THIS game won best technical graphics:
(note the Quake 2 era textures in the foreground)
This game did not:
Should there be mandatory vision screenings at GS now?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
The game at the bottom looks ugly. No wonder the top one won.Willy105The top one looks like crap, also. I mean, look at those PSOne level textures. The bottom looks way better. As a matter of fact, I can name quite a few games better looking than MGS4. Hell, Kameo, a 360 launch game, has better texture quality.
Yeah, choose one of the most horrible pics for MGS4, and one of the best for Crysis...crazy-playerThat Crysis pic is fugly compared to how great the game really looks:?
[QUOTE="Willy105"]The game at the bottom looks ugly. No wonder the top one won.MortalDecayThe top one looks like crap, also. I mean, look at those PSOne level textures. The bottom looks way better. As a matter of fact, I can name quite a few games better looking than MGS4. Hell, Kameo, a 360 launch game, has better texture quality. textures aren't everthing
Can you go ahead and explain it to me?[QUOTE="AlexSays"][QUOTE="Cedmln"]SOme people don't seem to know what technical means.enygma500
Its means that even a ds game could have won that award, now quite being little fanboy babies
^this. They said best graphics "technically" While Crysis does have better graphics, its not as great a technical feat as getting MGS4 graphics on current gen consoles or getting SotC graphics on the PS2. Atleast thats what I think "technical graphics award" means. If they didnt do it like that, it would be a pointless award since PC would win every single year.[QUOTE="MortalDecay"][QUOTE="Willy105"]The game at the bottom looks ugly. No wonder the top one won.agentzero23The top one looks like crap, also. I mean, look at those PSOne level textures. The bottom looks way better. As a matter of fact, I can name quite a few games better looking than MGS4. Hell, Kameo, a 360 launch game, has better texture quality. textures aren't everthing No? If that's the case then why bother? Why not just go back to the flat shaded Star Fox SNES look? Textures are everything. They add detail to the game.
[QUOTE="Willy105"]The game at the bottom looks ugly. No wonder the top one won.MortalDecayThe top one looks like crap, also. I mean, look at those PSOne level textures. The bottom looks way better. As a matter of fact, I can name quite a few games better looking than MGS4. Hell, Kameo, a 360 launch game, has better texture quality. The PSone couldn't do those textures. They are anti-aliased, something the PSone couldn't do. The Crysis picture is quite simply ugly. Terrible lighting, ugly colors, the rocks in the background look like they are made out of sheets. The MGS4 picture looks far better, even if it has little detail. And yes, Kameo looks awesome.
[QUOTE="agentzero23"][QUOTE="MortalDecay"] The top one looks like crap, also. I mean, look at those PSOne level textures. The bottom looks way better. As a matter of fact, I can name quite a few games better looking than MGS4. Hell, Kameo, a 360 launch game, has better texture quality.MortalDecaytextures aren't everthing No? If that's the case then why bother? Why not just go back to the flat shaded Star Fox SNES look? Textures are everything. They add detail to the game. You don't need detail to make a better looking game. You just need to make it fun to watch. If Star Fox SNES's framerate wasn't so bad, it would actually good pretty good.
It is official. Everything surrounding MGS 4 is the biggest damage control ever in SW history.
As denoted by the haters, MGS 4 was supposed to be a flop of epic porportions and the PS3, the so called system with "no games" was never supposed a Game of the Year Award.
Going from claims that Sony is paying GS when Sony has economic woes is laughable.
Lets judge MGS 4's graphics on screenshots from the Middle Eastern Level and ignore South America, the snow Level, London, and the other places Snake visits,
[QUOTE="MortalDecay"][QUOTE="Willy105"]The game at the bottom looks ugly. No wonder the top one won.Willy105The top one looks like crap, also. I mean, look at those PSOne level textures. The bottom looks way better. As a matter of fact, I can name quite a few games better looking than MGS4. Hell, Kameo, a 360 launch game, has better texture quality. The PSone couldn't do those textures. They are anti-aliased, something the PSone couldn't do. The Crysis picture is quite simply ugly. Terrible lighting, ugly colors, the rocks in the background look like they are made out of sheets. The MGS4 picture looks far better, even if it has little detail. And yes, Kameo looks awesome. I was being sarcastic about the PSOne bit. The character model, and character textures (there it is again) look better in Crysis, imo. Kameo still holds it's own to this day.
Yeah, choose one of the most horrible pics for MGS4, and one of the best for Crysis...crazy-playerJoke? That's probably the worst Crysis screenshot I've seen.
[QUOTE="MortalDecay"][QUOTE="agentzero23"] textures aren't everthingWilly105No? If that's the case then why bother? Why not just go back to the flat shaded Star Fox SNES look? Textures are everything. They add detail to the game. You don't need detail to make a better looking game. You just need to make it fun to watch. If Star Fox SNES's framerate wasn't so bad, it would actually good pretty good. I still enjoy Star Fox every once in a while. For being an 16-Bit game, I can excuse the subpar frame rate. I understand where you're coming from, because cell shaded games look great if done right, and there's generally not much detail. But, I am sucker for great detail.
Technical Merit means it pushes the hardware above and beyond what others would do.Willy105And if a Wii game wins this award one day, how is System Wars going to act? Absolutely nuts because most of System Wars blindly hates the Wii anyway. The only reason this is considered okay is because this forum has a high concentration of PS3 fanboys.
It is official. Everything surrounding MGS 4 is the biggest damage control ever in SW history.
As denoted by the haters, MGS 4 was supposed to be a flop of epic porportions and the PS3, the so called system with "no games" was never supposed a Game of the Year Award.
Going from claims that Sony is paying GS when Sony has economic woes is laughable.
Lets judge MGS 4's graphics on screenshots from the Middle Eastern Level and ignore South America, the snow Level, London, and the other places Snake visits,
Let's now forget how the cows claimed MS paid GS to give multiplat games a lower score for the PS3 versions. Now all of a sudden GS is credible again? :lol:wow arent the cows the ones that were calling this lemspot? you cows and lemmings switch sides every year one year pro GS next year anti GS.It is official. Everything surrounding MGS 4 is the biggest damage control ever in SW history.
As denoted by the haters, MGS 4 was supposed to be a flop of epic porportions and the PS3, the so called system with "no games" was never supposed a Game of the Year Award.
Going from claims that Sony is paying GS when Sony has economic woes is laughable.
Lets judge MGS 4's graphics on screenshots from the Middle Eastern Level and ignore South America, the snow Level, London, and the other places Snake visits,
Ninten007
[QUOTE="Ninten007"]Let's now forget how the cows claimed MS paid GS to give multiplat games a lower score for the PS3 versions. Now all of a sudden GS is credible again? :lol:It is official. Everything surrounding MGS 4 is the biggest damage control ever in SW history.
As denoted by the haters, MGS 4 was supposed to be a flop of epic porportions and the PS3, the so called system with "no games" was never supposed a Game of the Year Award.
Going from claims that Sony is paying GS when Sony has economic woes is laughable.
Lets judge MGS 4's graphics on screenshots from the Middle Eastern Level and ignore South America, the snow Level, London, and the other places Snake visits,
MortalDecay
Yea it is all fanboys. When something does not go in their favor they claim GS or review sites were paid off. It is annoying.
MGS 4 is winning gaming awards so what is wrong with that?
The 360 won GOTY with Gears 1, the Wii with Mario Galaxy, now why cant it be PS3's turn? IMO MGS 4 is the best game out this year and the PS3 actually stepped up its gaming library and came out with some good things this year.
Get over it people. I was not making crybaby threads when Gears 1 and Galaxy wont GOTY.
MGS4 is obviously more technical. :PEuroMafia"Clearly, the way the cutscenes seamlessly blend into the gameplay has never been done before and it raises the bar" as cows say. what a crock of garbage..i swear GS just hired a bunch of monkeys from sony to do the drawing for them, i bet they didn't even look at the nominees, they just chose "which had the most votes". [QUOTE="AlexSays"]All the PS3 fanboys saying GameSpot got this right makes me laugh. So if Nintendo releases a Zelda game next year which pushes the Wii to it's limits, you'll be fine with it winning best technical graphics? No, you'd jump on the GS hate wagon and parade around proclaiming your hatred for the Wii. They whould just throw something like "iz not teh hardcorz, MGS4 is the uber graphix!!!" and somehow discount the award, just like there doing with warhead.
[QUOTE="crazy-player"]Yeah, choose one of the most horrible pics for MGS4, and one of the best for Crysis...mo0ksiThat Crysis pic is pretty ugly but it still looks better than the MGS4 screen. Agreed!
ANIMATION IS A HUGE PART OF TECHNICAL GRAPHICS! Clearly that was a factor since they were talking about how amazing the facial animations in mgs4 are which is true. screenshots can't really show that.NaylordYup, they explained pretty well why they chose MGS4 and this was probably the main reason... Also, the long cut sceneses were a other major factor because they were techniccly stunning from the animation to the expressions on thier faces and the tiny details that make it perfect.. At least thats the feel i got when i read it...
[QUOTE="enygma500"][QUOTE="AlexSays"] Can you go ahead and explain it to me?II_Seraphim_II
Its means that even a ds game could have won that award, now quite being little fanboy babies
^this. They said best graphics "technically" While Crysis does have better graphics, its not as great a technical feat as getting MGS4 graphics on current gen consoles or getting SotC graphics on the PS2. Atleast thats what I think "technical graphics award" means. If they didnt do it like that, it would be a pointless award since PC would win every single year.Bingo.So please people don't get angry and post without knowing what TECHNICAL means :D
comparison between the ORIGINAL crysis (not even warhead) and MGS4 in character models
ingame SS
ingame crysis warhead screenshot at 1680x1050 with 4XAA on enthusiast (very high)
(yes this one is ingame, stand still for 10 bloody seconds and the guns/hud go away)
[QUOTE="Willy105"]Technical Merit means it pushes the hardware above and beyond what others would do.AlexSaysAnd if a Wii game wins this award one day, how is System Wars going to act? Absolutely nuts because most of System Wars blindly hates the Wii anyway. The only reason this is considered okay is because this forum has a high concentration of PS3 fanboys. Plenty of Wii games have won that award. Shame is most of them are first-party games. The latest one was Sonic Unleashed, which I don't believe deserves it, because it looks terrible for a Wii game.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment