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

Best Technical Graphics
2008 - Crysis Warhead >>>>>>>>> Metal Gear Solid 4
2009 - ArmA II >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Uncharted 2
2010 - Metro 2033 >>>>>>>>>>>>>God of War 3

GS is really going downhill

Technical Graphics Award at GS is a joke and has been since the MGS4 fiasco. They obviously no longer differentiate between technical graphics and artistic design despite having two seperate catagories. Though it makes sense from a business perspective as otherwise a PC title would always get it and that wouldn't draw in more hits for their site.

.[QUOTE="WadeFan"][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anything we've seen previously", Yep GOWIII is surely is creating something that we have not seen before useing old outdated DX 9 tech, while Metro 2033 uses the latest DX 11 tech.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.

badtaker

Same with Goldeneye and Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. Both games look a bit better than some 360/PS3 games...imo. This award makes no sense. This thread needed this picture though.

Whatever it is they're smoking, I want some of that. =P

Honestly? I am not enough of an expert on graphics to decide what should and what should not be considered the best technical graphics.

Oh God those metro screens look awful :(

Honestly? I am not enough of an expert on graphics to decide what should and what should not be considered the best technical graphics.

Sky-

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achievement, cramming every rendering technology available in a game or squeezing the last drop of power out of outdated hardware to produce graphics as good as GOW3's?

foxhound_fox

Well to be fair artistically SMG is better than almost all the wii games, however is it better than them technical wise?

Best Technical Graphics
2008 - Crysis Warhead >>>>>>>>> Metal Gear Solid 4
2009 - ArmA II >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Uncharted 2
2010 - Metro 2033 >>>>>>>>>>>>>God of War 3

GS is really going downhill

MK-Professor

Aside from Crysis those PC games are boring to look at

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

Best Technical Graphics
2008 - Crysis Warhead >>>>>>>>> Metal Gear Solid 4
2009 - ArmA II >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Uncharted 2
2010 - Metro 2033 >>>>>>>>>>>>>God of War 3

GS is really going downhill

raskullibur

Aside from Crysis those PC games are boring to look at

That really doesn't matter since we are talking about technical graphics.

[QUOTE="Sky-"]

Honestly? I am not enough of an expert on graphics to decide what should and what should not be considered the best technical graphics.

foxhound_fox

Even though Metro 2033 have it all still the human model looks weird and the outdoor does not looks good.

When those three questions are approached with all the games this year, Metro 2033 is among the best (granted, I don't know about all of this year's releases).

foxhound_fox

I'd say Lost Planet 2 is the best. The game not only looks good on consoles, an impressive feat in and of itself, it sucessfully implements a variety of DX11 features in a natural, not so taxing way. It's a marvel to see it in motion maxed on PC.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

When those three questions are approached with all the games this year, Metro 2033 is among the best (granted, I don't know about all of this year's releases).

psn8214

I'd say Lost Planet 2 is the best. The game not only looks good on consoles, an impressive feat in and of itself, it sucessfully implements a variety of DX11 features in a natural, not so taxing way. It's a marvel to see it in motion maxed on PC.

I'm not sure if I should pick this up on PC. On consoles the game was meh, controls were clunky and the combat was a bit boring. Also my character liked to get stuck in bushes/rocks/ect. Were these ever fixed/improved on PC? Only reason I want to get this, besides DX11, is to support Capcom bringing more games to PC. Also the visuals on consoles wern't that great, so I'm not expecting anything mind-blowing besides nice Tessellation features.

Change Metro for Crysis Warhead, and GOW for MGS and this is exactly what happened in 08

I'm not sure if I should pick this up on PC. On consoles the game was meh, controls were clunky and the combat was a bit boring. Also my character liked to get stuck in bushes/rocks/ect. Were these ever fixed/improved on PC? Only reason I want to get this, besides DX11, is to support Capcom bringing more games to PC. Also the visuals on consoles wern't that great, so I'm not expecting anything mind-blowing besides nice Tessellation features.

ChubbyGuy40

The essential game is the same, but there have been a number of fixes implemented, and the PC version is much smoother overall - you don't get hung up on bushes etc. Gamespot actually touched on how much the PC version was improved in the review. Plus it's honestly worth it just to look at the pretty scenery. :P

[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.

