This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="LastRambo341"] People are already concluding about the visuals >.> and its silly.LastRambo341Well if the first one looked ugly, and the 2nd ones screenies look ugly... What other conclusions we gonna make? That big square gun ain't gonna change when I see it on a TV! Awww no, since everyone here, besides me, follows GS. The reviewer gave the good and bad things about the 1st conduit. He said "Technically impressive visuals" So, I guess the 1st one didn't look ugly ;), but the single player for some strange reason looks better than the multiplayer What conclusions can we make? Well....we can play the game like how it should be Metal Gear Solid on PS1 was "technically impressive" it still looked like absolute arse to me. Gun for 360(ugly game) is a more "technically impressive" game graphically than Super Mario World(pretty game)! Forget your "technical" stuff, it's whether the game looks good or bad overall that matters.
[QUOTE="LastRambo341"][QUOTE="locopatho"] Well if the first one looked ugly, and the 2nd ones screenies look ugly... What other conclusions we gonna make? That big square gun ain't gonna change when I see it on a TV!locopathoAwww no, since everyone here, besides me, follows GS. The reviewer gave the good and bad things about the 1st conduit. He said "Technically impressive visuals" So, I guess the 1st one didn't look ugly ;), but the single player for some strange reason looks better than the multiplayer What conclusions can we make? Well....we can play the game like how it should be Metal Gear Solid on PS1 was "technically impressive" it still looked like absolute arse to me. Gun for 360(ugly game) is a more "technically impressive" game graphically than Super Mario World(pretty game)! Forget your "technical" stuff, it's whether the game looks good or bad overall that matters. Ah, so now GS doesn't matter anymore. I think Conduit does a good job in the technical standpoint and the 2nd one will do much better.
[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="LastRambo341"] Awww no, since everyone here, besides me, follows GS. The reviewer gave the good and bad things about the 1st conduit. He said "Technically impressive visuals" So, I guess the 1st one didn't look ugly ;), but the single player for some strange reason looks better than the multiplayer What conclusions can we make? Well....we can play the game like how it should beLastRambo341Metal Gear Solid on PS1 was "technically impressive" it still looked like absolute arse to me. Gun for 360(ugly game) is a more "technically impressive" game graphically than Super Mario World(pretty game)! Forget your "technical" stuff, it's whether the game looks good or bad overall that matters. Ah, so now GS doesn't matter anymore. I think Conduit does a good job in the technical standpoint and the 2nd one will do much better. GS does matter, they are correct in saying it's "technically good". They are also correct in saying the game is called "The Conduit". Both fairly meaningless facts! Piling 100 tons of cow dung in the middle of my front garden would be "technically impressive", it would still stink :P
[QUOTE="LastRambo341"][QUOTE="locopatho"] Metal Gear Solid on PS1 was "technically impressive" it still looked like absolute arse to me. Gun for 360(ugly game) is a more "technically impressive" game graphically than Super Mario World(pretty game)! Forget your "technical" stuff, it's whether the game looks good or bad overall that matters. locopathoAh, so now GS doesn't matter anymore. I think Conduit does a good job in the technical standpoint and the 2nd one will do much better. GS does matter, they are correct in saying it's "technically good". They are also correct in saying the game is called "The Conduit". Both fairly meaningless facts! Piling 100 tons of cow dung in the middle of my front garden would be "technically impressive", it would still stink :P technically good is to acknowledge an achievement in a positive manner. Is different than stating a name(a name is no achievement, being GOOD at something is). And MG 1 was impressive many years ago for the platform. Gun was not considered technically impressive for its platform. Conduit was technically impressive for its platform, and that was last year(not 10 years ago).When reviewers speak bad of a game visuals they dont say "its technically impressive bad".That phrase is reserved for a POSITIVE achievement, if your semantics arent helping you right now.
I thought this was suppose to take place under water. SepewrathMaybe you're in an underwater base
I thought this was suppose to take place under water. SepewrathMaybe you're in an underwater base almost no reviewer in the whole world said it looked bad(the first one), it only was GENERIC.The issues with the game were not the graphics but gameplay. I do want to see gameplay, i know the graphics will get better reception if they add some originality(on technical level, they did overpower retros prime 3). But thats only a minor issue when there are a load of bigger things to solve.
if "art" makes the game look better, then you can call what i'm talking about art. prime looked better, let's not even start talking about prime 3, a three year old game that still looks better than the conduit 2[QUOTE="mrfokken"]
and here's a snow pic for you.
