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

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] I guess you are right about that.But what about pre-existing gamers?If X already has console 2,wouldn't the gotys make him want to buy console 1 too?

call_of_duty_10

they gave best technical graphics to MGS4 in 2008, which had some of the worst graphics of its time

washd123

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

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?

call_of_duty_10

Reviews are fundamentally different because the people that read them (aka people like us) actually do make purchase decisions off of them. Buying a review can very easily increase your initial sales. Do I think reviews are straight out bought? Naw, that seems too easy and too dushonest even for an industry. I think its foolish however to think Publishers play a 100% clean game and don't provide some sort of incentive to review their games kindly. If I were a publisher I know I would want to make sure my products that mattered most got favourable coverage and would do everything I could besides flatout paying money to get it.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

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?

Reviews are fundamentally different because the people that read them (aka people like us) actually do make purchase decisions off of them. Buying a review can very easily increase your initial sales. Do I think reviews are straight out bought? Naw, that seems too easy and too dushonest even for an industry. I think its foolish however to think Publishers play a 100% clean game and don't provide some sort of incentive to review their games kindly. If I were a publisher I know I would want to make sure my products that mattered most got favourable coverage and would do everything I could besides flatout paying money to get it.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] Well,that has been just discussed. My new question is,what about reviews?jalexbrown

Reviews are fundamentally different because the people that read them (aka people like us) actually do make purchase decisions off of them. Buying a review can very easily increase your initial sales. Do I think reviews are straight out bought? Naw, that seems too easy and too dushonest even for an industry. I think its foolish however to think Publishers play a 100% clean game and don't provide some sort of incentive to review their games kindly. If I were a publisher I know I would want to make sure my products that mattered most got favourable coverage and would do everything I could besides flatout paying money to get it.

That's true too. Tbh though, I would almost think if you made an RPG you would want to buy RPGFan's reviews. From what I gather they don't screw around rating games, you get a good score there and you're probably packing soome serious quality traits :P

it would go to the PC every year

Diviniuz

There is a reason the video cards cost sometimes twice as much as any console out there. This is like nominating the Mac as a gaming platform just because it can. Console graphics will only be good for a short period after their release (and even then). Otherwise you would have to get a new console as often as a new video card comes out. An other side would be that making games would be a real problem, since game developpment time would have to be almost synced with console releases.

Anyway, Metro 2033 was pretty nice. Just finished the game a couple days ago.

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

Reviews are fundamentally different because the people that read them (aka people like us) actually do make purchase decisions off of them. Buying a review can very easily increase your initial sales. Do I think reviews are straight out bought? Naw, that seems too easy and too dushonest even for an industry. I think its foolish however to think Publishers play a 100% clean game and don't provide some sort of incentive to review their games kindly. If I were a publisher I know I would want to make sure my products that mattered most got favourable coverage and would do everything I could besides flatout paying money to get it.

That's true too. Tbh though, I would almost think if you made an RPG you would want to buy RPGFan's reviews. From what I gather they don't screw around rating games, you get a good score there and you're probably packing soome serious quality traits :P

Did anyone else see Kevin V's post regarding the subject? [QUOTE="Kevin-V"] Metro 2033 does the things that it does extremely well. Lighting, shadows, and certain effects are absolutely top-notch. Its animations are not. Its character models are definitely not platform-best. Its textures are inconsistent, as is its performance. Lost Planet 2, by contrast, runs consistently better, features more movement on screen at a given time, pushes more moving geometry, and features incredibly smooth animations. Just Cause 2 on the PC renders enormous environments at beautiful frame rates, with an amazing draw distance, plenty of Direct X 11 goodies, and a lot of geometry packed into any given view. The wonder of screenshots is that I could post any number of Metro 2033 shots at high settings that make the game look terrible, though as a whole, it is a great-looking game. (And obviously, I could do that with Lost Planet 2 and Just Cause 2!) But there is a lot of tech in modern games, and we look at every aspect of the game, weigh the pros and cons, and consider the platform on which it appears. This isn't to say Metro 2033 isn't a fine, fine-looking game, and we consider each game, regardless of its popularity, or what have you. If popularity was important, we wouldn't have nominated games like Deadly Premonition, Vanquish, Comic Jumper, Resonance of Fate, and so on. And just because a game doesn't appear on our list doesn't mean it isn't appreciated. But we approach each game by its platform, and doubt many would would argue that Crysis has been replaced as king of PC technical visuals, three years after its release. Fewer games are setting new bars on the PC (which is incredibly disappointing, but also true), while other platforms are having standards set ever higher. In any case, I am sure that offering my own thoughts is sure to set the flames in motion, which isn't my intent. For everyone that feels one way, there are 10 that feel something entirely different. It is impossible for us to make ever reader happy in every way! If we could, everyone would have the same winners, and we wouldn't have our little awards feature. But this is why we give you the space to discuss. It's actually possible to have different thoughts and ideas while still accepting that when it comes to discussions like "what is best," that there is no right or wrong--and that's part of the fun! I just hope we can do so with respect and maturity. UCF_Knight

This I can respect.

