Indisputable proof that GS is either biased or randomly chose Best Graphics (56k

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]

Nice, posting DATED and OLD MGS4 pics, that snake model isn't even the final one....gsus.

Games4thewin

Nice ones. But you can post 100 more, it still wouldn't change anything. He's right.

LOL, I've seen CS Source maps that look better than MGS4 ...

Jacumov

This thread is funny. Are people here honestly trying to justify MGS4 looking better than Warhead? :|Aljosa23

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]This thread is funny. Are people here honestly trying to justify MGS4 looking better than Warhead? :|Eyezonmii

1. Wtf are you talking about? :|

2. Okay and according to your logic, FFIV and Chains of Olympus are very impressive for the hardware they're on, why weren't they nominated?

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]This thread is funny. Are people here honestly trying to justify MGS4 looking better than Warhead? :|Aljosa23

1. Wtf are you talking about? :|

2. Okay and according to your logic, FFIV and Chains of Olympus are very impressive for the hardware they're on, why weren't they nominated?

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]This thread is funny. Are people here honestly trying to justify MGS4 looking better than Warhead? :|Eyezonmii

In all due respect even the gameplay was a bit off at times - in a limbo between nostalgia and unevolved gameplay mechanics, that really conflict against the settings and change of focus in game design.

It was a great game no doubt; though the best thing it has going for it, is its story and characters as the metal gear solid saga is wrapped up.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"] Nope...don't ASSUME things. MGS4 technically is impressive...PC is obviously more powerfull, 1.but why would GS nominated PC games every year? and besides, 2.MGS4 is dam impressive for PS3 hardware. shame some don't understand how it works.Eyezonmii

1. Wtf are you talking about? :|

2. Okay and according to your logic, FFIV and Chains of Olympus are very impressive for the hardware they're on, why weren't they nominated?

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]*Sighs*

1. Wtf are you talking about? :|

2. Okay and according to your logic, FFIV and Chains of Olympus are very impressive for the hardware they're on, why weren't they nominated?

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"][QUOTE="Eyezonmii"] *facepalm*Eyezonmii

If we go by your logic, Chains of Olympus should win, or maybe Hero of Sparta for the iPhone... sheesh. YOU don't even understand your own logic.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="DonPerian"] An SDTV's resolution is equivalent to a 1.3 megapixel camera. A 1080P HDTV set is equivalent to a 2 megapixel camera. Not much of a difference. But no, I am not saying there is no difference.DonPerian

SDTV doing 1.3 megapixel??? Can you explain to me how you got that number...

Do you know what resolution SDTV is? If yes, then please tell me so we can laugh at your statement.

Edit : BTW, you do know that you can resize any picture to fit your resolution with zoom in and out or even fit the screen... next time press the button actual size.

Hermits spend so much time infront of computers. They should read whats in front of them

sdu_1111

I like the last line, they say a few games demonstrated this better... I wonder what those games are, yet it still won... GG!

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]This thread is funny. Are people here honestly trying to justify MGS4 looking better than Warhead? :|Eyezonmii

Seems like you don't understand since this has nothing to do with hardware... it's about the game.

[QUOTE="sdu_1111"]

Hermits spend so much time infront of computers. They should read whats in front of them

Bebi_vegeta

I like the last line, they say a few games demonstrated this better... I wonder what those games are, yet it still won... GG!

Sorry, but I saw these same 'Technical Graphics Achievement' graphics back in CoD 2 four yrs ago...

I have still yet to read a point in which MGS4 outdoes crysis.

:| I can't believe the stupid logic used in this thread.

"You need a high-end PC to play Crysis at the level where it looks better than MGS4."

"MGS4 is on a weaker system therefore it has better technical graphics."

"MGS4 uses cutscenes better therefore it has better graphics."

Idiots. Anyone who thinks that these are valid arguments for the notion that MGS4 rightfully won that award need to get checked in the head by a doctor.

aliblabla2007

[QUOTE="sdu_1111"]

Why the denial?

MGS4 is winning awards everywhere. not even gamespot.

so now cause there's prob one tiny department "technical graphics" that warhead can probably outdo MGS4 hermits are gonna make a big hooha?

MGS4 won best tech graphic award at GS. deal with it.

10>8.5.

logic.

steve17989

For somebody who likes logic, your post is surprisingly illogical.

I have still yet to read a point in which MGS4 outdoes crysis.

Enosh88

Hotter chicks :P

All this talk of it not being comparable is nonsense look....

