Phalanx said: IllegalPaladin said: Phalanx said: I agree with you too an extent. Personally I don't feel that just because a game has great graphics means the gameplay sucks (see LBP). But I can see where some of the Wii fans are coming from. Look at Doom3. For it's time, it was absolutely stunning. And then you played it. id spent so much time on the engine to make the graphics look good that the gameplay suffered. I can't speak for everyone, but when I see a great looking game, I fear that the developer spent all their resources on making it look good that they forgot to make it play well.

Eh, I'd rather try to look at games by a case scenario than generally say that X game will probably be bad because it has good graphics. The graphics of Doom 3 weren't bad (though you needed a 6800 Ultra to run the game on the ultra high setting), but it wasn't necessairly the graphics that made the gameplay suffer. When I've played it, I think it was the poor level design that really did it because they tried to make everything as dark as possible and stuff enemies in every corner of all the rooms so you wouldn't be able to see anything except for some glowing eyes. What makes it worse is that they made the flashlight an actual item that you have to have out to be able to see (compared to suit flashlights like Half-Life and Halo).

I think what had happened is that they were banking on people being really scarred that rooms were pitch black and they tried to increase that factor by not having a suit flashlight, thereby forcing people to have to take crapshots at glowing eyes. In the end, I think it was just a failed level design and gameplay technique than saying it was all because of the graphics because instead of being scared of the game, it made me frustrated (with some scared moments) that I couldn't see anything and there would be like 10 monsters in every room (over statement, but they're still everywhere). I even went and downloaded a flashlight mod for the game just to bring myself to try and play it.

 

 

I agree that the graphics aren't great from a technical standpoint, but the art direction is very good.

it's made by Level 5, im interested. This game has lots of potential.

At the risk of getting attacked....I find it pretty funny that Nintendo fanboys have the balls to talk about graphics...

I for one think that it looks very good. The character models are a little sketchy, but the backgrounds are beautiful. Graphics aside, I think it will be a good game.

why do we care about graphics, its an RPG, i'm for gameplay over graphics.

These screenshots just don't do much to actually excite me about this game. I remember seeing the video last year (E3 06?) and being really excited about this game. After seeing those screenshots, I don't know, it just doesn't look that great. Nothing really stands out and everything seems just dull.

-edit-
And to you people screaming "OMG DOUBLE STANDARD!!!! WII FANBOYS TALKING ABOUT GRAPHICS LOL!!!", I just have this to say:  graphics and style are two completely different beasts.  Those screenshots don't have a lot of style to them and there's nothing that really shows any good action or gameplay (not like the video I saw last).

@ Phalanx

I agree with you on this. I had this feeling specially with many PC games, but also with Gears of War. Many games look as if they are mainly intended for producing great screenshots and lack elsewhere, which can also be graphics related such as the quality of animation, lighting dynamics, etc.

But many of the best games are the exceptions. For example Mario64 offered great yet simple graphics for its time. The God of War games offer great graphics and a feel of quality throughout including the gameplay. Half-Life not only looked great for its time, the game was quite unique and played great.

But IMO Gears of War has the graphics but lacks the quality feeling a game like God of War offers throughout. The Ninja Gaiden games obviously offer good gameplay, but the graphics upgrade for the PS3 does add to the game.

IMO games can benefit greatky from better graphics. Ratchet and Clank future for example looks very promising.

Again if this were to be a wii game nobody would say anything, but becuase ps3 games "have" to look better than any other games its a problem even if this game is still in development..

Well, yeah. This would be fine as a $50 game for a $250 system (with pack-in). It's somewhat lackluster for a $60 game on a $500 system.

Very few people are simply against powerful game consoles; the issue is generally one of value for cost, and it's valid to point out that very few (if any) PS3 games really demonstrate the need for a $500/$600 system and a $60 per-game price tag.

leo-j said: Again if this were to be a wii game nobody would say anything, but becuase ps3 games "have" to look better than any other games its a problem even if this game is still in development..

 If you would have bothered reading my comment I said that the style isn't really doing anything for me; the style has nothing to do with the graphical power.  The characters are boring in that there's nothing special about them and even the colors seems a little off.  Some spots are really bright going for some sort of anime/cartoon style while others are a little darker and trying to look realistic.  It just really doesn't work.

If this was for the Wii, I would be saying the same exact thing: the art style doesn't look together and exciting in any way at all.