So if I make a game about rotating a photorrealistic 1 million polygons+ face it should be the best technical award? DCers gonna DC.

So if I make a game about rotating a photorrealistic 1 million polygons+ face it should be the best technical award? DCers gonna DC.

blitzcloud

if the game technically has the best graphics then yeah it should get the award for best graphics. why wouldn't it?

why would you give the award to best graphics to a game that doesn't have the best graphics that's asinine

So if I make a game about rotating a photorrealistic 1 million polygons+ face it should be the best technical award? DCers gonna DC.

blitzcloud

[QUOTE="blitzcloud"]

So if I make a game about rotating a photorrealistic 1 million polygons+ face it should be the best technical award? DCers gonna DC.

washd123

if the game technically has the best graphics then yeah it should get the award for best graphics. why wouldn't it?

why would you give the award to best graphics to a game that doesn't have the best graphics that's asinine

So do you think that a population contest would be just like: let's compare US and Finland (example)?

Or let's make: extension of the country divided by population? To make a fair comparison of population by square meters.

This, in my eyes, is no different.

One asks for 8 gigs of RAM, the other 256mb. One asks for 1gb VRAM, the other 256mb.

The bigger house will always have more space than the smaller one, but the disposition of the interiors is a technical aspect when purchasing it. A 300m2 house is more spacious than a 200m2 one, but the 200m2 can look more spacious, being technically better designed.

The concept of efficiency has always been a key when talking about technological breakthroughs. Another thing is that the quote of the award doesn't really fit how they choose them.

So do you think that a population contest would be just like: let's compare US and Finland (example)?

Or let's make: extension of the country divided by population? To make a fair comparison of population by square meters.

This, in my eyes, is no different.

One asks for 8 gigs of RAM, the other 256mb. One asks for 1gb VRAM, the other 256mb.

The bigger house will always have more space than the smaller one, but the disposition of the interiors is a technical aspect when purchasing it. A 300m2 house is more spacious than a 200m2 one, but the 200m2 can look more spacious, being technically better designed.

The concept of efficiency has always been a key when talking about technological breakthroughs. Another thing is that the quote of the award doesn't really fit how they choose them.

blitzcloud

one also pushes significantly more tech thus requiring more from it.

best graphics (which refers to the tech anyways) technical is a quantifiable term. a 2056x2056 texture is better than a 128x128 texture, lighting that reflects and refracts, and scatters is better then lighting that doesn't. dynamic shadows with smooth edges are better than static ones.

The only time subjective opinion comes into play is with scale. Should STALKER be considering as having better graphics than uncharted 2 for the scale? possibly. should METRO 2033 be docked anything for lack of scale, same with GOW3. and no scale doesn't mean how big the representation is but how large the amount actually rendered is.

Why would the 'best of' award go to anything but the best? especially if it's essentially an objective award?

I'll put it this way, would you give the fastest car award to a jetta (I'm just making an example I'm aware the specific terms are probably not viable) just because it is affordable and gets 30mpg over a mcleareon?

[QUOTE="blitzcloud"]

So do you think that a population contest would be just like: let's compare US and Finland (example)?

Or let's make: extension of the country divided by population? To make a fair comparison of population by square meters.

This, in my eyes, is no different.

One asks for 8 gigs of RAM, the other 256mb. One asks for 1gb VRAM, the other 256mb.

The bigger house will always have more space than the smaller one, but the disposition of the interiors is a technical aspect when purchasing it. A 300m2 house is more spacious than a 200m2 one, but the 200m2 can look more spacious, being technically better designed.

The concept of efficiency has always been a key when talking about technological breakthroughs. Another thing is that the quote of the award doesn't really fit how they choose them.

washd123

one also pushes significantly more tech thus requiring more from it.

best graphics (which refers to the tech anyways) technical is a quantifiable term. a 2056x2056 texture is better than a 128x128 texture, lighting that reflects and refracts, and scatters is better then lighting that doesn't. dynamic shadows with smooth edges are better than static ones.

The only time subjective opinion comes into play is with scale. Should STALKER be considering as having better graphics than uncharted 2 for the scale? possibly. should METRO 2033 be docked anything for lack of scale, same with GOW3. and no scale doesn't mean how big the representation is but how large the amount actually rendered is.

