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

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[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????

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.

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.

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.

mztazmz

heres the thing though, first off the term graphics refers to the tech solely. Second GS is even making a distinction to clearify it for ignorant people, iI understand what youre saying but it's an irrelevant argument.

the award should be based on the game, the game should be taken at its best, the platform is irrelevant.

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[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????

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.

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.

But Metro looks so much better than RE5 on PC. 4a are a tiny developer, and they have put out a graphical beast of a game. It's a hell of an accomplishment, that yet again, get's ignored by the mainstream gaming press because it's not on console, and it doesn't fit in with the advertisers wishes.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]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)?washd123

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

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 :PActicEdge

I already agreed with you that it's annoying that they word it the way they do. :| That doesn't mean I have to agree with you about what they mean. Reading interpretation helps to pick apart a lot of these little problems with the English language; it's too bad some people refuse to use it.jalexbrown

Or you know people could just say what they mean and actually use the language properly. That would be nonsense though.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] I already agreed with you that it's annoying that they word it the way they do. :| That doesn't mean I have to agree with you about what they mean. Reading interpretation helps to pick apart a lot of these little problems with the English language; it's too bad some people refuse to use it.washd123

Or you know people could just say what they mean and actually use the language properly. That would be nonsense though.

But Metro looks so much better than RE5 on PC. 4a are a tiny developer, and they have put out a graphical beast of a game. It's a hell of an accomplishment, that yet again, get's ignored by the mainstream gaming press because it's not on console, and it doesn't fit in with the advertisers wishes.

FGMPR

I don't hold much faith in the gaming media but I don't think screwing 4A out of an award is gamespots or the advertisers intention. Tbh I don't think they care that much.

More Metro pics. (Remember, they've gone through some compression and loss some quality)

[QUOTE="FGMPR"]

But Metro looks so much better than RE5 on PC. 4a are a tiny developer, and they have put out a graphical beast of a game. It's a hell of an accomplishment, that yet again, get's ignored by the mainstream gaming press because it's not on console, and it doesn't fit in with the advertisers wishes.

I don't hold much faith in the gaming media but I don't think screwing 4A out of an award is gamespots or the advertisers intention. Tbh I don't think they care that much.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] I already agreed with you that it's annoying that they word it the way they do. :| That doesn't mean I have to agree with you about what they mean. Reading interpretation helps to pick apart a lot of these little problems with the English language; it's too bad some people refuse to use it.washd123

Or you know people could just say what they mean and actually use the language properly. That would be nonsense though.

No but I find it kind of pointless to argue this. The amount of times the english language is unsed incorrectly in a regular day and by several outlets is amazing. We know its used incorrectly but if you get the picture of what they are saying does it matter?

[QUOTE="mztazmz"]

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

"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.

Xtasy26

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.

you should stop posting metro pics, they all look like **** .

Yeah this one I agree with, Metro 2033 is simply beautiful. The scene in the beginning when the shelter doors open up to let the guy in is breath-taking. The lighting is simply superb.

I can kinda see how GoW3 won which itself is simply amazing as well. But for Metro to not even get a nomination is mind-bottling.

[QUOTE="1Stark1"]

Because consoles matter more in todays gaming world, sorry to sound arrogant, but its the plain truth.

lordlors

Pfft.....

Blizzard is planning to put DIABLO 3 on consoles as we speak, so I'm not sure why or how they think differently.

*shrug*

Nice screens Stevo, makes me want the game now.

[QUOTE="FGMPR"]

But Metro looks so much better than RE5 on PC. 4a are a tiny developer, and they have put out a graphical beast of a game. It's a hell of an accomplishment, that yet again, get's ignored by the mainstream gaming press because it's not on console, and it doesn't fit in with the advertisers wishes.

I don't hold much faith in the gaming media but I don't think screwing 4A out of an award is gamespots or the advertisers intention. Tbh I don't think they care that much.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="FGMPR"]

But Metro looks so much better than RE5 on PC. 4a are a tiny developer, and they have put out a graphical beast of a game. It's a hell of an accomplishment, that yet again, get's ignored by the mainstream gaming press because it's not on console, and it doesn't fit in with the advertisers wishes.

jalexbrown

I don't hold much faith in the gaming media but I don't think screwing 4A out of an award is gamespots or the advertisers intention. Tbh I don't think they care that much.

Gamespot doesn't care about a lot of things, I don't see why PC gamers are so pissed. You're ignored on a lot of issues. That's life, deal with it maturely, we all are. I'm still waiting for my Rune Factory Frontier review and that was more then a year ago. Oh noes, life goes on. Where's my Bit Trip Fate review? Oh yeah, they don't care about the Wii either :roll:

[QUOTE="washd123"]

I already agreed with you that it's annoying that they word it the way they do. :| That doesn't mean I have to agree with you about what they mean. Reading interpretation helps to pick apart a lot of these little problems with the English language; it's too bad some people refuse to use it.jalexbrown

Or you know people could just say what they mean and actually use the language properly. That would be nonsense though.

