[QUOTE="themyth01"]
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] 1- I am well aware of motion blur being used alot in games. It bugs me in Killzone 2 as well.
2- Again just because Crysis is the best looking game on the market, doesn't mean you necessarily always need those level graphics for you to be good. That's like saying if you care for great films just watch the Godfather because it's the best(just a random example). You can have good/great graphics that will never touch crysis. There is more to it than that, especially from a technical standpoint. He found it nothing special visually. Why so defensive.
3- How is arguing art direction not a valid complaint? why because it's opinion? than why not stop everyone from saying "hey i found x game to be fun". Fun is an opinion as well, so are many other things. Art direction like any subjective topic can be argued.
4- All he said was that the graphics weren't great or special. That they were slightly disappointing given expectations(Big name dev, big name franchise, big time budget etc). Again you're being overly defensive for something that honestly doesn't need it :?
jg4xchamp
For someone who thinks "Gameplay is great. Halo 3 improved..! But the graphics/visuals are very disappointing" then, yes, a top PC will only suffice, again if we're talking about technical specs here. Halo Reach is practically the norm of graphics on consoles, if someone thinks they look disappointing, then all console games look disappointing (again technically speaking, assume this from now on). Most console games run at 720p with 2xMSAA. Technically they're all very similar.
Consoles can't pull very high resolutions such as 16xMSAA, it's simply not possible. All those beautiful console games are running at technically similar specs to Halo Reach.
Arguing art ****is a moot point because something that looks good to me can look like crap to you and otherwise. It's a subjective matter with no clear winner. So making an argument that x game look bad because I don't like its art ****is waste of time and plain incorrect since I made an objective statement based on a subjective premise.
If you say the graphics are bad, then I ask you to prove it. If you can do so, then you can make that claim. Otherwise, you should say you think it looks bad.
1- I never said it looks bad
2- What the hell is the point of debating in the first place. Many things are subjective and get argued. for instance your theory on how someone can't objectively find Halo Reach disappointing visually. is most certainly subjective. You haven't made an objective point to why it even lives up to a great looking title.
3- It can look bad because he finds "such and such games all delivered a superior visual experience that Halo Reach couldn't match". In it's simplest of terms that is all he ever said. He found Halo 3 to be a fiasco, and found Halo Reach to not look good. You got overly defensive.
4- And the It's my opinion and it can't possibly be wrong is one of the worst arguing tactics ever. That's basically the "I have no valid way to defend my point in a debate so I'll just say it's my opinion and that subjective topics can't be argued over". It's silly. Anyone can argue poor art design, through good reasoning. It's simple as that. Again all he said was he didn't find it visually stunning. You got defensive and naturally assumed that he needs to have crysis level graphics to enjoy visuals in a game. When there are clearly other good looking games.Depends on what the debate is for, sometimes it's to make an informed decision or arrive at an optimal conclusion among other reasons. However we tend to not delve on chicken-egg debates because we know that its subjective nature will not lead to a consensus nor does it need to. If we're debating subjective matters, we keep it in a subjective plane. We don't decide the value of a proposition based on subjective premises.
Back up for a second. I didn't say someone couldn't find Halo Reach disappointing, in fact, I agreed to the point of suggesting the next step and only thing that objectively makes that argument true, a PC game such as Crysis. An argument such as "Crysis makes Halo Reach look disappointing" could be proven correct by each game's technical specs and thus my reason for suggesting in the first place. My only other frame of reference was Halo 3, for which Halo Reach can be proven to look noticeably better by comparison of resolution and AA which are known thanks to Bungie, again objective premises.
I hope you take the time to read what I write better instead of putting things in my mouth.
sharing
Log in to comment