Why would the 'best of' award go to anything but the best? especially if it's essentially an objective award?

I'll put it this way, would you give the fastest car award to a jetta (I'm just making an example I'm aware the specific terms are probably not viable) just because it is affordable and gets 30mpg over a mcleareon?

It pretty clearly seems like the award is based more on what the platform produces opposed to the actual look of the game. I also don't see anywhere where the gamespot said the award was 100% objective either.

It pretty clearly seems like the award is based more on what the platform produces opposed to the actual look of the game. I also don't see anywhere where the gamespot said the award was 100% objective either.

ActicEdge

it says it in the title best graphics, they even specify best technical graphics which is redundant, but anyways I already explained it. there's only one piece that's subjective

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

It pretty clearly seems like the award is based more on what the platform produces opposed to the actual look of the game. I also don't see anywhere where the gamespot said the award was 100% objective either.

washd123

it says it in the title best graphics, they even specify best technical graphics which is redundant, but anyways I already explained it. there's only one piece that's subjective

Let me ask you something. Do you judge everything you read or are interested in based off of the few word title or do you actually read the whole thing, grasp the concept that is put forth and then make a decision? You are arguing a title like its life and death, what exactly are you trying to prove?

Best Technical Graphics
2008 - Crysis Warhead >>>>>>>>> Metal Gear Solid 4
2009 - ArmA II >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Uncharted 2
2010 - Metro 2033 >>>>>>>>>>>>>God of War 3

GS is really going downhill

MK-Professor

Metro 2033 has good graphics but not the best at all S.T.A.L.K.E.R. has way better graphics and GOW3 is the BEST of all time ( yet ) TheGrudge13

Stalker does not look better than metro 2033, even with mods.

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

It pretty clearly seems like the award is based more on what the platform produces opposed to the actual look of the game. I also don't see anywhere where the gamespot said the award was 100% objective either.

ActicEdge

it says it in the title best graphics, they even specify best technical graphics which is redundant, but anyways I already explained it. there's only one piece that's subjective

Let me ask you something. Do you judge everything you read or are interested in based off of the few word title or do you actually read the whole thing, grasp the concept that is put forth and then make a decision? You are arguing a title like its life and death, what exactly are you trying to prove?

Descriptive linguists would disagree with him anyways, so the question is moot.

[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?

Baranga

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...

I am just going by the criteria they set out. You should read what it says after, "than anything we've seen previously". What has GOWIII shown that previous PC titles that came out years ago hasn't shown. NOTHING!

1) Which game has the ability to display at the highest resolution?
2) Which game maintains the highest and smoothest framerate?
3) Which game uses the most advanced shader and rendering technology?

foxhound_fox

Those first two criteria are are irrelevent. For any PC game resolution and framerate is unlocked, and just depends on your hardware and your settings. If I ran Quake 3 at stupid high resolutions at 1000fps on my PC, nobody is going to consider that some technical feat.

The third is completely subjective. Does "advanced' mean "new"? Or "complicated"? Or "sounds coolest on the marketing bullet point list they have on their website"? And even then I think it's silly to completely ignore whether said tech actually makes a game look good. Because what's the point if a game doesn't look good? I could go make a demo in an hour that has 10mil polygons, uses tessellation, HDR, deferred rendering, a fancy subsurface scattering shader, blah blah blah...but it will look like crap because I'm not an artist. Would my demo deserve a "best technical graphics award"?

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

1) Which game has the ability to display at the highest resolution?
2) Which game maintains the highest and smoothest framerate?
3) Which game uses the most advanced shader and rendering technology?

Teufelhuhn

Those first two criteria are are irrelevent. For any PC game resolution and framerate is unlocked, and just depends on your hardware and your settings. If I ran Quake 3 at stupid high resolutions at 1000fps on my PC, nobody is going to consider that some technical feat.

The third is completely subjective. Does "advanced' mean "new"? Or "complicated"? Or "sounds coolest on the marketing bullet point list they have on their website"? And even then I think it's silly to completely ignore whether said tech actually makes a game look good. Because what's the point if a game doesn't look good? I could go make a demo in an hour that has 10mil polygons, uses tessellation, HDR, deferred rendering, a fancy subsurface scattering shader, blah blah blah...but it will look like crap because I'm not an artist. Would my demo deserve a "best technical graphics award"?