Did anyone else see Kevin V's post regarding the subject? [QUOTE="Kevin-V"] Metro 2033 does the things that it does extremely well. Lighting, shadows, and certain effects are absolutely top-notch. Its animations are not. Its character models are definitely not platform-best. Its textures are inconsistent, as is its performance. Lost Planet 2, by contrast, runs consistently better, features more movement on screen at a given time, pushes more moving geometry, and features incredibly smooth animations. Just Cause 2 on the PC renders enormous environments at beautiful frame rates, with an amazing draw distance, plenty of Direct X 11 goodies, and a lot of geometry packed into any given view. The wonder of screenshots is that I could post any number of Metro 2033 shots at high settings that make the game look terrible, though as a whole, it is a great-looking game. (And obviously, I could do that with Lost Planet 2 and Just Cause 2!) But there is a lot of tech in modern games, and we look at every aspect of the game, weigh the pros and cons, and consider the platform on which it appears. This isn't to say Metro 2033 isn't a fine, fine-looking game, and we consider each game, regardless of its popularity, or what have you. If popularity was important, we wouldn't have nominated games like Deadly Premonition, Vanquish, Comic Jumper, Resonance of Fate, and so on. And just because a game doesn't appear on our list doesn't mean it isn't appreciated. But we approach each game by its platform, and doubt many would would argue that Crysis has been replaced as king of PC technical visuals, three years after its release. Fewer games are setting new bars on the PC (which is incredibly disappointing, but also true), while other platforms are having standards set ever higher. In any case, I am sure that offering my own thoughts is sure to set the flames in motion, which isn't my intent. For everyone that feels one way, there are 10 that feel something entirely different. It is impossible for us to make ever reader happy in every way! If we could, everyone would have the same winners, and we wouldn't have our little awards feature. But this is why we give you the space to discuss. It's actually possible to have different thoughts and ideas while still accepting that when it comes to discussions like "what is best," that there is no right or wrong--and that's part of the fun! I just hope we can do so with respect and maturity. UCF_Knight

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]ActicEdge

This I can respect.

Not only that, but the post further says to me that, despite claims to the contrary, these guys - or at least this guy - aren't idiots about this field.jalexbrown

[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"][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.

FGMPR

I'm a die hard Hermit but I see no problems in giving the award to GOWIII.

I personally don't find Metro 2033 to be a good looking game, maxed out or not.

Just because there are new technical features slapped on doesn't make it a polished game by default.

I wouldn't want to play Big Rigs in DX11 either so go figure.

Eh, that award became meaningless to me right after they gave it to MGS4 over Crysis Warhead. I think despite the category saying best technical graphics, it's more about the overall presentation, fancy cutscenes and camera angles can definately help with that.

I'm a die hard Hermit but I see no problems in giving the award to GOWIII.

I personally don't find Metro 2033 to be a good looking game, maxed out or not.

Just because there are new technical features slapped on doesn't make it a polished game by default.

I wouldn't want to play Big Rigs in DX11 either so go figure.

Eh, that award became meaningless to me right after they gave it to MGS4 over Crysis Warhead. I think despite the category saying best technical graphics, it's more about the overall presentation, fancy cutscenes and camera angles can definately help with that.

ManicAce

[QUOTE="washd123"]

they gave best technical graphics to MGS4 in 2008, which had some of the worst graphics of its time

DJ_Headshot

[QUOTE="ManicAce"]

Eh, that award became meaningless to me right after they gave it to MGS4 over Crysis Warhead. I think despite the category saying best technical graphics, it's more about the overall presentation, fancy cutscenes and camera angles can definately help with that.

jalexbrown

Eh, that award became meaningless to me right after they gave it to MGS4 over Crysis Warhead. I think despite the category saying best technical graphics, it's more about the overall presentation, fancy cutscenes and camera angles can definately help with that.

cos 2033 wasnt on the list of the USERS graphical good games.. even though it should have been.. in other words they do what keeps the reader's happy..daveg1

But still...maybe they just didn't see it raising the bar as much as Metal Gear Solid 4. I mean...they nominated it, so obviously they appreciated the fact that it did raise the bar to some degree.jalexbrown

what does raising the bar have to do with being the best?

ignoring the fact that MGS4 didnt even hit the bar for console graphics that year let alone raise it, that is completely irrelevant.

crysis set the bar, no game still has matched it except warhead graphically.

stop making excuses for them, they were wrong

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] But still...maybe they just didn't see it raising the bar as much as Metal Gear Solid 4. I mean...they nominated it, so obviously they appreciated the fact that it did raise the bar to some degree.washd123

what does raising the bar have to do with being the best?

ignoring the fact that MGS4 didnt even hit the bar for console graphics that year let alone raise it, that is completely irrelevant.

crysis set the bar, no game still has matched it except warhead graphically.

stop making excuses for them, they were wrong

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

Uh, under the Best Technical Graphics it says they are looking for game that I quote:

" push the boundaries of what game can do by exploring new effects, pushing more polygons, and creating a more technically impressive picture than anything we've seen previously."

Exactly how is of God War III "pushing more polygons", when Metro 2033 easily pushes WAY more polygons than GOWIII. "exploring new effects" What new effects GOWIII is pushing, could it be DX 11, tesselation,...no didn't think so. Creating "imressive pictrue than anything we've seen previously", Yep GOWIII is surely is creating something that we have not seen before useing old outdated DX 9 tech, while Metro 2033 uses the latest DX 11 tech. Yep that sure makes sense :rollseyes:.

So, by definition Gamespot fails in their OWN criteria. This is so much fail.

I'm pretty sure that "creating a more technically impressive picture" isn't meant to be taken ad litteram...

[QUOTE="daveg1"]cos 2033 wasnt on the list of the USERS graphical good games.. even though it should have been.. in other words they do what keeps the reader's happy..jalexbrown

When are people going to learn that they judge these nominees based on equal grounds. GOW3 would obliterate Metro 2033 (and Crysis) if it was on PC.Bazooka_4ME

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

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?poorfamz

"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.

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

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="daveg1"]cos 2033 wasnt on the list of the USERS graphical good games.. even though it should have been.. in other words they do what keeps the reader's happy..daveg1

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="jalexbrown"] The only reason Crysis Warhead didn't get it in 2008 is because it was no better than a game from 2007. In a year's time, it showed virtually or at least almost zero progress. That seems like a pretty good reason for it to not win.jalexbrown

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"] I'm fairly certain that they said in the Gamespot review of Warhead, that Warhead ran better than Crysis and even looked better than vanilla Crysis.ferret-gamer

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="jalexbrown"] But still...maybe they just didn't see it raising the bar as much as Metal Gear Solid 4. I mean...they nominated it, so obviously they appreciated the fact that it did raise the bar to some degree.jalexbrown

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"] I'm fairly certain that they said in the Gamespot review of Warhead, that Warhead ran better than Crysis and even looked better than vanilla Crysis.ferret-gamer

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="jalexbrown"] But still...maybe they just didn't see it raising the bar as much as Metal Gear Solid 4. I mean...they nominated it, so obviously they appreciated the fact that it did raise the bar to some degree.killzowned24

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Well GOW3 didnt really overall raise the bar from UC2. Sure it did some stuff better but was overall worse. Just like Metro, it does some stuff better than crysis, but overall is slightly inferior.ferret-gamer

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Well GOW3 didnt really overall raise the bar from UC2. Sure it did some stuff better but was overall worse. Just like Metro, it does some stuff better than crysis, but overall is slightly inferior.ferret-gamer

It's nuts...how did it not even get nominated...

consolespot.com That's why

Metro 2033 is easily the graphics king of 2010. God of War 3 does look excellent for a console game though.

What's the bigger technical achievement, cramming every rendering technology available in a game or squeezing the last drop of power out of outdated hardware to produce graphics as good as GOW3's?

Baranga

[QUOTE="washd123"]

they gave best technical graphics to MGS4 in 2008, which had some of the worst graphics of its time

DJ_Headshot

My opinion of MGS4 is quite the opposite. I played MGS4 on my 24' LCD @1080p via HDMI and its one of the best graphics I've seen yet on the PS3. The Act 3 motorcycle chase scene, the Act 4 Crying Wolf battle, among others is just so breathtaking. Maybe you guys played it on a standard definition tv using old composite cables or watched it in compressed low res YouTube videos?

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

What's the bigger technical achievement, cramming every rendering technology available in a game or squeezing the last drop of power out of outdated hardware to produce graphics as good as GOW3's?

Xtasy26

Uh, under the Best Technical Graphics it says they are looking for game that I quote:

" push the boundaries of what game can do by exploring new effects, pushing more polygons, and creating a more technically impressive picture than anything we've seen previously."

Exactly how is of God War III "pushing more polygons", when Metro 2033 easily pushes WAY more polygons than GOWIII. "exploring new effects" What new effects GOWIII is pushing, could it be DX 11, tesselation,...no didn't think so. Creating "imressive pictrue than anything we've seen previously", Yep GOWIII is surely is creating something that we have not seen before useing old outdated DX 9 tech, while Metro 2033 uses the latest DX 11 tech. Yep that sure makes sense :rollseyes:.

So, by definition Gamespot fails in their OWN criteria. This is so much fail.

.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

What's the bigger technical achievement, cramming every rendering technology available in a game or squeezing the last drop of power out of outdated hardware to produce graphics as good as GOW3's?

WadeFan

Uh, under the Best Technical Graphics it says they are looking for game that I quote:

" push the boundaries of what game can do by exploring new effects, pushing more polygons, and creating a more technically impressive picture than anything we've seen previously."

Exactly how is of God War III "pushing more polygons", when Metro 2033 easily pushes WAY more polygons than GOWIII. "exploring new effects" What new effects GOWIII is pushing, could it be DX 11, tesselation,...no didn't think so. Creating "imressive pictrue than anything we've seen previously", Yep GOWIII is surely is creating something that we have not seen before useing old outdated DX 9 tech, while Metro 2033 uses the latest DX 11 tech. Yep that sure makes sense :rollseyes:.

So, by definition Gamespot fails in their OWN criteria. This is so much fail.