@SamuelRSmith: i lol'ed

Squilliam said: blackstar said: it;s on the ps3 and xbox360 we had a thread about this game says : graphics of 360 version > graphics of ps3 version I CAN'T BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT A GAME THAT SCORED 5.9 LOL Err it was because I was unsure why there was a difference. The score kinda answers the question now doesn't it?

 

 well , i didn't know it was u who started it XD

Griffin said: BMaker11 said: And to boot, the graphics should be lower than a 7. I don't know if it's in the final product, but in the demo, I saw tons of pixel boxes......come on now. We're in the HD era, and I still see pixelation....on a game that's supposedly at least 720P? Wtf? CoD4 on the PS3 has an insane amount of pixel boxes, most of the textures are like that, and people said CoD4 has some of the best graphics to date...

Well I know I didn't see any in COD4....and with Fracture, the boxes were relatively HUGE. I have a 32" TV and the pixel boxes I saw in Fracture were at least 1/200th the size of my TV. Now, I bet you're thinking "1/200th...that's not big" but if my estimations are right, it's pretty damned big and noticeable

 

The demo for fracture was terrible.  So the scores justified in my eyes.

SamuelRSmith said:

Good way to put it.

 

True. On the other hand he mainly criticized the publisher who really have control what they deliver. (If they are a big publisher that does not depend on one game). But yes you are correct some respect is in order.




I don't know I would expect the gameplay people to work on the game with a very simple engine from the beginning (perhaps by using a game engine from the last game they did or by using something very very simply) So you would see if the game is shitty pretty early. Of course you only see how it looks when the game engine is getting finished. This may be more complicated with a game like Fracture that depends on the terraforming technology for gameplay but generally you should see something pretty early.

When I first saw the game I had some high hopes for it... unfortunatly after not hearing all that much about it afterwards, and then seeing the previews I knew that this is bound to happen :(

Everybody, 5.9 is above halfway through the review scale. Even on todays fucked up review system that isn't a terrible score and is probably about an equivalent to a 4.5/10 on a properly weighted scale.

In other words the game is thoroughly mediocre but not actually bad.

oh come on. 5.9 is terrible. Hell I wouldn't pay 60$ for a game that is widely seen as a 7. The point is games below a 5 are only reviewed and globally available if they are tied into the pokemon or american idol franchise.

Kyros said: Even on todays fucked up review system that isn't a terrible score oh come on. 5.9 is terrible. Hell I wouldn't pay 60$ for a game that is widely seen as a 7. The point is games below a 5 are only reviewed and globally available if they are tied into the pokemon or american idol franchise.

5.9 isn't a bad game. It isn't a good game but its not a bad one. The reason you wouldn't pay $60 for a game seen as a seven is because there are a lot of good games out there that are better than it. However there are some games that are just bad to play, some games that are amazing to play and some games that are neither and a 5.9 fits into the neither category.