract and not objective in nature, thus it cannot be technical! CGI is simply used to create art. Just because YOU think Tales of Vesperia and Banjo have a good art style does not mean they have good graphics. Their polygon count is way below that of other games. I agree that they have a great art style, but not good graphics. Selnor, you are trying to turn a subjective opinion into a objective fact.