Blotchy tree leafs and blurry grass wow...Wow now look at this very comparable picture from MGS4

All this talk of it not being comparable is nonsense loo Blotchy tree leafs and blurry grass wow...Wow now look at this very comparable picture from MGS4jasonheyman

Technical Merit means it pushes the hardware above and beyond what others would do.Willy105

[QUOTE="jasonheyman"]All this talk of it not being comparable is nonsense loo Blotchy tree leafs and blurry grass wow...Wow now look at this very comparable picture from MGS4Vandalvideo

No actually I did it fair! This whole thread is how Crysis is so uncomparable to MGS4! I took a snap shot set on mid settings and a snap shot from the PS3! That is fair and very comparable to say otherwise is pure fanboyism! And no thats not the worst shot from Crysis Warhead! I could post a picture of the blocky character modeling done for the game.

No actually I did it fair! This whole thread is how Crysis is so uncomparable to MGS4! I took a snap shot set on mid settings and a snap shot from the PS3! That is fair and very comparable to say otherwise is pure fanboyism! And no thats not the worst shot from Crysis Warhead! I could post a picture of the blocky character modeling done for the game.jasonheyman

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="jasonheyman"]All this talk of it not being comparable is nonsense loo Blotchy tree leafs and blurry grass wow...Wow now look at this very comparable picture from MGS4jasonheyman

No actually I did it fair! This whole thread is how Crysis is so uncomparable to MGS4! I took a snap shot set on mid settings and a snap shot from the PS3! That is fair and very comparable to say otherwise is pure fanboyism! And no thats not the worst shot from Crysis Warhead! I could post a picture of the blocky character modeling done for the game.

:| No.

You do NOT compare graphics by lowering the graphics to "make it fair". If you want to compare tech graphics between games, you will have to use the MAXIMUM potential for either or else you're unfairly tipping the scales to suit your personal fanboy bias.

Trying to argue that you have to compare them at the same level is moronic in every way - considering that being a the same level means that there's no need for comparison anyway, and besides, the System Wars is based off the concept "you get what you pay for".

Obviously, you pay more for a PC to experience superior graphics. I share few opinions with lowe0, but he's completely right in saying that it's all about marginal price vs marginal superiority.

[QUOTE="steve17989"][QUOTE="sdu_1111"]

Why the denial?

MGS4 is winning awards everywhere. not even gamespot.

so now cause there's prob one tiny department "technical graphics" that warhead can probably outdo MGS4 hermits are gonna make a big hooha?

MGS4 won best tech graphic award at GS. deal with it.

10>8.5.

logic.

GTR2addict

For somebody who likes logic, your post is surprisingly illogical.

And he's off. Crysis Warhead scored 9.0 here.... Does that mean that it has graphics equal to Sins of a Solar Empire? I think not.

And he's off. Crysis Warhead scored 9.0 here.... Does that mean that it has graphics equal to Sins of a Solar Empire? I think not.

aliblabla2007

fanboy logic FTL

[QUOTE="jasonheyman"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Using gamespot screenshots? Really? The same people who capture low res PC video and screenshots and pretend that they are really high def. Then they try to pass them off as a comparison with console graphics? Not to mention they propigate the 2K rig myth. You're using a horrible Crysis screenshot.aliblabla2007

No actually I did it fair! This whole thread is how Crysis is so uncomparable to MGS4! I took a snap shot set on mid settings and a snap shot from the PS3! That is fair and very comparable to say otherwise is pure fanboyism! And no thats not the worst shot from Crysis Warhead! I could post a picture of the blocky character modeling done for the game.

:| No.

You do NOT compare graphics by lowering the graphics to "make it fair". If you want to compare tech graphics between games, you will have to use the MAXIMUM potential for either or else you're unfairly tipping the scales to suit your personal fanboy bias.

Trying to argue that you have to compare them at the same level is moronic in every way - considering that being a the same level means that there's no need for comparison anyway, and besides, the System Wars is based off the concept "you get what you pay for".

Obviously, you pay more for a PC to experience superior graphics. I share few opinions with lowe0, but he's completely right in saying that it's all about marginal price vs marginal superiority.

No right back;)

I'm not a fan of either and I can honestly say they are comparable I took snap shots from both on this website and to say Crysis on medium and MGS4 can not be compared would be fanboyism.

