Crysis cutscenes blend perfectly into gameplay too.....AAllxxjjnnlol not nearly as good as MGS4, and wait a sec, there are barely any cutscenes.
SW doesn't seem to get why MGS4 wins Graphics Award
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]Crysis cutscenes blend perfectly into gameplay too.....Blazerdt47lol not nearly as good as MGS4, and wait a sec, there are barely any cutscenes. The award was for best graphics, not most cutscenes.
[QUOTE="leadernator"][QUOTE="karasill"] I can say the same for Crysis except it's one level above MGS4 in every way. You can have many things going on at once in Crysis, the special effects are better, it has larger enviroments, has more realistic looking character models. I just dont understand. And you havent answered my question. What about the graphics in MGS4 are technically better then Crysis Warhead? Can you point something out that MGS4 does better?karasill
I did answer your question. You're just not accepting it. 'I can say the same for Crysis except it's one level above MGS4 in every way.' RIIIIIIGHT :|
Because there's a huge mech-on-mech battle in Crysis, right? Motor-bike chase gameplay? Varying environments? What are they?
Do yourself a favor. READ BOTH GS REVIEWS. You'll get your answer from gamespot. GS does mention Crysis to have 'dense' and 'linear' environments, with a 6 hour campaign. There are negatives in the MGS4 review as well. I'm sure there's a lot to factor in... you're simply stuck on the 'textures.'
Like I said, it's not Blasphemy at all to praise MGS4's visuals as some of the best out there.
I'm not stuck on the textures :| They are just simply better in crysis Warhead. As is the lighting, the character models, the special effects, the larger environments. I bet you havent even played Crysis Warhead on very high settings. If you had, I doubt you'd be defending GS's choice. Seriously, you have no idea how foolish you sound. I've seen both games running before me, both on a 50" HDTV, and MGS4 is not the best technically.Scenarios in a game has nothing to do with technical graphics. Technical means the technology behind the game's look. Meaning what about it makes the game look the way it does, not the scenario that is being played out. It's how advanced and realistic the lighting, the textures, the geometry count, the character models, the size of the enviroments, the particle effects and other special effects are that determine what game has the best technical graphics.
So answer my question, point it out. What does MGS4 do better then Crysis Warhead? Does is have better lighting? Does it have better looking water? Does it have better looking particle effects? Does it have better and mre realistic looking character models? Does it have larger enviroments? A larger draw distance? Does it have volumetric clouds and smoke? Does it have an actaul sky and not a sky box? The list can go on and on. Please name it because I'm dying to know.
You are so ignorant. Ok do you want me to say why MGS4 is better? 6 hours with linear gameplay is a big LOL. Did you also say levels are bigger? I hope your joking. MGS4 has such a huge amount of variety of levels out there. If we put all the levels in MGS4 together we might have it about 5x as big or more than Crysis. How about what's going on screen? MGS4 has more going on than Crysis and anyone that played can see that. Don't deny it.
You are so ignorant. Ok do you want me to say why MGS4 is better? 6 hours with linear gameplay is a big LOL. Did you also say levels are bigger? I hope your joking. MGS4 has such a huge amount of variety of levels out there. If we put all the levels in MGS4 together we might have it about 5x as big or more than Crysis. How about what's going on screen? MGS4 has more going on than Crysis and anyone that played can see that. Don't deny it.Blazerdt47MGS4 is a very linear game, and by larger levels they don't mean the length. They meant the sheer size of the level, which is much bigger in Crysis. What's going on on screen? Both have a lot going on, but have you played Warhead (or the original Crysis, especially the mission Assault IIRC)? This topic is in regards to graphics. MGS4 pales in comparison to anything in Crysis graphically.
I did answer your question. You're just not accepting it. 'I can say the same for Crysis except it's one level above MGS4 in every way.' RIIIIIIGHT :|
Because there's a huge mech-on-mech battle in Crysis, right? Motor-bike chase gameplay? Varying environments? What are they?
Do yourself a favor. READ BOTH GS REVIEWS. You'll get your answer from gamespot. GS does mention Crysis to have 'dense' and 'linear' environments, with a 6 hour campaign. There are negatives in the MGS4 review as well. I'm sure there's a lot to factor in... you're simply stuck on the 'textures.'
Like I said, it's not Blasphemy at all to praise MGS4's visuals as some of the best out there.
I'm not stuck on the textures :| They are just simply better in crysis Warhead. As is the lighting, the character models, the special effects, the larger environments. I bet you havent even played Crysis Warhead on very high settings. If you had, I doubt you'd be defending GS's choice. Seriously, you have no idea how foolish you sound. I've seen both games running before me, both on a 50" HDTV, and MGS4 is not the best technically.Scenarios in a game has nothing to do with technical graphics. Technical means the technology behind the game's look. Meaning what about it makes the game look the way it does, not the scenario that is being played out. It's how advanced and realistic the lighting, the textures, the geometry count, the character models, the size of the enviroments, the particle effects and other special effects are that determine what game has the best technical graphics.
So answer my question, point it out. What does MGS4 do better then Crysis Warhead? Does is have better lighting? Does it have better looking water? Does it have better looking particle effects? Does it have better and mre realistic looking character models? Does it have larger enviroments? A larger draw distance? Does it have volumetric clouds and smoke? Does it have an actaul sky and not a sky box? The list can go on and on. Please name it because I'm dying to know.
You are so ignorant. Ok do you want me to say why MGS4 is better? 6 hours with linear gameplay is a big LOL. Did you also say levels are bigger? I hope your joking. MGS4 has such a huge amount of variety of levels out there. If we put all the levels in MGS4 together we might have it about 5x as big or more than Crysis. How about what's going on screen? MGS4 has more going on than Crysis and anyone that played can see that. Don't deny it. You dont even know what you're talking about. What does technical graphics mean? Game length has nothing to do with it. Yes, Crysis hss bigger levels in terms that it has a larger draw distance and i can see more of it at a time then MGS4. A lot goes on screen in crysis, play the game before you talk. I have played both MGS4 and Crysis on a 50" HDTV and MGS4 is not the better looking game out of the two.
[QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]Crysis cutscenes blend perfectly into gameplay too.....Blazerdt47lol not nearly as good as MGS4, and wait a sec, there are barely any cutscenes. Wait a sec, MGS4 only blends into gameplay like 3 times. And Crysis does it just as well.
[QUOTE="leadernator"][QUOTE="Pinkyimp"]"MGS4 has the best graphics because it has hours of beautiful cutscenes blended with a smooth perfect transition to gameplay."
hahahaha, seriously this is GOLD!. Stop putting stupid excuses trying to justify MGS4 winning the award.
karasill
You guys are really being brats about this :|
MGS4's visuals are ARGUABLY the best this gen. Not everyone may agree, but it's case is definitely JUSTIFIED.
The awards are over, quit crying. Spike TV gave best graphics to MGS4 as well... is something with them as well :|
Take the 'BIASED-goggles' off, please.
..and Merry Christmas
Take the biased goggles off? How about you take them off. In what way is MGS4 technically better looking then Crysis Warhead? Is it the textures? The models? The lighting? The draw dstance? What is it? I await your respone with much enthusiasm.I think MGS4 recieved [and deserved] this award because of what it manages to pull off graphically, with respect to the limitations of the platform - in this case the PS3 hardware...
in other words, it doesn't require much development prowess to get a game to run and look impressive on a powerful PC... it is [obviously] considerably more difficult to get a console game to look and perform outstanding and that's just what MGS4 does...
I think MGS4 recieved [and deserved] this award because of what it manages to pull off graphically, with respect to the limitations of the platform - in this case the PS3 hardware... in other words, it doesn't require much development prowess to get a game to run and look impressive on a powerful PC... it is [obviously] considerably more difficult to get a console game to look and perform outstanding and that's just what MGS4 does...67gt500
Perhaps, but when you bring in optimization and the idea that PC games need to scale to multiple systems the development process in relation to graphics is quite difficult. And by technical standards, there are a few 360/PS3 games that look better than MGS4 for the platform they're on, and for the type of game they are.
[QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="leadernator"]Take the biased goggles off? How about you take them off. In what way is MGS4 technically better looking then Crysis Warhead? Is it the textures? The models? The lighting? The draw dstance? What is it? I await your respone with much enthusiasm.You guys are really being brats about this :|
MGS4's visuals are ARGUABLY the best this gen. Not everyone may agree, but it's case is definitely JUSTIFIED.
The awards are over, quit crying. Spike TV gave best graphics to MGS4 as well... is something with them as well :|
Take the 'BIASED-goggles' off, please.
..and Merry Christmas
67gt500
I think MGS4 recieved [and deserved] this award because of what it manages to pull off graphically, with respect to the limitations of the platform - in this case the PS3 hardware...
in other words, it doesn't require much development prowess to get a game to run and look impressive on a powerful PC... it is (obviously) considerably more difficult to get a console game to look and perform outstanding and that's just what MGS4 does...
GS does not mention this, and until they do I have no reason to believe assumptions. This was a technical graphics award and technically Crysis is better.
[QUOTE="67gt500"][QUOTE="karasill"] Take the biased goggles off? How about you take them off. In what way is MGS4 technically better looking then Crysis Warhead? Is it the textures? The models? The lighting? The draw dstance? What is it? I await your respone with much enthusiasm.karasill
I think MGS4 recieved [and deserved] this award because of what it manages to pull off graphically, with respect to the limitations of the platform - in this case the PS3 hardware...
in other words, it doesn't require much development prowess to get a game to run and look impressive on a powerful PC... it is (obviously) considerably more difficult to get a console game to look and perform outstanding and that's just what MGS4 does...
GS does not mention this, and until they do I have no reason to believe assumptions. This was a technical graphics award and technically Crysis is better.
You and Saturos make good points... but, in the absence of an official explanation from GS, all that we really can do is speculate and assume...
see, I'm a car guy, not a computer guy, so when I heard about MGS4's win in this category, I likend it to a race between a $500,000.00 Ferrari (Crysis) and a $150,000.00 Ford GT (MGS4). The Ferrari is a performance monster, the GT crew, however, really had to study and tweak the car to get the most out it performance-wise. The two cars race, and the Ferrari wins (of course, it should right? It's a Ferrari after all) but not by much - the GT gives it a good run for it's money. The GT might not have crossed the line first, but if you polled the spectators about which was the better car, most of them are gonna say "the GT is, cuz it damn-near clocked that Ferrari"
[QUOTE="MetroidPrimePwn"]The award is for Best Graphics: Technical. What game has the best graphics from a technical effects standpoint?EyezonmiiMGS4 was pretty technical for the hardware it was on...it stood its ground even against the most technical PC titles....Besides crysis won last year and warhead is basically the same game. Uhm no. HL2 EP2, Stalker CS, FC2, and etc pwn MGS4 technically. The game has horrible aliasing and godawful textures.
[QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="67gt500"]I think MGS4 recieved [and deserved] this award because of what it manages to pull off graphically, with respect to the limitations of the platform - in this case the PS3 hardware...
in other words, it doesn't require much development prowess to get a game to run and look impressive on a powerful PC... it is (obviously) considerably more difficult to get a console game to look and perform outstanding and that's just what MGS4 does...
67gt500
GS does not mention this, and until they do I have no reason to believe assumptions. This was a technical graphics award and technically Crysis is better.
You and Saturos make good points... but, in the absence of an official explanation from GS, all that we really can do is speculate and assume...
see, I'm a car guy, not a computer guy, so when I heard about MGS4's win in this category, I likend it to a race between a $500,000.00 Ferrari (Crysis) and a $150,000.00 Ford GT (MGS4). The Ferrari is a performance monster, the GT crew, however, really had to study and tweak the car to get the most out it performance-wise. The two cars race, and the Ferrari wins (of course, it should right? It's a Ferrari after all) but not by much - the GT gives it a good run for it's money. The GT might not have crossed the line first, but if you polled the spectators about which was the better car, most of them are gonna say "the GT is, cuz it damn-near clocked that Ferrari"
Not by much? Crysis would be ahead by at least 500m.[QUOTE="StealthKnife"]MGS4, is said to "have the most realistic looking graphics"If you mean horrible textures and aliasing. i quoted that from spike a couple nights ago, and wow! u own a ps3 and you say that? that's unbelievable! anyone that played it would know the truth, or doesnt have a hd set
Dynafrom
[QUOTE="Dynafrom"][QUOTE="StealthKnife"]MGS4, is said to "have the most realistic looking graphics"If you mean horrible textures and aliasing. i quoted that from spike
StealthKnife
Spike tv? Enough said...
[QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="leadernator"]I'm not stuck on the textures :| They are just simply better in crysis Warhead. As is the lighting, the character models, the special effects, the larger environments. I bet you havent even played Crysis Warhead on very high settings. If you had, I doubt you'd be defending GS's choice. Seriously, you have no idea how foolish you sound. I've seen both games running before me, both on a 50" HDTV, and MGS4 is not the best technically.I did answer your question. You're just not accepting it. 'I can say the same for Crysis except it's one level above MGS4 in every way.' RIIIIIIGHT :|
Because there's a huge mech-on-mech battle in Crysis, right? Motor-bike chase gameplay? Varying environments? What are they?
Do yourself a favor. READ BOTH GS REVIEWS. You'll get your answer from gamespot. GS does mention Crysis to have 'dense' and 'linear' environments, with a 6 hour campaign. There are negatives in the MGS4 review as well. I'm sure there's a lot to factor in... you're simply stuck on the 'textures.'
Like I said, it's not Blasphemy at all to praise MGS4's visuals as some of the best out there.
Blazerdt47
Scenarios in a game has nothing to do with technical graphics. Technical means the technology behind the game's look. Meaning what about it makes the game look the way it does, not the scenario that is being played out. It's how advanced and realistic the lighting, the textures, the geometry count, the character models, the size of the enviroments, the particle effects and other special effects are that determine what game has the best technical graphics.
So answer my question, point it out. What does MGS4 do better then Crysis Warhead? Does is have better lighting? Does it have better looking water? Does it have better looking particle effects? Does it have better and mre realistic looking character models? Does it have larger enviroments? A larger draw distance? Does it have volumetric clouds and smoke? Does it have an actaul sky and not a sky box? The list can go on and on. Please name it because I'm dying to know.
You are so ignorant. Ok do you want me to say why MGS4 is better? 6 hours with linear gameplay is a big LOL. Did you also say levels are bigger? I hope your joking. MGS4 has such a huge amount of variety of levels out there. If we put all the levels in MGS4 together we might have it about 5x as big or more than Crysis. How about what's going on screen? MGS4 has more going on than Crysis and anyone that played can see that. Don't deny it. You're kidding right? And you're calling other people ignorant? Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5qDeWHNmk Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nzMdPwO2Qw Exhibit C: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8mM0Pj20nw[QUOTE="Blazerdt47"][QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="leadernator"]I'm not stuck on the textures :| They are just simply better in crysis Warhead. As is the lighting, the character models, the special effects, the larger environments. I bet you havent even played Crysis Warhead on very high settings. If you had, I doubt you'd be defending GS's choice. Seriously, you have no idea how foolish you sound. I've seen both games running before me, both on a 50" HDTV, and MGS4 is not the best technically.I did answer your question. You're just not accepting it. 'I can say the same for Crysis except it's one level above MGS4 in every way.' RIIIIIIGHT :|
Because there's a huge mech-on-mech battle in Crysis, right? Motor-bike chase gameplay? Varying environments? What are they?
Do yourself a favor. READ BOTH GS REVIEWS. You'll get your answer from gamespot. GS does mention Crysis to have 'dense' and 'linear' environments, with a 6 hour campaign. There are negatives in the MGS4 review as well. I'm sure there's a lot to factor in... you're simply stuck on the 'textures.'
Like I said, it's not Blasphemy at all to praise MGS4's visuals as some of the best out there.
DragonfireXZ95
Scenarios in a game has nothing to do with technical graphics. Technical means the technology behind the game's look. Meaning what about it makes the game look the way it does, not the scenario that is being played out. It's how advanced and realistic the lighting, the textures, the geometry count, the character models, the size of the enviroments, the particle effects and other special effects are that determine what game has the best technical graphics.
So answer my question, point it out. What does MGS4 do better then Crysis Warhead? Does is have better lighting? Does it have better looking water? Does it have better looking particle effects? Does it have better and mre realistic looking character models? Does it have larger enviroments? A larger draw distance? Does it have volumetric clouds and smoke? Does it have an actaul sky and not a sky box? The list can go on and on. Please name it because I'm dying to know.
You are so ignorant. Ok do you want me to say why MGS4 is better? 6 hours with linear gameplay is a big LOL. Did you also say levels are bigger? I hope your joking. MGS4 has such a huge amount of variety of levels out there. If we put all the levels in MGS4 together we might have it about 5x as big or more than Crysis. How about what's going on screen? MGS4 has more going on than Crysis and anyone that played can see that. Don't deny it. You're kidding right? And you're calling other people ignorant? Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5qDeWHNmk Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nzMdPwO2Qw Exhibit C: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8mM0Pj20nw[/QUOTE]exhibit A isnt really relivant since its not in the actaul game
[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="Blazerdt47"] I'm not stuck on the textures :| They are just simply better in crysis Warhead. As is the lighting, the character models, the special effects, the larger environments. I bet you havent even played Crysis Warhead on very high settings. If you had, I doubt you'd be defending GS's choice. Seriously, you have no idea how foolish you sound. I've seen both games running before me, both on a 50" HDTV, and MGS4 is not the best technically.You are so ignorant. Ok do you want me to say why MGS4 is better? 6 hours with linear gameplay is a big LOL. Did you also say levels are bigger? I hope your joking. MGS4 has such a huge amount of variety of levels out there. If we put all the levels in MGS4 together we might have it about 5x as big or more than Crysis. How about what's going on screen? MGS4 has more going on than Crysis and anyone that played can see that. Don't deny it. You're kidding right? And you're calling other people ignorant? Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5qDeWHNmk Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nzMdPwO2Qw Exhibit C: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8mM0Pj20n [/QUOTE]Scenarios in a game has nothing to do with technical graphics. Technical means the technology behind the game's look. Meaning what about it makes the game look the way it does, not the scenario that is being played out. It's how advanced and realistic the lighting, the textures, the geometry count, the character models, the size of the enviroments, the particle effects and other special effects are that determine what game has the best technical graphics.
So answer my question, point it out. What does MGS4 do better then Crysis Warhead? Does is have better lighting? Does it have better looking water? Does it have better looking particle effects? Does it have better and mre realistic looking character models? Does it have larger enviroments? A larger draw distance? Does it have volumetric clouds and smoke? Does it have an actaul sky and not a sky box? The list can go on and on. Please name it because I'm dying to know.
BTBAM127
exhibit A isnt really relivant since its not in the actaul game
It's still the game engine. So it is relevant.[QUOTE="BTBAM127"][QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"] You are so ignorant. Ok do you want me to say why MGS4 is better? 6 hours with linear gameplay is a big LOL. Did you also say levels are bigger? I hope your joking. MGS4 has such a huge amount of variety of levels out there. If we put all the levels in MGS4 together we might have it about 5x as big or more than Crysis. How about what's going on screen? MGS4 has more going on than Crysis and anyone that played can see that. Don't deny it.DragonfireXZ95You're kidding right? And you're calling other people ignorant? Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5qDeWHNmk Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nzMdPwO2Qw Exhibit C: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8mM0Pj20n [/QUOTE]
exhibit A isnt really relivant since its not in the actaul game
It's still the game engine. So it is relevant.whos to say you wouldnt see similar stuff if Konami released moding tools too? but regardless that video is pretty neat, the "explosion" sucked though.
[QUOTE="Dynafrom"][QUOTE="StealthKnife"]MGS4, is said to "have the most realistic looking graphics"If you mean horrible textures and aliasing. i quoted that from spike a couple nights ago, and wow! u own a ps3 and you say that? that's unbelievable! anyone that played it would know the truth, or doesnt have a hd set I do own a PS3. Mind you, I played a heckload of PC games. And I play on a 1080p HD set and I notice flaws immedietly.