No but I find it kind of pointless to argue this. The amount of times the english language is unsed incorrectly in a regular day and by several outlets is amazing. We know its used incorrectly but if you get the picture of what they are saying does it matter?

Metro 2033 only looks good without human model on the screenraskullibur

Metro 2033 only looks good without human model on the screenraskullibur

Looks fine to me.

[QUOTE="raskullibur"]Metro 2033 only looks good without human model on the screenUCF_Knight

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I don't hold much faith in the gaming media but I don't think screwing 4A out of an award is gamespots or the advertisers intention. Tbh I don't think they care that much.

call_of_duty_10

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I don't hold much faith in the gaming media but I don't think screwing 4A out of an award is gamespots or the advertisers intention. Tbh I don't think they care that much.

call_of_duty_10

I really doubt people are paying GS for the best tech award. Who cares at this point? GOW3 came out in March, you think Sony is just handing out cash at a point where their titles sales won't show any uptake because of this? That's illogical and poor business. Why is everyone trying to antagonize Sony and company?

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="jalexbrown"] I think the implication is that Gamespot only cares about console gamers - which, you know, explains why Starcraft 2 is a pretty solid Game of the Year contender. I can hear it now: "But...but...it didn't get it, so they hate the PC!"ActicEdge

I really doubt people are paying GS for the best tech award. Who cares at this point? GOW3 came out in March, you think Sony is just handing out cash at a point where their titles sales won't show any uptake because of this? That's illogical and poor business. Why is everyone trying to antagonize Sony and company?

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I don't hold much faith in the gaming media but I don't think screwing 4A out of an award is gamespots or the advertisers intention. Tbh I don't think they care that much.

ActicEdge

Gamespot doesn't care about a lot of things, I don't see why PC gamers are so pissed. You're ignored on a lot of issues. That's life, deal with it maturely, we all are. I'm still waiting for my Rune Factory Frontier review and that was more then a year ago. Oh noes, life goes on. Where's my Bit Trip Fate review? Oh yeah, they don't care about the Wii either :roll:

What? :lol: if there was maturity here, there would be no SW. It is a paradox you speak of.

[QUOTE="raskullibur"]Metro 2033 only looks good without human model on the screenStevo_the_gamer

Looks fine to me.

I really doubt people are paying GS for the best tech award. Who cares at this point? GOW3 came out in March, you think Sony is just handing out cash at a point where their titles sales won't show any uptake because of this? That's illogical and poor business. Why is everyone trying to antagonize Sony and company?

ActicEdge

[QUOTE="raskullibur"]

Looks fine to me.

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"][QUOTE="raskullibur"]Metro 2033 only looks good without human model on the screenStevo_the_gamer

Santa Claus looks impressive

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="jalexbrown"] I think the implication is that Gamespot only cares about console gamers - which, you know, explains why Starcraft 2 is a pretty solid Game of the Year contender. I can hear it now: "But...but...it didn't get it, so they hate the PC!"jalexbrown

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] I doubt if it would have been a contender had it been made by a small dev. In the end,it all boils down to who pays GS the most.call_of_duty_10

I really doubt people are paying GS for the best tech award. Who cares at this point? GOW3 came out in March, you think Sony is just handing out cash at a point where their titles sales won't show any uptake because of this? That's illogical and poor business. Why is everyone trying to antagonize Sony and company?

And you think console manufacturers and pubs are paying for that with no gaurentee of sales and no proof of concept. That sounds like crap business to me, does it sound smart to you?

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] I think the implication is that Gamespot only cares about console gamers - which, you know, explains why Starcraft 2 is a pretty solid Game of the Year contender. I can hear it now: "But...but...it didn't get it, so they hate the PC!"Advid-Gamer

Gamespot doesn't care about a lot of things, I don't see why PC gamers are so pissed. You're ignored on a lot of issues. That's life, deal with it maturely, we all are. I'm still waiting for my Rune Factory Frontier review and that was more then a year ago. Oh noes, life goes on. Where's my Bit Trip Fate review? Oh yeah, they don't care about the Wii either :roll:

What? :lol: if there was maturity here, there would be no SW. It is a paradox you speak of.

The part "we all are" wasn't antagonizing PC gamers, it was in reference to the part that everyone is ignored on several issues.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I really doubt people are paying GS for the best tech award. Who cares at this point? GOW3 came out in March, you think Sony is just handing out cash at a point where their titles sales won't show any uptake because of this? That's illogical and poor business. Why is everyone trying to antagonize Sony and company?

Teufelhuhn

Thanks Teuf, now I look like an idiot :P

>

And you think console manufacturers and pubs are paying for that with no gaurentee of sales and no proof of concept. That sounds like crap business to me, does it sound smart to you?

ActicEdge

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Gamespot doesn't care about a lot of things, I don't see why PC gamers are so pissed. You're ignored on a lot of issues. That's life, deal with it maturely, we all are. I'm still waiting for my Rune Factory Frontier review and that was more then a year ago. Oh noes, life goes on. Where's my Bit Trip Fate review? Oh yeah, they don't care about the Wii either :roll:

What? :lol: if there was maturity here, there would be no SW. It is a paradox you speak of.

The part "we all are" wasn't antagonizing PC gamers, it was in reference to the part that everyone is ignored on several issues.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]>

And you think console manufacturers and pubs are paying for that with no gaurentee of sales and no proof of concept. That sounds like crap business to me, does it sound smart to you?

call_of_duty_10

Yes and no. Yes advertisements don't guarentee sales but no, they aren't worthless, advertisements are directed at people who don't know of a games existance to basically inform them and persuade them to buy a game. That's why advertisements on television, billboards, radio ads ect are the most common form of advertisement. These ads also have a direct relationship to buyers because they are trackable, like how many people buy your game at launch, in the first month, during when ads aired vs when they stopped etc. How are awards for several games that are already months old going to help your investment in those past said games? And how is it smart to bet business dollars rigging video game website awards in hope that you get hype for your next title? You tell me, I'm curious. Their is no way to realistically track if these awards have any correlation to sales, you truly think the same is true with advertisements?

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]>

And you think console manufacturers and pubs are paying for that with no gaurentee of sales and no proof of concept. That sounds like crap business to me, does it sound smart to you?

ActicEdge

No, advertisements are directed at people who don't know of a games existance to basically inform them and persuade them to buy a game. That's why advertisements on television, billboards, radio ads ect are the most common form of advertisement. These ads also have a direct relationship to buyers because they are trackable, like how many people buy your game at launch, in the first month, during when ads aired vs when they stopped etc. How are awards for several games that are already months old going to help your investment in those past said games? And how is it smart to bet business dollars rigging video game website awards in hope that you get hype for your next title? You tell me, I'm curious.

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Gamespot doesn't care about a lot of things, I don't see why PC gamers are so pissed. You're ignored on a lot of issues. That's life, deal with it maturely, we all are. I'm still waiting for my Rune Factory Frontier review and that was more then a year ago. Oh noes, life goes on. Where's my Bit Trip Fate review? Oh yeah, they don't care about the Wii either :roll:

ActicEdge

What? :lol: if there was maturity here, there would be no SW. It is a paradox you speak of.

The part "we all are" wasn't antagonizing PC gamers, it was in reference to the part that everyone is ignored on several issues.

I dont speak on behalf of pc gamers here, but thanks for thinking so.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]>

And you think console manufacturers and pubs are paying for that with no gaurentee of sales and no proof of concept. That sounds like crap business to me, does it sound smart to you?

Yes and no. Yes advertisements don't guarentee sales but no, they aren't worthless, advertisements are directed at people who don't know of a games existance to basically inform them and persuade them to buy a game. That's why advertisements on television, billboards, radio ads ect are the most common form of advertisement. These ads also have a direct relationship to buyers because they are trackable, like how many people buy your game at launch, in the first month, during when ads aired vs when they stopped etc. How are awards for several games that are already months old going to help your investment in those past said games? And how is it smart to bet business dollars rigging video game website awards in hope that you get hype for your next title? You tell me, I'm curious. Their is no way to realistically track if these awards have any correlation to sales, you truly think the same is true with advertisements?

Then I guess adverts are crap business too as they don't guarantee sales either.call_of_duty_10

No, advertisements are directed at people who don't know of a games existance to basically inform them and persuade them to buy a game. That's why advertisements on television, billboards, radio ads ect are the most common form of advertisement. These ads also have a direct relationship to buyers because they are trackable, like how many people buy your game at launch, in the first month, during when ads aired vs when they stopped etc. How are awards for several games that are already months old going to help your investment in those past said games? And how is it smart to bet business dollars rigging video game website awards in hope that you get hype for your next title? You tell me, I'm curious.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] Then I guess adverts are crap business too as they don't guarantee sales either.jalexbrown

Yes and no. Yes advertisements don't guarentee sales but no, they aren't worthless, advertisements are directed at people who don't know of a games existance to basically inform them and persuade them to buy a game. That's why advertisements on television, billboards, radio ads ect are the most common form of advertisement. These ads also have a direct relationship to buyers because they are trackable, like how many people buy your game at launch, in the first month, during when ads aired vs when they stopped etc. How are awards for several games that are already months old going to help your investment in those past said games? And how is it smart to bet business dollars rigging video game website awards in hope that you get hype for your next title? You tell me, I'm curious. Their is no way to realistically track if these awards have any correlation to sales, you truly think the same is true with advertisements?

I would argue that the largest fraction of people who even give a minimal crap about these things (aka us) are already way too informed to even be persuaded by awards without atleast a passing interest already. I also strongly agree with the bolded.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] Then I guess adverts are crap business too as they don't guarantee sales either.call_of_duty_10

No, advertisements are directed at people who don't know of a games existance to basically inform them and persuade them to buy a game. That's why advertisements on television, billboards, radio ads ect are the most common form of advertisement. These ads also have a direct relationship to buyers because they are trackable, like how many people buy your game at launch, in the first month, during when ads aired vs when they stopped etc. How are awards for several games that are already months old going to help your investment in those past said games? And how is it smart to bet business dollars rigging video game website awards in hope that you get hype for your next title? You tell me, I'm curious.

No one does that. In fact, no normal person even looks at a full gaming library. They look at a console they have seen, see a game or 2 they have played or heard good things about and want to play and then just buy the system for those titles. Then afterwards they either buy what's advertised to the, buy based off box art, possibly read some trash site like IGN to get a weigh in or more commonly buy what their friends are buying or what is popular. If I said exclusive game to most of my friends who somewhat game, I'd get a blank stare. If I said multiple GOTY winner they wouldn't have any idea what I mean. The game we play in SW is not real life.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

No, advertisements are directed at people who don't know of a games existance to basically inform them and persuade them to buy a game. That's why advertisements on television, billboards, radio ads ect are the most common form of advertisement. These ads also have a direct relationship to buyers because they are trackable, like how many people buy your game at launch, in the first month, during when ads aired vs when they stopped etc. How are awards for several games that are already months old going to help your investment in those past said games? And how is it smart to bet business dollars rigging video game website awards in hope that you get hype for your next title? You tell me, I'm curious.

jalexbrown

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Yes and no. Yes advertisements don't guarentee sales but no, they aren't worthless, advertisements are directed at people who don't know of a games existance to basically inform them and persuade them to buy a game. That's why advertisements on television, billboards, radio ads ect are the most common form of advertisement. These ads also have a direct relationship to buyers because they are trackable, like how many people buy your game at launch, in the first month, during when ads aired vs when they stopped etc. How are awards for several games that are already months old going to help your investment in those past said games? And how is it smart to bet business dollars rigging video game website awards in hope that you get hype for your next title? You tell me, I'm curious. Their is no way to realistically track if these awards have any correlation to sales, you truly think the same is true with advertisements?

I would argue that the largest fraction of people who even give a minimal crap about these things (aka us) are already way too informed to even be persuaded by awards without atleast a passing interest already. I also strongly agree with the bolded.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] The awards are,in a way adverts too.Imagine a man X.X decides to start gaming.He looks at the game library of consoles 1 and 2.Console 1 has more exclusives with gotys.X will obviously buy console 1.call_of_duty_10

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] Not to mention that these awards are only seen by a marginal number of consumers in the grand scheme of things. If they were really rigging these awards, they'd be mighty dumb since there would definitely be better ways to put their money towards public perception of their game/console/whatever.jalexbrown

I would argue that the largest fraction of people who even give a minimal crap about these things (aka us) are already way too informed to even be persuaded by awards without atleast a passing interest already. I also strongly agree with the bolded.

Its not elitism to say that. Simply put, we are are way more educated in this hobby then the average buyer. That's our title, we are on a website discussing games after all.When I was younger I wanted games based off of ads. I looked at boxart and cd cases to make buying decisions and if the character was popular I wanted the game more then something unknown. If it was cool with the friends I generally wanted in. No shame in that, its something for fun and not serious. Now I do things differently, not necessarily better, just different. The average gamer doesn't know much about games, its no secret nor is it a big deal. I mean, I can quote lifetime system sales fairly roughly, how many normal gamers can do that :P

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] Do you really believe people do that much research? More likely they go by what friends have or whatever games had the best looking TV spots.jalexbrown

Even if GameSpot were really selling their awards for anyone to buy, would it make any sense at all for Sony to waste money on a 9-month-old game that nobody is buying anymore?

Even if GameSpot were really selling their awards for anyone to buy, would it make any sense at all for Sony to waste money on a 9-month-old game that nobody is buying anymore?

Teufelhuhn