The PS2 wasn't docked for looking signifficantly worse than the Xbox or Gamecube. Hell, Rogue Squadron 2 was a launch game on the Gamecube and the PS2 never even touched those graphics till it's last year of life. Then Twilight Princess was released and any ground the PS2 had made up was gone. Nothing on the PS2 ever came close to Halo 2, yet games later in it's life managed to consistently score well. The GTAIII games were hideous graphically (they looked like PSone games), but they weren't docked just because pretty much everything on the Gamecube and Xbox looked better. Graphics should be measured against others in their own system. Honestly, graphics should have no part in a review at all past the point of "the game is aesthetically pleasing." Technical power of graphics should mean nothing in a game's score as long as whatever visuals they do use contribute to the experience. What a game should be scored on is it's gameplay. Even that is localized to systems. If it's fair to dock a Wii game for not looking like Bioshock, then it's fair to dock Bioshock because it's control scheme isn't as good as Metroid Prime 3. If you get into these endless cycles of comparing games across platforms you will never get an accurate or valid review. Edit: what the heck did you do with that post Konnichiwa? The thread is all messed up now lol.

super_etecoon said: Stof says...Metroid Prime Completion count: 39% and climbing! You're playing the game?

yup. Awesome game. Getting me quite pumped for Corruption (Not sure about echoes though) Infact, I think I need to update that number.

lol....for some reason I read that as Metroid Prime Corruption Completion....woops. Thought you got your hands on a press copy.

stof said: super_etecoon said: Stof says...Metroid Prime Completion count: 39% and climbing! You're playing the game? yup. Awesome game. Getting me quite pumped for Corruption (Not sure about echoes though) Infact, I think I need to update that number.

You should play Echoes too. It has it's problems but you'll still probably enjoy it if you enjoyed Prime, and it sets up the plot for Corruption.

naznatips said: The PS2 wasn't docked for looking signifficantly worse than the Xbox or Gamecube. Hell, Rogue Squadron 2 was a launch game on the Gamecube and the PS2 never even touched those graphics till it's last year of life. Then Twilight Princess was released and any ground the PS2 had made up was gone. Nothing on the PS2 ever came close to Halo 2, yet games later in it's life managed to consistently score well. The GTAIII games were hideous graphically (they looked like PSone games), but they weren't docked just because pretty much everything on the Gamecube and Xbox looked better. Graphics should be measured against others in their own system. Honestly, graphics should have no part in a review at all past the point of "the game is aesthetically pleasing." Technical power of graphics should mean nothing in a game's score as long as whatever visuals they do use contribute to the experience. What a game should be scored on is it's gameplay. Even that is localized to systems. If it's fair to dock a Wii game for not looking like Bioshock, then it's fair to dock Bioshock because it's control scheme isn't as good as Metroid Prime 3. If you get into these endless cycles of comparing games across platforms you will never get an accurate or valid review. Edit: what the heck did you do with that post Konnichiwa? The thread is all messed up now lol.

I think the graphics component of a video game review should be replaced with an art direction component. The technical side of graphics should only matter in so far as it helps or hinders the artists in achieving their intended style.

stof said: Konnichiwa... How the hell did you make your post go all funny like that?

I don't know X_X. And the funny fact is if I quote someone I see very strange things X_X. Something like: Cellpadding = 2 bbbb fff cell spacing 1 td > . @ Ceres, You have a point but in fact who bought a handheld for the Visuals? If you go for visuals you buy a PC or a console right? Are their reviewers who compare DS games to PSP games? But with the PS2-GC-Xbox they were always comparing the games and saying that GC haves better hardware and Xbox have better hardware. Xbox games looked better than PS2 games. I mean who cares, I really don't care that an game looked better on Xbox but reviewers were saying that a lot. They will always do that and Nintendo went the way for gameplay and not for the visuals. Do you think this* is fair. Example: * They gave MP3 for the visuals 9.5 and they give Halo 3 for the visuals 9.2 when Halo 3 looks better than MP3. The only reason they gave MP3 more than Halo 3 is because MP3 use almost whole the power of the Wii and Halo 3 not of the X360. Sounds fair? Sorry for probably hard understanding English I have some problems with making a post.

I think the graphics component of a video game review should be replaced with an art direction component. The technical side of graphics should only matter in so far as it helps or hinders the artists in achieving their intended style Q........ F........ T!!!!!!!

something happened to my post.

Do my last two posts look weird to anyone?

konnichiwa said: Do you think this* is fair. Example: * They gave MP3 for the visuals 9.5 and they give Halo 3 for the visuals 9.2 when Halo 3 looks better than MP3. The only reason they gave MP3 more than Halo 3 is because MP3 use almost whole the power of the Wii and Halo 3 not of the X360. Sounds fair? Sorry for probably hard understanding English I have some problems with making a post.

No, Halo 3 should be given the lower score because they consider games like Gears of War and Bioshock to have far better graphic achievements to them for the console the game is on while MP3 would be fair because it is the best we've seen on a Wii game yet and still leaves room because Galaxy also looks really promising.