StealthKnife
[QUOTE="karasill"]The award is for best technical graphics, not artistic graphics (like super mario galaxy was going for). The award is for the game that looks the best technically, as in which game has the best looking textures, the most advanced special effects, the best lighting, etc. And I can tell you MGS4 is not the best, not even on consoles. Have you seen the textures in MGS4? A lot of them look low res and washed out and I was watching my brother play it on a 50" HDTV. The only thing that impressed me were the character models, but even then those pale in comparison to the models used in Crysis. Crysis Warhead should have won. And it doest take a high end graphics card to run Crysis on high. You can buy one for $130 or less now. I dont know what GS was thinking. If the award was based on what game looks the best based on what platform they are on then GS should have said that. As far as I'm concerned though thats ont the case until proven otherwise.leadernator
MGS4 is the undisputed BEST on consoles... don't even throw that card.
We all know MGS4 doesn't have the best textures out there, but for some reason you ignore many of the games technical high points. There are ALOT that happens on screen at once (at times), you have varying enemies of all different types and sizes (mechs mixed in with soldier PMCs and other smaller machines), character models look insane, the special effects are top knotch, LARGE environments, not to mention you're always playing in different environment settings. You got the desert warfare, jungle warfare, the streets of F'n LONDON, a naval type ship, heavy snow environments, etc. And yes, the high detail in cutscenes is EXACTLY what you get in gameplay, which explains the perfect transitions. Then you have an amazing MECH on MECH gameplay scenario, the amazing bike chase.... seriously, I can go on but I've pretty much made my point.
Like I said earlier, whether it's the best looking game to date is ARGUABLE (unarguable on consoles), but definitely not blasphemy to say that it is :| It is one heck of a graphical power house.
No, it is not. Gears of War 2 does everything you mentioned better and with better and CLEANER visuals. 'ALOT' that happens on screen? Check, dismemberment, explosions, blood physics, water physics, dinamyc enviroment destruction, bullet trails with detailed particle effects affected by wind..etc. Varying enemies of all different types and sizes? Check, HORDE, 15 enemies at a time all different, some really huge some really small. Insane looking character models? Super check. Top notch special effects? Check, and dynamic. LARGE enviroments? Check, some battlefields (although MGS has more) are huge. Always playing in different envyroments? Check. High detail in cutscenes exactly like gameplay? Check. I pretty much detroyed your point. It is not a graphical powerhouse. I like the game but it doesn't look as you make it out to be, not to mention the sub-hd resolution that makes it am edge-jaggiefest.[QUOTE="StealthKnife"][QUOTE="Dynafrom"] If you mean horrible textures and aliasing. Dynafromi quoted that from spike a couple nights ago, and wow! u own a ps3 and you say that? that's unbelievable! anyone that played it would know the truth, or doesnt have a hd set I do own a PS3. Mind you, I played a heckload of PC games. And I play on a 1080p HD set and I notice flaws immedietly. this, mgs4 looks worse running at 1080p on my 42" LCD than my 29" SDTV at 480p. 1080p gives it a lot of jaggies, specially around the edges. It made it unplayable for me.
[QUOTE="Dynafrom"][QUOTE="StealthKnife"] i quoted that from spike a couple nights ago, and wow! u own a ps3 and you say that? that's unbelievable! anyone that played it would know the truth, or doesnt have a hd set longshotgirI do own a PS3. Mind you, I played a heckload of PC games. And I play on a 1080p HD set and I notice flaws immedietly. this, mgs4 looks worse running at 1080p on my 42" LCD than my 29" SDTV at 480p. 1080p gives it a lot of jaggies, specially around the edges. It made it unplayable for me. Do you even know what you just said???
[QUOTE="longshotgir"][QUOTE="Dynafrom"] I do own a PS3. Mind you, I played a heckload of PC games. And I play on a 1080p HD set and I notice flaws immedietly. Killfoxthis, mgs4 looks worse running at 1080p on my 42" LCD than my 29" SDTV at 480p. 1080p gives it a lot of jaggies, specially around the edges. It made it unplayable for me. Do you even know what you just said??? Yes i do. The game has serious issues when being upscaled to 1080p. However, i could not see any aliasing issues when playing 480p (because it not HD, of course). It's not a HD game, no matter how you try to spin it , it will have aliasing when upscaled.
[QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="longshotgir"] this, mgs4 looks worse running at 1080p on my 42" LCD than my 29" SDTV at 480p. 1080p gives it a lot of jaggies, specially around the edges. It made it unplayable for me.longshotgirDo you even know what you just said??? Yes i do. The game has serious issues when being upscaled to 1080p. However, i could not see any aliasing issues when playing 480p (because it not HD, of course). It's not a HD game, no matter how you try to spin it , it will have aliasing when upscaled. Ah. see I didnt know they upscaled to 1080p I thought it maybe was a 1080p native game. Then yes I can see what your saying.
[QUOTE="longshotgir"][QUOTE="Killfox"] Do you even know what you just said???KillfoxYes i do. The game has serious issues when being upscaled to 1080p. However, i could not see any aliasing issues when playing 480p (because it not HD, of course). It's not a HD game, no matter how you try to spin it , it will have aliasing when upscaled. Ah. see I didnt know they upscaled to 1080p I thought it maybe was a 1080p native game. Then yes I can see what your saying. no, its not even 720p, its 680p i believe. It is upscaled, i know that for a fact.
[QUOTE="MetroidPrimePwn"]The award is for Best Graphics: Technical. What game has the best graphics from a technical effects standpoint?EyezonmiiMGS4 was pretty technical for the hardware it was on...it stood its ground even against the most technical PC titles....Besides crysis won last year and warhead is basically the same game.
Crysis warhead still had better graphics than a game with mediocre textures, and a sub HD resolution.
"Metal Gear Solid 4 is a shining example of what a developer is capable of when deadlines and budgets are clearly secondary to the end-user experience. Featuring what is perhaps some of the most detailed environments and character animation ever seen, Metal Gear Solid 4 uses its graphical prowess to great effect in enhancing both the narrative and player immersion. The game's visually stunning opening sequence would have undoubtedly been far less convincing were it not for the painstaking attention to detail. Who wasn't taken aback as Snake darted through a deteriorating Middle Eastern town, desperate to avoid the giant walking tanks (Gekkos) that shook the city's very foundation with every step? Or how about when revisiting the original Metal Gear Solid's Shadow Moses Island, updated with the latest graphical effects that truly do honor to this cherished gaming landscape? The striking presentation didn't just ensure that the environments looked real; they felt real. Although the stunning graphics engine truly provided some staggering sights on the battlefield, it also helped substantially in other subtler, more nuanced ways. For example, the character animation was elemental in lending the characters an aura of believability--which is a good thing, too, considering that the characters were often thrust to the forefront during the myriad cutscenes. You could literally see the frustration creep across Snake's face as he learned of the twists involved in his mission. Moments like these--and rest assured, there are many--let us suspend disbelief and fully engage in the world that Metal Gear Solid 4 presents. It's true that graphics alone may not make a game, but they can certainly enhance it, and few games have demonstrated this better than Metal Gear Solid 4."
-Gamespot
"Metal Gear Solid 4 is a shining example of what a developer is capable of when deadlines and budgets are clearly secondary to the end-user experience. Featuring what is perhaps some of the most detailed environments and character animation ever seen, Metal Gear Solid 4 uses its graphical prowess to great effect in enhancing both the narrative and player immersion. The game's visually stunning opening sequence would have undoubtedly been far less convincing were it not for the painstaking attention to detail. Who wasn't taken aback as Snake darted through a deteriorating Middle Eastern town, desperate to avoid the giant walking tanks (Gekkos) that shook the city's very foundation with every step? Or how about when revisiting the original Metal Gear Solid's Shadow Moses Island, updated with the latest graphical effects that truly do honor to this cherished gaming landscape? The striking presentation didn't just ensure that the environments looked real; they felt real. Although the stunning graphics engine truly provided some staggering sights on the battlefield, it also helped substantially in other subtler, more nuanced ways. For example, the character animation was elemental in lending the characters an aura of believability--which is a good thing, too, considering that the characters were often thrust to the forefront during the myriad cutscenes. You could literally see the frustration creep across Snake's face as he learned of the twists involved in his mission. Moments like these--and rest assured, there are many--let us suspend disbelief and fully engage in the world that Metal Gear Solid 4 presents. It's true that graphics alone may not make a game, but they can certainly enhance it, and few games have demonstrated this better than Metal Gear Solid 4."
-Gamespot
ultima-flare
I am sure that most people have read that but alot of what they talk about are done better in Crysis Warhead. The main thing they talk about is the enviornments. Which are bigger, more detailed, and have better textures in CW. The character models and details are way way better in CW. The animations are awesome in CW. The polygon count is much much higher in CW.
LOL. Gears of War 2 winning at GameSpy is okay but not MGS4 winning here?
[QUOTE="Pinkyimp"]"MGS4 has the best graphics because it has hours of beautiful cutscenes blended with a smooth perfect transition to gameplay."
hahahaha, seriously this is GOLD!. Stop putting stupid excuses trying to justify MGS4 winning the award.
leadernator
You guys are really being brats about this :|
MGS4's visuals are ARGUABLY the best this gen. Not everyone may agree, but it's case is definitely JUSTIFIED.
The awards are over, quit crying. Spike TV gave best graphics to MGS4 as well... is something with them as well :|
Take the 'BIASED-goggles' off, please.
..and Merry Christmas
arguably the best this gen? are you nuts gears, gears 2, uncharted, resistance 2, bioshock and crysis warhead are all better graphicaly, i don't even own a gaming pc, but it was pretty obvious to me that crysis warhead is far superior to MGS4 in technical graphics, it's you that needs to take the goggles off my friend.I'm surprised you guys are still arguing this. Being the best game "graphically" isn't just about looking the best graphically. Sure, Crysis is a better looking game from a texture standpoint. However, if you read why MGS4 won we wouldn't be having this discussion. MGS4 outperforms Crysis with its overall graphical presentation. The way his emotions are expressed on his face in various situations. The way the characters interact with their environment. The amazing attention that is paid to every little detail. It's basically like watching a very well-produced movie from an award-winning director. There are more to graphics than high-resolution textures and nicely rendered-pixels.
MGS4 wins by default simply because the entire "graphics engine" is put on display constantly throughout the game. There are hours upon hours of cutscenes that show off the fantastic details of the game. The same cannot be said for Crysis. If Crysis followed the same structure, of course it would have won the Graphics award. The main reason why this is such a big deal here in SW is because all the people complaining about this award are the same people who don't understand what the award truly is for.
crysis may have amazing graphics , but i reckon less than 10% of people can really max out the game
with MGS4 the graphics were the same for everybody, hence why it won
I'm surprised you guys are still arguing this. Being the best game "graphically" isn't just about looking the best graphically. Sure, Crysis is a better looking game from a texture standpoint. However, if you read why MGS4 won we wouldn't be having this discussion. MGS4 outperforms Crysis with its overall graphical presentation. The way his emotions are expressed on his face in various situations. The way the characters interact with their environment. The amazing attention that is paid to every little detail. It's basically like watching a very well-produced movie from an award-winning director. There are more to graphics than high-resolution textures and nicely rendered-pixels.
MGS4 wins by default simply because the entire "graphics engine" is put on display constantly throughout the game. There are hours upon hours of cutscenes that show off the fantastic details of the game. The same cannot be said for Crysis. If Crysis followed the same structure, of course it would have won the Graphics award. The main reason why this is such a big deal here in SW is because all the people complaining about this award are the same people who don't understand what the award truly is for.
CStheGreat
The award is not graphical presentation. It's graphics techical. Which includes textures, lighting, resolution, polygon count, draw distance, details, and AA among other things. Crysis Warhead flat out beats MGS4 in every single one of those aspects.If they want to award the game for best presentation they should change the name of the award because graphics and presentation are not the same thing (see IGNs rating system)
crysis may have amazing graphics , but i reckon less than 10% of people can really max out the game
with MGS4 the graphics were the same for everybody, hence why it won
Darkman2007
It is even harder to max Crysis than Crysis Warhead and last year the hardware was worse than it is now, and Crysis still beat uncharted which has great graphics and stellar animations.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment