[QUOTE="Wild_Card"][QUOTE="abdelmessih101"][QUOTE="Wild_Card"][QUOTE="abdelmessih101"] [QUOTE="redskins2156"]I really don't like the bland graphics, yes they are an improvement over resistance 1. But still in this day and age games should have better graphics. But I'am loving the online and campaign mode. I just wish they focus on the graphics a lot more next time,abdelmessih101
I'd rather have 10/10 gameplay and framerate with 8/10 graphics than 8/10 gameplay and framerate with 10/10. I'm willing to bet most gamers agree, with the exception of videophiles and graphics whores.
whats your point? every one loves games that have great gameplay ect. but he is singleing out the graphics. just because a game has great gameplay ect does not mean it cant have great graphics or that thay should just be overlooked and not discused.The graphics for Resistance 2 are in no way sub-par. You'd be crazy to think that they are. Granted they're not the best graphics, but I would give them an 8-9/10, so you shouldn't be complaining considering the quality of the gameplay. You would need to sacrifice framerate and gameplay in order to improve the graphics, and that would a really stupid trade-off in my opinion.
lol i never said thay were subpar in fact i said thay are good. And like i said gameplay can be a perfect 10 but IMHO that does not all of a sudden mean no one should be aloud to discusse the graphics. and yea i would ratherhave good frame rates and gameplay over better graphics but there is no resone not to have or want both "mgs4 any one". Its just silly to go off on some crusade about gameplay vs graphics everytime the subjectof graphics is brought up.My point is that "focusing more on graphics next time" as the TC wanted would surely cause sacrifice elsewhere, most probably gameplay and framerate quality. I'm saying that's a stupid trade-off to ask for in my opinion. You can discuss graphics, but to expect better graphics than those of Resistance 2 (which are pretty damn good as is) while maintaining the extremely fast and smooth framerate is ridiculous.
He's criticizing them for sacrificing some textures here and there in order to allow for a massive scale and silky smooth framerate - again, that's pretty stupid in my opinon. When you put the graphics in the context of the scale, the pace, the framerate, and the gameplay, it makes no sense to want or expect more than what was offered in Resistance 2 in terms of graphics.
Also, I'd rather have a game like Resistance 2 or Ratchet and Clank once a year than a game like MGS4 every 4-5 years. ;)
yea i agree BUT its obviusly posable to have it all. Ifany thing else look at killzone 2. of coursei would rather have gameplay and fram rates but like i said we can have it all. and realy the things i have noticed that are lacking in R2 would not even hurt the Frames. mostly just some realy uninspiredtexture work. wich has more to do with art style and just attention from the devs than it does with useing up hardwear resources. I just think it was rushed along in that department. just as an example. if you have a Wii and have played metriod prime 3 im sure you noticed that the textures have such great level of style. much much better than r2 in fact. not in resolution of course but the textures them selves on the enviroments. That is whats lacking in R2. there is just a number of bland textures that the artist just didnt care about. as far as game release times i would rather thay take there time on a project and make it the best it can be. there are plenty of devlopers out there putting out games to sweat release dates ect. i mean shoot look at all the big games that have come out in this last 2 months. LBP,farcry2,fallout3,resistence 2,deadspace ect. and at least one of those games (coughfarcry2cough" could defenitly benafited from another few months of dev lol.And i dont think it took 4-5 years to make MGS4 but even if it did it was well worth the wait ;)
Log in to comment