Graphics King comments are entirely subjective

Like the topic title, this topic is entirely subjective and not meant to be someone trying to preach something as FACT (common practice in SW). The way I see it, graphics in a videogame are entirely subjective based on the preferences you have. If you are going to straight realism in a game, Uncharted 2 might come to mind with its semi-photorealistic take on Nepal or Crysis 2 with its beautifully realized world about New York City facing the same fate as Charlie Sheen in Detroit (in case you dont know what I am talking about, Charlie Sheens first show in Detroit was a disaster, just like New York City is in a disastrous state). Another thing is that if you are sucker for vibrant, colourful and imaginary fantasy worlds then Final Fantasy XIII might come to mind, or maybe even Valkryia Chronicles.

So my stance is that Graphics King is not what a reviewer states, or what a developer boasts, it is what you make it out to be! Do not let reviewers choose what you think the graphics king should be, everyone has their own. Games that have the most impressive tech should not necessarily be labelled graphics king, they should be labelled as something like "Technical King" or maybe something a little more intelligent.

In case you were wondering, which you probably werent, my personal Graphics King is FFXIII because I am a fan of those kinds to fantasy style-futuristic visuals, followed very closely by Crysis 2.

NOTE: When typing that last sentence, I said to myself "Blog it!" but realized that I have already typed too much, my bad

If any of that came across as me trying to preach fact, it was not my intention, sorry in advance

for the majority of system wars, this is true. however if someone were to post an explanation with technical facts then it's objective.

Crysis still wins because it owns both artistically and technically.

So yeah, Crysis is still graphics king.

The movie Avatar has better effects than the old Star Trek TV series, that is not subjective.

Crysis has better graphics than Goldeneye 64, that is not subjective.

wrong, you are confusing graphics for art-style.

I think you're right. So far consolegraphics king title has gone from UC2-> GOW3-> Killzone 3 -> Crysis 2

I still think UC2 looks the best out of all of them.

I think you're right. So far consolegraphics king title has gone from UC2-> GOW3-> Killzone 3 -> Crysis 2

I still think UC2 looks the best out of all of them.

good_sk8er7

and do you know why people say that? it's because a game that came out afterwards apparently has to look better than an earlier game. seriously it's just because killzone 3 and crysis 2 are newer that they're the one's everyone talks about on SW.

killzone 3 is pretty much at the exact same level as killzone 2 was technically and uncharted 2 and god of war 3 are the most impressive titles out of those.

[QUOTE="good_sk8er7"]

I think you're right. So far consolegraphics king title has gone from UC2-> GOW3-> Killzone 3 -> Crysis 2

I still think UC2 looks the best out of all of them.

theuncharted34

and do you know why people say that? it's because a game that came out afterwards apparently has to look better than an earlier game. seriously it's just because killzone 3 and crysis 2 are newer that they're the one's everyone talks about on SW.

killzone 3 is pretty much at the exact same level as killzone 2 was technically and uncharted 2 and god of war 3 are the most impressive titles out of those.

Artistically it's subjective, technical graphics are objective.tagyhag

The movie Avatar has better effects than the old Star Trek TV series, that is not subjective.

Crysis has better graphics than Goldeneye 64, that is not subjective.

MIYAMOTOnext007

Artistically it's subjective, technical graphics are objective.tagyhag

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]Artistically it's subjective, technical graphics are objective.rybe1025

I'll use baseball as an example. The Yankees are the best team... that is subjective, I merely said they're the best because I like them, someone else could say the Pirates are the best, even though they suck. The Yankees are the most successful team in the history of baseball, having won 27 World Series, 17 more than the team with the 2nd most. That is objective. Now some could say "But team X has won more recently and was only recently formed so considering the amount of time they've been around they're the most successful, not the Yankees" and while I would argue they're wrong, it's not like either of us are 100% factually correct. Same logic applies, saying Crysis has the best technical graphics is the general consensus because of its scale, lighting, models, etc., but someone else could say that Metro 2033 looks better because of superior textures and character models. There's no scientific method for determining the graphics king, but using existing facts such as the scale of each game, lighting, modeling, textures, and other graphical attributes, everyone can decide what they believe to be, objectively, the game with the best graphics.

Hope this clears up the misconception that something isn't objective until it is 100% factual and impossible to prove wrong. In fact very little in the world is undeniable fact; many famous theories are frequently revised and advanced. It doesn't mean the previously existing theory was subjective opinion, it just means that more accurate information has become available.

for the majority of system wars, this is true. however if someone were to post an explanation with technical facts then it's objective.

theuncharted34

The artistic side is subjective, while the technical side is objective. However, in the real world the vast majority of people posting in system wars simply don't know enough to make a judgement call on the technical merits of a game.

I mean, how do you separate out all the elements and somehow plug it into an equation that will tell you which one is technically superior? You can't. All that we can do is make educated guesses.

I don't think some people can look at a game and really see what it is doing on a technical level. They look at small-scale, linear, scripted games and call them technically superior to games that have far greater scale, physics and dynamic gameplay. You can't compare things that way. All game development is about making trade-offs and it is ignorant to claim that your prefered set of trade-offs is objectively superior.

I guess I could make a game that consists solely of the interior of an 8ft x 8ft room, but rendered in splendid detail, and many people would be claiming that it blows away the likes of Crysis 2 and Red Dead Redemption.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="good_sk8er7"]

I think you're right. So far consolegraphics king title has gone from UC2-> GOW3-> Killzone 3 -> Crysis 2

I still think UC2 looks the best out of all of them.

Mozelleple112

and do you know why people say that? it's because a game that came out afterwards apparently has to look better than an earlier game. seriously it's just because killzone 3 and crysis 2 are newer that they're the one's everyone talks about on SW.

killzone 3 is pretty much at the exact same level as killzone 2 was technically and uncharted 2 and god of war 3 are the most impressive titles out of those.

Since when do reviewers tell us who's graphics king?

Since when do reviewers tell us who's graphics king?

coreybg

Then who does ?

The artistic side is subjective, while the technical side is objective. However, in the real world the vast majority of people posting in system wars simply don't know enough to make a judgement call on the technical merits of a game.

I mean, how do you separate out all the elements and somehow plug it into an equation that will tell you which one is technically superior? You can't. All that we can do is make educated guesses.

I don't think some people can look at a game and really see what it is doing on a technical level. They look at small-scale, linear, scripted games and call them technically superior to games that have far greater scale, physics and dynamic gameplay. You can't compare things that way. All game development is about making trade-offs and it is ignorant to claim that your prefered set of trade-offs is objectively superior.

I guess I could make a game that consists solely of the interior of an 8ft x 8ft room, but rendered in splendid detail, and many people would be claiming that it blows away the likes of Crysis 2 and Red Dead Redemption.

kalipekona

Indeed, that is why coriddor games like Uncharted 2 are considered better looking than the vast spaces of Alan Wake

Since when do reviewers tell us who's graphics king?

coreybg

[QUOTE="coreybg"]

Since when do reviewers tell us who's graphics king?

killzoneded

Then who does ?

[QUOTE="coreybg"]

Since when do reviewers tell us who's graphics king?

killzoneded

Then who does ?

Erm, the community?

When's the last time you saw a reviewer saing X game is gfx king.

[QUOTE="killzoneded"]

[QUOTE="coreybg"]

Since when do reviewers tell us who's graphics king?

coreybg

Then who does ?

Erm, the community?

When's the last time you saw a reviewer saing X game is gfx king.

Obviously not, since the community always brings up reviews to back up any graphics king claim, otherwise would be just opinion and noone would care

Most Crysis 2 reviews say it is the best looking they have ever seen on consoles, which means exactly that