Again, I think you are still looking at art more than anything else. I too like the look of the Metroid Prime series.
BrunoBRS
Look at the picture. You might like the cartoony look, but that doesn't make the Conduit screen bad graphics. Muramasa looks great. Do you believe that it has better graphics than the Metroid series? If so, that is fine, but the technical quality of the graphics isn't that strong. The sprite animation and paralax scrolling of Muramasa could have been done on on the PS2 with the same quality. (probably even the PS1) That doesn't diminish the graphics quality of the game engine the Conduit series uses. Qualities like lighting, shading, reflection, shadows, and textures are all done at a higher level than the Prime series.
Again, look at the picture. There is no dynamic lighting, shading, or shadows and the textures are low res. The overall effect is still nice, but not technically advanced even for the Wii.
Now, look at the picture from the Conduit. You may not like what you see on the screen, but it is more advanced in its shading, reflections, shadows and textures. Taking a picture of an ugly person doesn't make them look better, but that doesn't mean the camera is broken. The Conduit's graphics are technically good, even though you may not enjoy its artistic choices. Thus, I find your statement that the Conduit's graphics are worse than Prime's one of simple opinion. You could make the same argument against any number of PS3 or 360 titles based on what you find more attractive.
if "art" makes the game look better, then you can call what i'm talking about art. prime looked better, let's not even start talking about prime 3, a three year old game that still looks better than the conduit 2[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]
[QUOTE="mrfokken"]
and here's a snow pic for you.
Again, I think you are still looking at art more than anything else. I too like the look of the Metroid Prime series.
mrfokken
Look at the picture. You might like the cartoony look, but that doesn't make the Conduit screen bad graphics. Muramasa looks great. Do you believe that it has better graphics than the Metroid series? If so, that is fine, but the technical quality of the graphics isn't that strong. The sprite animation and paralax scrolling of Muramasa could have been done on on the PS2 with the same quality. (probably even the PS1) That doesn't diminish the graphics quality of the game engine the Conduit series uses. Qualities like lighting, shading, reflection, shadows, and textures are all done at a higher level than the Prime series.
Again, look at the picture. There is no dynamic lighting, shading, or shadows and the textures are low res. The overall effect is still nice, but not technically advanced even for the Wii.
Now, look at the picture from the Conduit. You may not like what you see on the screen, but it is more advanced in its shading, reflections, shadows and textures. Taking a picture of an ugly person doesn't make them look better, but that doesn't mean the camera is broken. The Conduit's graphics are technically good, even though you may not enjoy its artistic choices. Thus, I find your statement that the Conduit's graphics are worse than Prime's one of simple opinion. You could make the same argument against any number of PS3 or 360 titles based on what you find more attractive.
my thoughts exactly.
[QUOTE="KillerJuan77"]
May I say generic? They really need to improve the art style and the gameplay this time.
kenakuma
You may :P
GENERIC!
Also, Red Steel 2 looks way better.
[QUOTE="KillerJuan77"]
[QUOTE="kenakuma"]
You may :P
GENERIC!
Also, Red Steel 2 looks way better.
Red Steel's art style looks amazing and not only for a wii game!
I guess it's true -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see anything special about Red Steel 2s graphics, find its gameplay somewhat stiff, and besides the sword play, generic. I can't believe people are giving this game a pass. People trashed The Conduit for being full of corridors, yet it's that way with RS2 and tons of other games. RS2 isn't terrible, but I don't find it groundbreaking.[QUOTE="kenakuma"][QUOTE="KillerJuan77"]
GENERIC!
Also, Red Steel 2 looks way better.
psychobrew
Red Steel's art style looks amazing and not only for a wii game!
I guess it's true -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see anything special about Red Steel 2s graphics, find its gameplay somewhat stiff, and besides the sword play, generic. I can't believe people are giving this game a pass. People trashed The Conduit for being full of corridors, yet it's that way with RS2 and tons of other games. RS2 isn't terrible, but I don't find it groundbreaking.Its graphics were nothin special but its art style was cool.
I haven't played the game yet so I can't comment on that but from what I hear its single player blows the conduit's away!
I guess it's true -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see anything special about Red Steel 2s graphics, find its gameplay somewhat stiff, and besides the sword play, generic. I can't believe people are giving this game a pass. People trashed The Conduit for being full of corridors, yet it's that way with RS2 and tons of other games. RS2 isn't terrible, but I don't find it groundbreaking.[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="kenakuma"]
Red Steel's art style looks amazing and not only for a wii game!
kenakuma
Its graphics were nothin special but its art style was cool.
I haven't played the game yet so I can't comment on that but from what I hear its single player blows the conduit's away!
Characters looks very good BUT the doors & switches looks like 8yr old kid's artwork, the environment/surroundings looks average. Depends if you like this type of game - get mission from base, complete mission return to base, get another mission etc etc (rinse and repeat). That's one of major gripe I have with RS2 ruins the game flow for me.
[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="LastRambo341"] Ah, so now GS doesn't matter anymore. I think Conduit does a good job in the technical standpoint and the 2nd one will do much better.intro94GS does matter, they are correct in saying it's "technically good". They are also correct in saying the game is called "The Conduit". Both fairly meaningless facts! Piling 100 tons of cow dung in the middle of my front garden would be "technically impressive", it would still stink :P technically good is to acknowledge an achievement in a positive manner. Is different than stating a name(a name is no achievement, being GOOD at something is). And MG 1 was impressive many years ago for the platform. Gun was not considered technically impressive for its platform. Conduit was technically impressive for its platform, and that was last year(not 10 years ago).When reviewers speak bad of a game visuals they dont say "its technically impressive bad".That phrase is reserved for a POSITIVE achievement, if your semantics arent helping you right now. K well if you impressed by the amount of numbers they can cruch out of the Wii good for you :) I'd be more concerned with how the game looks than how hard it was for them to program it :P
on the Factor 5 website, it still says they are working ona number of multi platform titles. hopefully its wii stuff as those boys new how to push the GCN from day one, let alone a wii with at least 3 times the total grunt of the GCN. why havent we seen many (if any) games MATCH let alone surpass Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike......
Because devs need to create their own graphics engineon the Factor 5 website, it still says they are working ona number of multi platform titles. hopefully its wii stuff as those boys new how to push the GCN from day one, let alone a wii with at least 3 times the total grunt of the GCN. why havent we seen many (if any) games MATCH let alone surpass Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike......
kungfool69
[QUOTE="KillerJuan77"]
[QUOTE="kenakuma"]
You may :P
kenakuma
GENERIC!
Also, Red Steel 2 looks way better.
Red Steel's art style looks amazing and not only for a wii game!
Yep, and it runs at 60 FPS at times so it's even more impressive.
The way the soldiers look as well as the industrial looking setting reminds me of the original FEAR. It's only too bad the Wii could never run a decent looking version of FEAR. Just way too complex.
[QUOTE="intro94"][QUOTE="locopatho"] GS does matter, they are correct in saying it's "technically good". They are also correct in saying the game is called "The Conduit". Both fairly meaningless facts! Piling 100 tons of cow dung in the middle of my front garden would be "technically impressive", it would still stink :Plocopathotechnically good is to acknowledge an achievement in a positive manner. Is different than stating a name(a name is no achievement, being GOOD at something is). And MG 1 was impressive many years ago for the platform. Gun was not considered technically impressive for its platform. Conduit was technically impressive for its platform, and that was last year(not 10 years ago).When reviewers speak bad of a game visuals they dont say "its technically impressive bad".That phrase is reserved for a POSITIVE achievement, if your semantics arent helping you right now. K well if you impressed by the amount of numbers they can cruch out of the Wii good for you :) I'd be more concerned with how the game looks than how hard it was for them to program it :P if the numbers produce somethign decent (like the bump mapping textures on clothing and aliens) sure, i also fall in the line of the impressed.As i said the tech was really right back then, it was the art helding it back.is not impossible to do both given than art is a subjective element that depends on the artists and no hardware.
nah is not really.is easier to do a decent looking FEAR(1) at least. than its to do the upcoming MW.The way the soldiers look as well as the industrial looking setting reminds me of the original FEAR. It's only too bad the Wii could never run a decent looking version of FEAR. Just way too complex.
mouthforbathory
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment