What are Gamespot editors smoking? Metro 2033 not in Technical Graphics Awards..

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

I'm sure the PS3 will get plenty of quality games next year, but lists are only nice when they interest you. And the PS3's list doesn't have many things that interest me.

Stevo_the_gamer

Well what's coming for 360? Neither console has many games that interest me either, but I'd say Gears 3 is the only non-multiplat I'm aware of for 360 that I'll be getting for sure next year.

Back to the PC as usual... :D

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] Seriously? Besides Crysis, what looked so great in 2008 that made MGS4 have "some of the worst graphics of its time"?washd123

it has nothing to do with what looked better. games can looked great and still have poor or mediocre graphics

uncharted, gears of war 2, HL2:ep2, far cry 2, STALKER clear skies, all had better graphics than MGS4. not to mention factually crysis warhead had the best graphics of that year.

MGS4 was a technical mess

poor static lighting

poor textures

sub hd resolution

poor shadows

poor AA

if they want to say it looked the best thats great thats their opinion. but to make a catagory called best graphics (which refers to techto begin with) technical, and give the award to a game that factually doesnt have the best graphics, but in reality has some of the worst? that insulting to gamers and anyone with an ounce of intelligence

Metal gear solid 4 is sub HD? what resolution is it running at?

Wait...what? What is the difference between "looking the best" and "having the best graphics" - I mean, aside from art style (which is already a seperate award)? You mentioned Uncharted as apparently having better graphics, but it seemed to have all the same checkpoints that you listed. I would call neither a "technical mess".jalexbrown

graphics refers solely to the tech

looking good is just a matter of subjective opinion. A game can have great graphics and not look good, or look great and have horrible graphics.looks takes into account the artstyle and design

graphics refers to the quality of things like textures, lighting, scale, and object quality. and no uncharted was miles ahead, the lighting, textures, and everything were significantly better in uncharted. MGS4 from a graphical perspective is mediocre at best

Metal gear solid 4 is sub HD? what resolution is it running at?

theuncharted34

1024x768

less than 1280x720 which shouldnt even be called HD anyways

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

Metal gear solid 4 is sub HD? what resolution is it running at?

washd123

1024x768

less than 1280x720 which shouldnt even be called HD anyways

huh? isn't 768>720?

nevermind. At first I read it as 1224x768. :P

huh? isn't 768>720?

theuncharted34

the resolution is lower.

1280x720= 921,600

1024x768= 786,432

difference of 135,168

I think the award goes beyond simply counting polygons and max resolution.

One example that stands out in GOD3 is the massive scale. Fighting an enemy that is 1600 feet tall is something that I've never seen in any other game(including metro2033). Also when watching GOW3 footage, you know you're watching GOW3. Metro just doesn't do much to visually separate itself from a zillion other fps games.

And someone brought up a good point that if we just simply look at graphics and allow a PC with ridiculous specs to showcase the game, PC will win every year from now on, making the award almost pointless.

I think PC games graphics should be judged running on a modestly priced system when comparing to consoles. Throwing a $2000 rig into the mix is silly. So how about someone post some screens of metro running on a $299 PC? Any takers? Didn't think so:P

I think the award goes beyond simply counting polygons and max resolution.

One example that stands out in GOD3 is the massive scale. Fighting an enemy that is 1600 feet tall is something that I've never seen in any other game(including metro2033). Also when watching GOW3 footage, you know you're watching GOW3. Metro just doesn't do much to visually separate itself from a zillion other fps games.

And someone brought up a good point that if we just simply look at graphics and allow a PC with ridiculous specs to showcase the game, PC will win every year from now on, making the award almost pointless.

I think PC games graphics should be judged running on a modestly priced system when comparing to consoles. Throwing a $2000 rig into the mix is silly. So how about someone post some screens of metro running on a $299 PC? Any takers? Didn't think so:P

mztazmz

I think the award goes beyond simply counting polygons and max resolution.

One example that stands out in GOD3 is the massive scale. Fighting an enemy that is 1600 feet tall is something that I've never seen in any other game(including metro2033). Also when watching GOW3 footage, you know you're watching GOW3. Metro just doesn't do much to visually separate itself from a zillion other fps games.