And to play that game on "high" with it's "superior graphics" and have it run smooth would be almost on a 3,000 dollar rig. So how many can afford to play that "superior" part?? Huh?? I wonder:roll:

[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"]And he's off. Crysis Warhead scored 9.0 here.... Does that mean that it has graphics equal to Sins of a Solar Empire? I think not.

shadow_hosi

fanboy logic FTL

The logic also says that M2TW is less graphically impressive than Half-Life 1, than Call of Duty 2 had worse graphics than Call of Duty 1 and that Warcraft 3 looks better than CoH. :lol:

[QUOTE="crazy-player"]Yeah, choose one of the most horrible pics for MGS4, and one of the best for Crysis...FirstDiscovery

[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"]

[QUOTE="jasonheyman"]

No actually I did it fair! This whole thread is how Crysis is so uncomparable to MGS4! I took a snap shot set on mid settings and a snap shot from the PS3! That is fair and very comparable to say otherwise is pure fanboyism! And no thats not the worst shot from Crysis Warhead! I could post a picture of the blocky character modeling done for the game.

jasonheyman

:| No.

You do NOT compare graphics by lowering the graphics to "make it fair". If you want to compare tech graphics between games, you will have to use the MAXIMUM potential for either or else you're unfairly tipping the scales to suit your personal fanboy bias.

Trying to argue that you have to compare them at the same level is moronic in every way - considering that being a the same level means that there's no need for comparison anyway, and besides, the System Wars is based off the concept "you get what you pay for".

Obviously, you pay more for a PC to experience superior graphics. I share few opinions with lowe0, but he's completely right in saying that it's all about marginal price vs marginal superiority.

No right back;)

I'm not a fan of either and I can honestly say they are comparable I took snap shots from both on this website and to say Crysis on medium and MGS4 can not be compared would be fanboyism.

And to play that game on "high" with it's "superior graphics" and have it run smooth would be almost on a 3,000 dollar rig. So how many can afford to play that "superior" part?? Huh?? I wonder:roll:

*Sigh*

Do I have to drill the damn thing into your skull? What I am saying is that yes, IF YOU WANT TO GET THOSE SUPERIOR GRAPHICS YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, DUH. And if you think playing Crysis on high requires a 3k rig, you're probably an ultra computer illiterate. You'll be running Crysis high by building a rig for a quarter of the price. Or less, some can get one with a six hundred bucks.

MGS4 on the PS3 is not MGS4 on medium. There's only one setting, and the graphics are only affected by the display. A PC game is different, there is no "default setting", but obviously we use the highest one because in a graphics competition, YOU TAKE THE DAMN BEST OF ONE AND COMPARE IT WITH THE BEST OF THE OTHER.

And to play that game on "high" with it's "superior graphics" and have it run smooth would be almost on a 3,000 dollar rig. So how many can afford to play that "superior" part?? Huh?? I wonder:roll:

jasonheyman

/facepalm

you compare games at the highest graphical settings or you don't at all, besides I don't see anywhere in the award writen "crysis is compared at medium"

[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"]

[QUOTE="jasonheyman"]

No actually I did it fair! This whole thread is how Crysis is so uncomparable to MGS4! I took a snap shot set on mid settings and a snap shot from the PS3! That is fair and very comparable to say otherwise is pure fanboyism! And no thats not the worst shot from Crysis Warhead! I could post a picture of the blocky character modeling done for the game.

jasonheyman

:| No.

You do NOT compare graphics by lowering the graphics to "make it fair". If you want to compare tech graphics between games, you will have to use the MAXIMUM potential for either or else you're unfairly tipping the scales to suit your personal fanboy bias.

Trying to argue that you have to compare them at the same level is moronic in every way - considering that being a the same level means that there's no need for comparison anyway, and besides, the System Wars is based off the concept "you get what you pay for".

Obviously, you pay more for a PC to experience superior graphics. I share few opinions with lowe0, but he's completely right in saying that it's all about marginal price vs marginal superiority.

No right back;)

I'm not a fan of either and I can honestly say they are comparable I took snap shots from both on this website and to say Crysis on medium and MGS4 can not be compared would be fanboyism.

And to play that game on "high" with it's "superior graphics" and have it run smooth would be almost on a 3,000 dollar rig. So how many can afford to play that "superior" part?? Huh?? I wonder:roll:

And I thought you couldn't get any worse. I can play the game on high and my rig costs roughly $550. About near the price of a PS3, no?

[QUOTE="jasonheyman"][QUOTE="aliblabla2007"]

:| No.

You do NOT compare graphics by lowering the graphics to "make it fair". If you want to compare tech graphics between games, you will have to use the MAXIMUM potential for either or else you're unfairly tipping the scales to suit your personal fanboy bias.

Trying to argue that you have to compare them at the same level is moronic in every way - considering that being a the same level means that there's no need for comparison anyway, and besides, the System Wars is based off the concept "you get what you pay for".

Obviously, you pay more for a PC to experience superior graphics. I share few opinions with lowe0, but he's completely right in saying that it's all about marginal price vs marginal superiority.

aliblabla2007

No right back;)

I'm not a fan of either and I can honestly say they are comparable I took snap shots from both on this website and to say Crysis on medium and MGS4 can not be compared would be fanboyism.

And to play that game on "high" with it's "superior graphics" and have it run smooth would be almost on a 3,000 dollar rig. So how many can afford to play that "superior" part?? Huh?? I wonder:roll:

*Sigh*

Do I have to drill the damn thing into your skull? What I am saying is that yes, IF YOU WANT TO GET THOSE SUPERIOR GRAPHICS YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, DUH. And if you think playing Crysis on high requires a 3k rig, you're probably an ultra computer illiterate. You'll be running Crysis high by builing a rig for a quarter of the price.

MGS4 on the PS3 is not MGS4 on medium. There's only one setting, and the graphics are only affected by the display. A PC game is different, there is no "default setting", but obviously we use the highest one because in a graphics competition, YOU TAKE THE DAMN BEST OF ONE AND COMPARE IT WITH THE BEST OF THE OTHER.

(Facepalm)

(Sigh)

No again! Wow I wonder why GS picked it(MGS4)? Hmmm I wonder maybe their logic was because you can upgrade your rig and get some extra sharper images and consoles cant maybe they thought that would be unfair since you pay for that option and can have it when you want? HUH just maybe that might be their logic. And on the other hand maybe their logic was MGS4 is impressive? WOW who would have thought??

(Sighs again)

(Facepalm)

(Sigh)

No again! Wow I wonder why GS picked it(MGS4)? Hmmm I wonder maybe their logic was because you can upgrade your rig and get some extra sharper images and consoles cant maybe they thought that would be unfair since you pay for that option and can have it when you want? HUH just maybe that might be their logic. And on the other hand maybe their logic was MGS4 is impressive? WOW who would have thought??

(Sighs again)

jasonheyman

Do you see anything about PRICE in BEST TECHNICAL GRAPHICS? Hmm?

By your logic, when comparing two people in a "tallest person award" the shorter guy should get it because his genes had decided something he could do little about. :roll:

That's like asking "which had better graphics: Starcraft or Crysis?" Then saying that Starcraft looked better because it came out 9 years earlier.

[QUOTE="jasonheyman"]

And to play that game on "high" with it's "superior graphics" and have it run smooth would be almost on a 3,000 dollar rig. So how many can afford to play that "superior" part?? Huh?? I wonder:roll:

Enosh88

/facepalm

you compare games at the highest graphical settings or you don't at all, besides I don't see anywhere in the award writen "crysis is compared at medium"

(Sigh)

Then they need to put PC in a different category since you get to add a 400 dollar graphics card whenever you want! I mean really:roll:

I don't really want to stoke the fire here anymore, but the word "Technical" has to be in the title for a particular reason. Otherwise, the award would simply be called "Best Graphics". I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what exactly "Technical" means in this case, but I guess I'll just leave that up to Gamespot. Lab392

there are 2 awards for graphics (Artistic and Technical)

Artistic: more subjective, its not about hardware horsepower or resolutions, but about attractive and usually charming graphics (SMG won last year)

Technical: this is less subjective. this is all about resolution, textures, draw distance... you know, the 'technical' stuff

I wonder how many people think that the system being weaker or cheaper somehow makes the games on it have better graphics. I really do. :|

Come on, think like that and you can slam MGS4 for being on a system that's more expensive than the Xbox 360, therefore "making MGS4's graphics weaker" or whatever dumb crap these guys come up with.

[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"]

[QUOTE="jasonheyman"]

No actually I did it fair! This whole thread is how Crysis is so uncomparable to MGS4! I took a snap shot set on mid settings and a snap shot from the PS3! That is fair and very comparable to say otherwise is pure fanboyism! And no thats not the worst shot from Crysis Warhead! I could post a picture of the blocky character modeling done for the game.

jasonheyman

:| No.

You do NOT compare graphics by lowering the graphics to "make it fair". If you want to compare tech graphics between games, you will have to use the MAXIMUM potential for either or else you're unfairly tipping the scales to suit your personal fanboy bias.

Trying to argue that you have to compare them at the same level is moronic in every way - considering that being a the same level means that there's no need for comparison anyway, and besides, the System Wars is based off the concept "you get what you pay for".

Obviously, you pay more for a PC to experience superior graphics. I share few opinions with lowe0, but he's completely right in saying that it's all about marginal price vs marginal superiority.

No right back;)

I'm not a fan of either and I can honestly say they are comparable I took snap shots from both on this website and to say Crysis on medium and MGS4 can not be compared would be fanboyism.

And to play that game on "high" with it's "superior graphics" and have it run smooth would be almost on a 3,000 dollar rig. So how many can afford to play that "superior" part?? Huh?? I wonder:roll:

I would also need a $3000 HDTV to fully max msg4 upscalling potential.

[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"][QUOTE="jasonheyman"]

No right back;)

I'm not a fan of either and I can honestly say they are comparable I took snap shots from both on this website and to say Crysis on medium and MGS4 can not be compared would be fanboyism.

And to play that game on "high" with it's "superior graphics" and have it run smooth would be almost on a 3,000 dollar rig. So how many can afford to play that "superior" part?? Huh?? I wonder:roll:

jasonheyman

*Sigh*

Do I have to drill the damn thing into your skull? What I am saying is that yes, IF YOU WANT TO GET THOSE SUPERIOR GRAPHICS YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, DUH. And if you think playing Crysis on high requires a 3k rig, you're probably an ultra computer illiterate. You'll be running Crysis high by builing a rig for a quarter of the price.

MGS4 on the PS3 is not MGS4 on medium. There's only one setting, and the graphics are only affected by the display. A PC game is different, there is no "default setting", but obviously we use the highest one because in a graphics competition, YOU TAKE THE DAMN BEST OF ONE AND COMPARE IT WITH THE BEST OF THE OTHER.

(Facepalm)

(Sigh)

No again! Wow I wonder why GS picked it(MGS4)? Hmmm I wonder maybe their logic was because you can upgrade your rig and get some extra sharper images and consoles cant maybe they thought that would be unfair since you pay for that option and can have it when you want? HUH just maybe that might be their logic. And on the other hand maybe their logic was MGS4 is impressive? WOW who would have thought??

(Sighs again)

I taught this was a an award based on the game and not the hardware? And that would make Crysis the better technical graphic game to date.

[QUOTE="Enosh88"][QUOTE="jasonheyman"]

And to play that game on "high" with it's "superior graphics" and have it run smooth would be almost on a 3,000 dollar rig. So how many can afford to play that "superior" part?? Huh?? I wonder:roll:

jasonheyman

/facepalm

you compare games at the highest graphical settings or you don't at all, besides I don't see anywhere in the award writen "crysis is compared at medium"

(Sigh)

Then they need to put PC in a different category since you get to add a 400 dollar graphics card whenever you want! I mean really:roll:

that's up to them, if they put the award for best graphics in a game they should give it to the game with the best ones everything else is just stupid. It's like 2 people running for 500m and guy A wins, but guy B gets the award beacose guy A used runing shoes while guy B was barefoot, well it's not guy's A problem that guy B didn't put on his shoes, beside the PSP is cheaper and got worse hardware (to contunie the analogy from before, that's guy C - without legs), why didn't god of war get the award? (your own logic)

[QUOTE="jasonheyman"]

(Facepalm)

(Sigh)

No again! Wow I wonder why GS picked it(MGS4)? Hmmm I wonder maybe their logic was because you can upgrade your rig and get some extra sharper images and consoles cant maybe they thought that would be unfair since you pay for that option and can have it when you want? HUH just maybe that might be their logic. And on the other hand maybe their logic was MGS4 is impressive? WOW who would have thought??

(Sighs again)

aliblabla2007

Do you see anything about PRICE in BEST TECHNICAL GRAPHICS? Hmm?

By your logic, when comparing two people in a "tallest person award" the shorter guy should get it because his genes had decided something he could do little about. :roll:

That's like asking "which had better graphics: Starcraft or Crysis?" Then saying that Starcraft looked better because it came out 9 years earlier.

Why does it seem people want to handicap Crysis so much. Although even on Mid range I still think it looks better than anything on the other systems.

They are also brining price in to this, but 'forgetting' that you really need a HDTV to see the MGS 4 HD Graphics, which would even out with a computer that could run Crysis on High.