tuscaniman said:
disolitude said:
Hynad said:
We talk about graphics, you then say the camera is affecting the gameplay as a counterpoint to justify your lack of insight? That has nothing to do with how the graphics looks, and what kind of tech is backing them up. You're already grasping at straws.
|
Not even close. You are talking about amount of AA, polygon models and other technical nonsence.
I am talking about how design decisions influence gameplay and visuals.
3D combat static camera = not visually stimulating period.
The screen just sits there while shit happens...I don't find that appealing to look at.
|
Then where do you put Halo:Reach?
|
I'd rate halo as..."as good as it can be"...with hardware, design choices and everythign involved lol.
The difference to me is that one has mindblowing amount of control, challenege and level of user involvement...while the other is very limiting to me.
MW2 vs castlevania would be a better comparison gameplay vs visuals wise. Both have a very limiting "on rails" like gameplay and both are about very focused visuals in some areas while others are very lacking...