And someone brought up a good point that if we just simply look at graphics and allow a PC with ridiculous specs to showcase the game, PC will win every year from now on, making the award almost pointless.

I think PC games graphics should be judged running on a modestly priced system when comparing to consoles. Throwing a $2000 rig into the mix is silly. So how about someone post some screens of metro running on a $299 PC? Any takers? Didn't think so:P

mztazmz

your arguments are painful

1. technical graphics doesnt go beyond that since that would defeat the whole meaning of the term technical graphics

2. visually serparating itself refers to artstyle which has nothing to do with graphics

3.the platform has nothing to do with it, its the game itself. and the game should be viewed at its best

think before you post

Fighting an enemy that is 1600 feet tall is something that I've never seen in any other game

mztazmz

God of War III's graphics are JOKE, a laughing stock, compared to PC Metro 2033. How is PS3's 5 year old crappy graphics chip running at lame 720P resolutions going to compare with PC's with DX 11 HD 5700/5800/6800/6900/GTX 400/500 graphics chips running games @ FULL HD 1080P. I didn't realize that the PS3 was made of magic that it can somehow gererate better graphics then PC Metro 2033. God War III doesn't even have DX 11 effects, tesselation, the list goes on and on that it's quite pathetic. Goes to show Gamespot editors don't know JACK about graphics or either that they run all their games on Intel Integrated graphics. LOL. Metro 2033 pwns God War III in graphics that it's not even funny.

Yearly Best Awards used to have merit now it's a laughing stock. I remember back in the day when the best graphics actually won like PC's Unreal Tournament 2003 in the year 2002. Now it's just a sad joke. Any idiot with a half a brain can see that Metro 2033 is the 2ND best looking game in the world right now after Crysis. Gamespot editors are so much fail.

Xtasy26

[QUOTE="mztazmz"]

Fighting an enemy that is 1600 feet tall is something that I've never seen in any other game

mitu123

This just shows how overrated Hermits make the PC look. Not everybody will agree with you hermits. Didn't you learn that from when MGS4 beat out Crysis Warhead. Get over yourselves seriously. Console games can and do look great. Give console props like GS is doing.

This just shows how overrated Hermits make the PC look. Not everybody will agree with you hermits. Didn't you learn that from when MGS4 beat out Crysis Warhead. Get over yourselves seriously. Console games can and do look great. Give console props like GS is doing.

xOMGITSJASONx

-_- i hope to god for your sake this was a joke post.

Gamespot only played the 360 version

just like all other sites

Graphics chip?

Also I believe platform is taken into consideration with these awards. GoW3 is impressive for it's platform, and Metro 2033 looks good but that it still doesn't beat Crysis 3 years later means it will probably will be swept under the rug.

The tech award is something I stopped taking seriously a while ago. When MGS4 won I knew it was not worth listening to.

Graphics chip?

Also I believe platform is taken into consideration with these awards. GoW3 is impressive for it's platform, and Metro 2033 looks good but that it still doesn't beat Crysis 3 years later means it will probably will be swept under the rug.

Vaasman

I think the award goes beyond simply counting polygons and max resolution.

One example that stands out in GOD3 is the massive scale. Fighting an enemy that is 1600 feet tall is something that I've never seen in any other game(including metro2033). Also when watching GOW3 footage, you know you're watching GOW3. Metro just doesn't do much to visually separate itself from a zillion other fps games.

And someone brought up a good point that if we just simply look at graphics and allow a PC with ridiculous specs to showcase the game, PC will win every year from now on, making the award almost pointless.

I think PC games graphics should be judged running on a modestly priced system when comparing to consoles. Throwing a $2000 rig into the mix is silly. So how about someone post some screens of metro running on a $299 PC? Any takers? Didn't think so:P

mztazmz

If you took a GOW picture without Kratos, it could be literally tons of games or influences. I think that's baloney. The PC deserves to win when it is the clear winner. I don't think its fair to exclude the clear winner just because, seperate it into PC and consoles then if that's the case.

If you took a GOW picture without Kratos, it could be literally tons of gamesActicEdge

Huh? I don't care about his scale argument and whatnot, but I thought the overall setting of God of War is what separated it from most games. What tons of games share a similar setting?UCF_Knight

what does that have to do with anything?

