Hynad said:
Great graphics are great graphics. Saying it's "only" due to some design choice is ridiculous. That would apply to just about any console game. BLA BLA BLA, Killzone is good looking, but it is so just because the environments aren't as big as Halo's, BLA BLA BLA, God of War III is the best looking game on console, maybe, but that's just because the camera is fixed, BLA BLA BLA, Uncharted 2 is awesome looking, but that's just because the levels are "corridors" like... Cop out. What counts in the end is that what you see on screen looks incredibly good. No matter the design choice. For example, Mario Galaxy and Kirby Epic Yarn are 2 extremely good looking game. Because of their artistic direction. Not because of the prowesses of their respective graphics engine , or other [technical] design choices. Castlevania is just the same. It looks damn good. When I read a comment such as yours, I'm "reminded" that games like Shank or Shadow Complex are good looking games only because the camera is fixed and cheats the system by rendering only the angle (side view) which is in the player's field of vision. ¬_¬ Kind of ridiculous, I know. |
Ok, I'll agree, its a good looking game artistically and it looks "pretty"...but to be honest, Id much rather have camera control. Visual design choices like this impact gameplay greatly and there is something very...on rails-ish...when an action game has fixed camera angles.
Besides, my issue with this game are not from a technical side as technically it really isn't a bad game... My issue is that the only reason this game is "good" is because the money spent on production. Its medocre gameplay title patched toghether by an expensive production. I have yet to see single good gameplay idea thats not recycled from another game.
