MGS4 Graphics underrated by fanboys

... yet critically acclaimed by people that are actually credible.

I just wanted to remind ALL OF YOU that MGS4 is still one of the best console looking games to date. We all know that it doesn't have the best textures at times, but the game looks so great that it basically bested every other game that came out in 2008 (including Gears 2) ACCORDING TO GAMESPOTS ANNUAL AWARDS (technical achievement award).

Yes, it's easy to find a bad screen of the game... we all know that, but it's critically acclaimed for its visuals by pretty much everyone that is credible. Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, and soon to be God of War 3... outstanding looking games. Just don't forget about MGS4.

MGS4 is the most over-rated graphical game I've ever played.

P.S.

MGS4 has nasty jaggy shadows and last gen textrues...the game just has really good face modles.

I disagree Juggernaut140

That's absolutely fine... it just means that you're wrong :P

Uncharted 1 looks better.:P

Also, character models>everything else.

Uncharted 1 looks better.:P

Also, character models>everything else.

mitu123

Uncharted 1 is an awesome looking game... but no, technically not better that MGS4. MGS4 has large enemies, enormous robots, a freaking WAR zone going on most of the time... and it still keeps its amazing graphics and steady frame-rate intact.

Uncharted 1 really never had much going on on screen, besides the cave-escape sequence in the beginning of the game. Uncharted 2 on the other hand, has plenty of those interactive crazy sequences, and still manages to top Uncharted 1.

MGS4 has some ugly ass textures.KHAndAnime

You guys only read the topic title... don't you :|

Yes, I'm going to take Gamespot's word for it when they say MGS4 is superior to Crysis Warhead. Who needs logic anyways, it's overrated. :)

I agree its one of the best looking games this gen.

Metal Gear Solid 4 looked totally underwhelming almost throughout. The screenshots look terrible because the game displayed at a low resolution with low levels of anti-aliasing. Same reason Halo 3 and Call of Duty look terrible in screenshots. I don't understand what's supposed to be so awesome about the game. The environment textures and geometry complexity were okay....model polycounts were good and so were model textures, but it didn't have an advanced lighting engine and the action really wasn't that overwhelming compared to modern games. It was a good looking game, but I fail to understand what makes it the best.Brownesque

All you would have to do is read the gamespot review for MGS4...

and the Gamespot technical achievement award of '08.

I don't get it... you all use GS reviews for flop judgement, yet you refuse to go by any of there other statements. System Wars needs to make a little more sense.

Yes, I'm going to take Gamespot's word for it when they say MGS4 is superior to Crysis Warhead. Who needs logic anyways, it's overrated. :)

Stevo_the_gamer

Hey Stevo, how are you doing.

Why would you listen to their reviews then? Just curious...

All you would have to do is read the gamespot review for MGS4...

and the Gamespot technical achievement award of '08.

I don't get it... you all use GS reviews for flop judgement, yet you refuse to go by any of there other statements. System Wars needs to make a little more sense.

leadernator

Hey Stevo, how are you doing.

Why would you listen to their reviews then? Just curious...

leadernator

Wow a user poll where Crysis Warhead was beaten by MSG4. Yeah real credile........ocstew

[QUOTE="ocstew"]Wow a user poll where Crysis Warhead was beaten by MSG4. Yeah real credile........jalexbrown

[QUOTE="leadernator"]Hey Stevo, how are you doing.

Why would you listen to their reviews then? Just curious...

Stevo_the_gamer

Well you said it, Gamepots word "hold weight" here... that is exactly why I used them a reference. I actually don't have to use them only... I could use IGN, Giant Bomb... you name it. You'll pretty much get the same results.

Let's say you are "right" about Crysis Warhead... so then we factor out Crysis Warhead, and consider the graphics war for CONSOLES only. What is your opinion then?

Wow a user poll where Crysis Warhead was beaten by MSG4. Yeah real credile........ocstew

It actually wasn't a user poll :|

It was an opinion generated by the Gamespot staff... you know, like Gamespot reviews :|

Well you said it, Gamepots word "hold weight" here... that is exactly why I used them a reference. I actually don't have to use them only... I could use IGN, Giant Bomb... you name it. You'll pretty much get the same results.

Let's say you are "right" about Crysis Warhead... so then we factor out Crysis Warhead, and consider the graphics war for CONSOLES only. What is your opinion then?

leadernator

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="ocstew"]Wow a user poll where Crysis Warhead was beaten by MSG4. Yeah real credile........Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]Metal Gear Solid 4 looked totally underwhelming almost throughout. The screenshots look terrible because the game displayed at a low resolution with low levels of anti-aliasing. Same reason Halo 3 and Call of Duty look terrible in screenshots. I don't understand what's supposed to be so awesome about the game. The environment textures and geometry complexity were okay....model polycounts were good and so were model textures, but it didn't have an advanced lighting engine and the action really wasn't that overwhelming compared to modern games. It was a good looking game, but I fail to understand what makes it the best.leadernator

All you would have to do is read the gamespot review for MGS4...

and the Gamespot technical achievement award of '08.

I don't get it... you all use GS reviews for flop judgement, yet you refuse to go by any of there other statements. System Wars needs to make a little more sense.

Read the screens bro

GS is off their rocker if they think this is graphically superior to Warhead.

I'm just saying that the more you come to EXPECT something, the less likely you are to be blown away by it. Sure, if Michael Phelps wins eight gold medals again, it would be impressive, but it wouldn't be nearly as impressive as it was the first time around, would it?jalexbrown

[QUOTE="leadernator"]

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]Metal Gear Solid 4 looked totally underwhelming almost throughout. The screenshots look terrible because the game displayed at a low resolution with low levels of anti-aliasing. Same reason Halo 3 and Call of Duty look terrible in screenshots. I don't understand what's supposed to be so awesome about the game. The environment textures and geometry complexity were okay....model polycounts were good and so were model textures, but it didn't have an advanced lighting engine and the action really wasn't that overwhelming compared to modern games. It was a good looking game, but I fail to understand what makes it the best.Brownesque

All you would have to do is read the gamespot review for MGS4...

and the Gamespot technical achievement award of '08.

I don't get it... you all use GS reviews for flop judgement, yet you refuse to go by any of there other statements. System Wars needs to make a little more sense.

Read the screens bro

GS is off their rocker if they think this is graphically superior to Warhead.

You can just as easily find an amazing screenshot for the game :|

I played the game... didn't have to analyze your "selected" screenshot. Sorry.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]I'm just saying that the more you come to EXPECT something, the less likely you are to be blown away by it. Sure, if Michael Phelps wins eight gold medals again, it would be impressive, but it wouldn't be nearly as impressive as it was the first time around, would it?Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

[QUOTE="leadernator"]

All you would have to do is read the gamespot review for MGS4...

and the Gamespot technical achievement award of '08.

I don't get it... you all use GS reviews for flop judgement, yet you refuse to go by any of there other statements. System Wars needs to make a little more sense.

leadernator

Read the screens bro

GS is off their rocker if they think this is graphically superior to Warhead.

You can just as easily find an amazing screenshot for the game :|

I played the game... didn't have to analyze your "selected" screenshot. Sorry.

[QUOTE="leadernator"]

Well you said it, Gamepots word "hold weight" here... that is exactly why I used them a reference. I actually don't have to use them only... I could use IGN, Giant Bomb... you name it. You'll pretty much get the same results.

Let's say you are "right" about Crysis Warhead... so then we factor out Crysis Warhead, and consider the graphics war for CONSOLES only. What is your opinion then?

Stevo_the_gamer

So why don't we ever contest their reviews? It's merely you're opinion that things they say are "mistakes" or "idiotic," yet when it comes down to it... they are the credible journalists we base our guidelines on, and you're simply a poster here at system wars.

You know where this is going Stevo. You better quit before things get ugly.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

[QUOTE="leadernator"]

Well you said it, Gamepots word "hold weight" here... that is exactly why I used them a reference. I actually don't have to use them only... I could use IGN, Giant Bomb... you name it. You'll pretty much get the same results.

Let's say you are "right" about Crysis Warhead... so then we factor out Crysis Warhead, and consider the graphics war for CONSOLES only. What is your opinion then?

leadernator

So why don't we ever contest their reviews? It's merely you're opinion that things they say are "mistakes" or "idiotic," yet when it comes down to it... they are the credible journalists we base our guidelines on, and you're simply a poster here at system wars.

You know where this is going Stevo. You better quit before things get ugly.

Fail.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

For details on why!

Its a very good looking game and one of the best console games graphically.. but to me its more of the art design then technical graphics.

I love MGS4 but to act like MGS4 had better technical grahics then Crysis Warhead is silly, I still SMH till this game over gamespot giving that award to MGS4.

MGS 4 like any MGS has its "vibe" and it looks appealing but man technically its the most overrated game of this gen.Textures suck,bland environments,worst ground textures i have seen in a long time and on top of that,not hd.No way its underrated,its quite overrated.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="jalexbrown"]I'm just saying that the more you come to EXPECT something, the less likely you are to be blown away by it. Sure, if Michael Phelps wins eight gold medals again, it would be impressive, but it wouldn't be nearly as impressive as it was the first time around, would it?jalexbrown

I don't even think it raised the bar for PS3. Uncharted 1 looks far better than MGS4. Way more detailed textures, richer colors, superior lighting, etc.

I'm not trying to downplay anything, because I think Crysis has great graphics; in fact, I'm with all the people who can't stand it when PS3 games get compared to Crysis. That said, I believe that, as time goes on, we adapt our standards. When Crysis came out, it was a huge step up from anything before it on the platform; when Warhead came out, it was just a very small step above Crysis (which is still fantastic, mind you). When Metal Gear Solid 4 came out, it was a huge step up from anything before it on the platform. You see where I'm going with this? Metal Gear Solid 4 got the award because it raised the platform's bar over any previous title a lot more than Warhead did.jalexbrown

The logic based on that completely contradicts the very notion of the award itself -- and in doing so, opens or paves the way for a DS or PSP or iPhone game to win such award which borders on idiocy. Can you imagine the absurdity? Crysis 2 this year gets beat by a handheld game ...

[QUOTE="leadernator"]

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

Read the screens bro

GS is off their rocker if they think this is graphically superior to Warhead.

Brownesque

You can just as easily find an amazing screenshot for the game :|

I played the game... didn't have to analyze your "selected" screenshot. Sorry.

You can find ugly screens for any game out there... heck, we've already found some on God of War III. So what exactly are you proving? Nothing.

Would you care to explain why you believe you are someone more credible than gamespot... or why exactly would you even consider gamespot's review score? I'll be waiting.

[QUOTE="Brownesque"][QUOTE="leadernator"]

You can just as easily find an amazing screenshot for the game :|

I played the game... didn't have to analyze your "selected" screenshot. Sorry.

leadernator

You can find ugly screens for any game out there... heck, we've already found some on God of War III. So what exactly are you proving? Nothing.

Would you care to explain why you believe you are someone more credible than gamespot... or why exactly would you even consider gamespot's review score? I'll be waiting.

Definitely graphically overrated by fanboys.

[QUOTE="leadernator"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]They do in regards to the Gamespot's metagame in SystemWars. That doesn't mean their immune to inherent mistakes, or borderline idiocy. I don't stand by any argument which knowingly excludes the PC only because its blatantly superior.

Brownesque

So why don't we ever contest their reviews? It's merely you're opinion that things they say are "mistakes" or "idiotic," yet when it comes down to it... they are the credible journalists we base our guidelines on, and you're simply a poster here at system wars.

You know where this is going Stevo. You better quit before things get ugly.

Fail.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

For details on why!

Really. Wikipedia. You automatically forfeit your right to use the word "fail."

As I was saying... it's not only Gamespot, it's every gaming site/magazine out there. Don't go crying to me. Cry to the big boys.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]I'm not trying to downplay anything, because I think Crysis has great graphics; in fact, I'm with all the people who can't stand it when PS3 games get compared to Crysis. That said, I believe that, as time goes on, we adapt our standards. When Crysis came out, it was a huge step up from anything before it on the platform; when Warhead came out, it was just a very small step above Crysis (which is still fantastic, mind you). When Metal Gear Solid 4 came out, it was a huge step up from anything before it on the platform. You see where I'm going with this? Metal Gear Solid 4 got the award because it raised the platform's bar over any previous title a lot more than Warhead did.Stevo_the_gamer

The logic based on that completely contradicts the very notion of the award itself -- and in doing so, opens or paves the way for a DS or PSP or iPhone game to win such award which borders on idiocy. Can you imagine the absurdity? Crysis 2 this year gets beat by a handheld game ...

[QUOTE="Juggernaut140"]I disagree leadernator

That's absolutely fine... it just means that you're wrong :P

I really didn't care much for this game overall, Thank God I rented it.

so suddenly gamespot is more credible than actual evidence?

looking better has nothing to do with graphics which refers to technical measurements anyways.

[QUOTE="leadernator"]

[QUOTE="Brownesque"] I played the game too. BTW that screenshot was selected from Gamespot. Do you suppose they're trying to trick you?Brownesque

You can find ugly screens for any game out there... heck, we've already found some on God of War III. So what exactly are you proving? Nothing.

Would you care to explain why you believe you are someone more credible than gamespot... or why exactly would you even consider gamespot's review score? I'll be waiting.

No, I get what you're trying to do... but you still lose, and I'll explain that to you.

While some who is credible does not have ABSOLUTE truth... chances are, they have more truth than someone like you... someone who is not as credible, which is why it is human nature, and especially American nature to look for credibility. It's exactly the reason why you're writing your resume.

Crysis got best technical graphics in 2007. I'm not trying to downplay it any, but do you really have to be so uptight over Warhead not getting it in 2008?jalexbrown

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]Crysis got best technical graphics in 2007. I'm not trying to downplay it any, but do you really have to be so uptight over Warhead not getting it in 2008?Stevo_the_gamer

So why don't we ever contest their reviews? It's merely you're opinion that things they say are "mistakes" or "idiotic," yet when it comes down to it... they are the credible journalists we base our guidelines on, and you're simply a poster here at system wars.

You know where this is going Stevo. You better quit before things get ugly.

leadernator

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

[QUOTE="leadernator"]

So why don't we ever contest their reviews? It's merely you're opinion that things they say are "mistakes" or "idiotic," yet when it comes down to it... they are the credible journalists we base our guidelines on, and you're simply a poster here at system wars.

You know where this is going Stevo. You better quit before things get ugly.

leadernator

Fail.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

For details on why!

Really. Wikipedia. You automatically forfeit your right to use the word "fail."

As I was saying... it's not only Gamespot, it's every gaming site/magazine out there. Don't go crying to my. Cry to the big boys.

Logic is not contingent on the source, logic is independent of it. Logic would not be objective if it were not objectively confirmable.

Watch me reproduce the content in that Wiki entry, which literally mirrors the content of my introduction to logic textbook I took during my freshman year at the university....

If you say that....

P1) Gamespot says cats fart helium

P2) Gamespot is credible

C) Ergo cats fart helium

You have just committed a particular kind of non-sequitor fallacy. Non-sequitor means "does not follow." That means that the conclusion, C, does not follow necessarily from P1 and P2. As a matter of fact, cats do NOT fart helium. Whether or not Gamespot said it is entirely irrelevant to the fact. Thus it cannot possibly be established that just because Gamespot says something and is credible that it will necessarily follow that it is true.

Very simple and entirely logical demonstration that can be found in any logic textbook in the entire planet and confirmed by any logic or philosophy professor you ever meet in your entire life.

so suddenly gamespot is more credible than actual evidence?

looking better has nothing to do with graphics which refers to technical measurements anyways.

washd123

I never intended this to be a MGS4 v. Crysis Warhead thread. If you read the original post, I simply stated that it's still one of the best console titles out there. Actually, I never even mentioned Crysis Warhead to begin with.

Why did GS choose MGS4 over CW? I don't know... ask them. What do I think? Well, I think MGS4 is one of the best darn looking games on consoles.