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] Seriously? Besides Crysis, what looked so great in 2008 that made MGS4 have "some of the worst graphics of its time"?washd123

it has nothing to do with what looked better. games can looked great and still have poor or mediocre graphics

uncharted, gears of war 2, HL2:ep2, far cry 2, STALKER clear skies, all had better graphics than MGS4. not to mention factually crysis warhead had the best graphics of that year.

MGS4 was a technical mess

poor static lighting

poor textures

sub hd resolution

poor shadows

poor AA

if they want to say it looked the best thats great thats their opinion. but to make a catagory called best graphics (which refers to techto begin with) technical, and give the award to a game that factually doesnt have the best graphics, but in reality has some of the worst? that insulting to gamers and anyone with an ounce of intelligence

This. I played Metal Gear Solid and I am supposed to be impressed by the graphics of MGS4. It's a JOKE compared to Crysis Warhead. What I found horrible was the shadows and the jagged edges, totally DISGUSTING.

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]Huh? I don't care about his scale argument and whatnot, but I thought the overall setting of God of War is what separated it from most games. What tons of games share a similar setting?washd123

what does that have to do with anything?

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]Because it was comparable to a game on the same system that came out a year prior? That would keep any game on any system from being nominated, I'm willing to bet.washd123

horrible logic is horrible

Anyways, so are you basically saying that every single year from now on, Gamespot should play all PC games on a $5,000 PC and AUTOMATICALLY give the graphics award to a PC game, every single year from now to eternity????

mztazmz

the award is best graphics as in the game with the best graphics. the platform is irrelvant, its the game itself. so if the game happens to be on the pc then yeah they should automatically give the award to the game with the best graphics, as the name of the award implies

what your saying is basically that the fastest car award shoudn't go to a ferrari or maserati just because most people can't afford them.

This just shows how overrated Hermits make the PC look. Not everybody will agree with you hermits. Didn't you learn that from when MGS4 beat out Crysis Warhead. Get over yourselves seriously. Console games can and do look great. Give console props like GS is doing.

xOMGITSJASONx

Then why call the Best Technical Graphics it should be the Best Technical Graphics for Console rather than encompassing all platforms because clearly it's not the best. Just because clowns chose MGS4 over Crysis Warhead doesn't mean it's better graphically, it would take two seconds to post screnshots of Crysis Warhead compared to the crappy shadows and the graphical mess of MGS4. Same thing with Metro 2033 which is miles ahead than the graphical JOKE that is GOWIII.

It's perfectly sound logic if you're actually willing to think about it. How is it a technical feat to produce a game that looks no better than a game that came out on the same system a year prior? I know this is hard for PC elitists to understand, but the rest of us stopped being impressed by Crysis a couple years back when we saw virtually no improvement - not just in the game, but across the entire system.jalexbrown

its terrible logic. if the award is for the best graphics, then the award should go to the game with the best graphics. what platform it's on is irrelevant, whether it's impressive or not is irrelevant.

Well.. it has something to do with the post I responded to? What does your post have to do with anything? It's pure curiosity. He said you could remove Kratos and God of War would look like tons of games. I like the setting of God of War, so perhaps I'll be interested in these games. You seem to be a good fellow, do you have any suggestions?UCF_Knight

titan quest

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]If you took a GOW picture without Kratos, it could be literally tons of gamesUCF_Knight

What exactly is it about these that make you think if you took out Kratos it couldn't be another game:

Every game is going to have some defining settings that make it recognizable but a lot of GOW3 isn't distinctive without Kratos and cast.

Graphics chip?

Also I believe platform is taken into consideration with these awards. GoW3 is impressive for it's platform, and Metro 2033 looks good but that it still doesn't beat Crysis 3 years later means it will probably will be swept under the rug.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="poorfamz"]Keep crying, and keep spending hundreds on new graphics cards, cpu's while the 5 year old ps3 keeps taking graphics king awards. Hurts doesn't it?mztazmz

"PS3 keeps taking graphics king awards" Yeah it's "graphic kings" in the retarded wraped mindset of the Gamespot editors who probably doesn't even know what DX 11 or tesselation is. These clowns probably run games on their Intel Integrated graphics.:P None of them has an actual gaming rig. Proves that they are a bunch of noobs. Because any idiot with a half a brain who actually has a PS3 like I do and has a gaming rig and running those two games and seeing the graphics will obviously see that Metro 2033 is better. I mean for crying out like it's using DX 9 tech while Metro 2033 uses DX 11 to make them game WAY better. Textures, environment, detail, EVERYTHING is better.

Anyways, so are you basically saying that every single year from now on, Gamespot should play all PC games on a $5,000 PC and AUTOMATICALLY give the graphics award to a PC game, every single year from now to eternity????

Us PC gamer's aren't butt-hurt we are simply not ignorant like you. You just stated the lame old argument of PC gamers playing on a "$5,000 PC" which has proven to be a MYTH and LIE. You just lost all credibility. Any PC gamers can tell you they spent a fraction of the cost of your looney, imaginary $5,000 PC. I spent $640 for my gaming PC and I could max out Metro 2033 at 900P+. It's only $40 more than the original cost of PS3 when it came out. And for $40 more my gaming rig is LIGHT YEARS AHEAD OF THE PS3.

And no I am not saying everyear, but clearly this year Metro 2033 is step above the rest. US PC gamers would readily admit that the Gears of War was the best looking game in 2006 but for 2010 and other years certain PC titles are clearly light years ahead the console competiton.

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]If you took a GOW picture without Kratos, it could be literally tons of gamesActicEdge

What exactly is it about these that make you think if you took out Kratos it couldn't be another game:

I love it when people Post pictures of the GOW3 demo.

just like how people post pictures of the Killzone 3 pre-alpha code

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] It's perfectly sound logic if you're actually willing to think about it. How is it a technical feat to produce a game that looks no better than a game that came out on the same system a year prior? I know this is hard for PC elitists to understand, but the rest of us stopped being impressed by Crysis a couple years back when we saw virtually no improvement - not just in the game, but across the entire system.washd123

its terrible logic. if the award is for the best graphics, then the award should go to the game with the best graphics. what platform it's on is irrelevant, whether it's impressive or not is irrelevant.

This award needs to be platform specific, otherwise why even include the consoles?

Wii/x360/ps3 should all have their own award. PC should have the "best graphics award"

Metro on the consoles looks like Wii compared to the PC version.

There is a reason PC gamers are called "elitist", its because we game on f-ing elite machines!

titan questwashd123

Every game is going to have some defining settings that make it recognizable but a lot of GOW3 isn't distinctive without Kratos and cast.ActicEdge

I'm sure there are games that are similar enough, a screenshot quiz would fool some. I haven't really seen anything on consoles though, so I was curious as to where the tons were.

Granted, my knowledge of PC game history is severely limited, so perhaps that's where I have missed quite a few. Titan's Quest seems to be similar, and I am genuinely interested in that kind of setting, so I may check that out later.

You're just picking at symantics, and I think you know it; that's just annoying.jalexbrown

so the using the correct meaning of things is annoying?

Metro 2033 looks great but it also requires a supercomputer while GoW on the PSP is suposedly pushing the system to it's limits. Although I also don't see what's so impressive on it (looks like your typical PSP game, just a bit supped up imo).

edit - oops, didn't see they nominated God of War 3. Yeah that's not a so technically impressive game.

Now a real achievement would be if they made Crysis on the Wii and it would still manage to look better than Far Cry :P

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"] Huh? I don't care about his scale argument and whatnot, but I thought the overall setting of God of War is what separated it from most games. What tons of games share a similar setting?poorfamz

What exactly is it about these that make you think if you took out Kratos it couldn't be another game:

I love it when people Post pictures of the GOW3 demo.

just like how people post pictures of the Killzone 3 pre-alpha code

I'm not picking on GOW3 graphics. Its a very excellent looking title. I just googled GOW3 screenshots and picked a few. I'm sorry if I offended people. KZ3 has really good graphics too (though the art isn't my thing)

[QUOTE="washd123"]titan questUCF_Knight

Every game is going to have some defining settings that make it recognizable but a lot of GOW3 isn't distinctive without Kratos and cast.ActicEdge

I'm sure there are games that are similar enough, a screenshot quiz would fool some. I haven't really seen anything on consoles though, so I was curious as to where the tons were.

Granted, my knowledge of PC game history is severely limited, so perhaps that's where I have missed quite a few. Titan's Quest seems to be similar, and I am genuinely interested in that kind of setting, so I may check that out later.

I see what you mean. The greek mythology setting isn't exceedingly popular I will admit. I was really going for the screenshot quiz tbh :P

4A games is a small company while sony is big.I think its quite obvious that sony paid GS loads of money for this.

Bet I will get banned for saying that.....it will just prove my point:lol:

It's slightly annoying that I don't believe they phrase it properly, but it's equally annoying that multiple people have picked up on what they meant and yet you either haven't or refuse to accept it as such. So which is it: can you not comprehend, or are you just too much of an elitist tigh-ass to accept what they meant (because...you know, everyone's got to do everything perfectly)?jalexbrown

it's annoying when someone says something they don't mean

best means best implying an objective standard by which to compare.

if they want to rate by the most impressive based on the hardware then they should say that

forgive me for believing in saying what you mean and using terms correctly I forgot ignorance is king here

[QUOTE="mztazmz"]

Anyways, so are you basically saying that every single year from now on, Gamespot should play all PC games on a $5,000 PC and AUTOMATICALLY give the graphics award to a PC game, every single year from now to eternity????

washd123

the award is best graphics as in the game with the best graphics. the platform is irrelvant, its the game itself. so if the game happens to be on the pc then yeah they should automatically give the award to the game with the best graphics, as the name of the award implies

what your saying is basically that the fastest car award shoudn't go to a ferrari or maserati just because most people can't afford them.

On the same token, I could play Metro on a Pentium 4 with a crappy video card and declare that it's graphics suck compared to GOW3. And in my experience, I would be right.

When Crysis came out, even though it needed crazy specs, it had amazing visual quality that went far beyond simply cranking up res, AA, AF, etc. Many people even played the game with no AA or AF and it still looked amazing.

On the other hand Metro looks the way it does due to high end machines cranking up settings. On the same rig, what does Metro do that Black Ops or BFBC2 doesn't? Nothing. And that's why it got the reviews it did and is already yesterday's news.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="poorfamz"]Keep crying, and keep spending hundreds on new graphics cards, cpu's while the 5 year old ps3 keeps taking graphics king awards. Hurts doesn't it?mztazmz

"PS3 keeps taking graphics king awards" Yeah it's "graphic kings" in the retarded wraped mindset of the Gamespot editors who probably doesn't even know what DX 11 or tesselation is. These clowns probably run games on their Intel Integrated graphics.:P None of them has an actual gaming rig. Proves that they are a bunch of noobs. Because any idiot with a half a brain who actually has a PS3 like I do and has a gaming rig and running those two games and seeing the graphics will obviously see that Metro 2033 is better. I mean for crying out like it's using DX 9 tech while Metro 2033 uses DX 11 to make them game WAY better. Textures, environment, detail, EVERYTHING is better.

Anyways, so are you basically saying that every single year from now on, Gamespot should play all PC games on a $5,000 PC and AUTOMATICALLY give the graphics award to a PC game, every single year from now to eternity????

Oh and you can drop the whole "DX 11" garbage while you're at it: http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/690645-metro-2033-dx9-vs-dx11-without.html

And I guess you didn't know that there are mods for Crysis that allow the DX9 version to look just as good as the DX10 version. In other words, the high quality features were purposefully left out so that M$ could sell Vista to everyone. DX10 and DX11 are nearly worthless as all the "supposed" features they offer can work in XP and DX9 with some hacks. There's a reason why many hard core PC gamers are still using XP.

Argument FAIL. The guy clearly didn't show the proper comparison. The fact is there is a difference between DX9 vs DX 11 in Metro 2033 as shown here. The objects and the characters tessellated looks more natural not pointy. Not to mention the lighting effects are better. A proper comparison is here:

http://forums.gametrailers.com/thread/metro-2033-tesselation-compari/1039216

If there wasn't any difference there wouldn't be a performance hit, Duh! Same thing with Dirt 2 DX11 which looks better than Dirt 2 DX10.

Even with DX10 Metro 2033 would still trash God of War III's JOKE graphics with horrible disgusting jagged edges. Which proves GOW III sucks EVEN MORE.

4A games is a small company while sony is big.I think its quite obvious that sony paid GS loads of money for this.

Bet I will get banned for saying that.....it will just prove my point:lol:

call_of_duty_10