Uh, Metro 2033 isn't a tech demo it's a game. Meaning it had artists who worked on the game. And secondly, GOWIII wasn't considered for artistic achievement but for it's technical achievement which it epically fails at when compared to Metro 2033. The graphics are a JOKE and alaughing stock compared to the gorgeous graphics of Metro 2033. The atmosphere, the detail, the lighting is amazing. Easily the second best looking game in the world after Crysis.

[QUOTE="Sky-"]

Honestly? I am not enough of an expert on graphics to decide what should and what should not be considered the best technical graphics.

foxhound_fox

On the other hand, GOW3 will get exactly the same results from every PS3 on the planet.

This is why these console vs. PC graphics debates are pretty much worthless because the results from the PC game vary greatly depending on the hardware. Some people on here think that the PC game should be played on the best possible hardware(and even that is quite subjective). Is the best hardware an ATI or Nvidia card? Intel or AMD? SLI or Crossfire? How much Ram?

Exactly what are the specs of the PC that GS used to play Metro on? Who knows. If they used an i3 with integrated graphics, would that be unfair?

My point is that the specs of the PC used to measure the graphical quality of a game can vary greatly and there is no possible way to objectively decide what's fair as to what the specs should be when making graphical comparisons.

GS's justification might be that they felt that GOW3 pushed the PS3 harder than Metro pushed the PC and if that's what they did, who can argue with that. It's not written in stone as far as what's fair in how a PC game should be compared to a console game. GS, the VGA's, and any other awards all have their own factors when they decide who wins.

[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?

GeneralShowzer

I agree actually. TBH, they should just do two awards, best looking game and best looking game with tech. To me, if a game can look amazing on weak hardware, that says more than a slightly better looking game releasing on twice as powerful hardware.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

Those first two criteria are are irrelevent. For any PC game resolution and framerate is unlocked, and just depends on your hardware and your settings. If I ran Quake 3 at stupid high resolutions at 1000fps on my PC, nobody is going to consider that some technical feat.

The third is completely subjective. Does "advanced' mean "new"? Or "complicated"? Or "sounds coolest on the marketing bullet point list they have on their website"? And even then I think it's silly to completely ignore whether said tech actually makes a game look good. Because what's the point if a game doesn't look good? I could go make a demo in an hour that has 10mil polygons, uses tessellation, HDR, deferred rendering, a fancy subsurface scattering shader, blah blah blah...but it will look like crap because I'm not an artist. Would my demo deserve a "best technical graphics award"?

Xtasy26

Uh, Metro 2033 isn't a tech demo it's a game. Meaning it had artists who worked on the game. And secondly, GOWIII wasn't considered for artistic achievement but for it's technical achievement which it epically fails at when compared to Metro 2033. The graphics are a JOKE and alaughing stock compared to the gorgeous graphics of Metro 2033. The atmosphere, the detail, the lighting is amazing. Easily the second best looking game in the world after Crysis.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

Those first two criteria are are irrelevent. For any PC game resolution and framerate is unlocked, and just depends on your hardware and your settings. If I ran Quake 3 at stupid high resolutions at 1000fps on my PC, nobody is going to consider that some technical feat.

The third is completely subjective. Does "advanced' mean "new"? Or "complicated"? Or "sounds coolest on the marketing bullet point list they have on their website"? And even then I think it's silly to completely ignore whether said tech actually makes a game look good. Because what's the point if a game doesn't look good? I could go make a demo in an hour that has 10mil polygons, uses tessellation, HDR, deferred rendering, a fancy subsurface scattering shader, blah blah blah...but it will look like crap because I'm not an artist. Would my demo deserve a "best technical graphics award"?

Teufelhuhn

Uh, Metro 2033 isn't a tech demo it's a game. Meaning it had artists who worked on the game. And secondly, GOWIII wasn't considered for artistic achievement but for it's technical achievement which it epically fails at when compared to Metro 2033. The graphics are a JOKE and alaughing stock compared to the gorgeous graphics of Metro 2033. The atmosphere, the detail, the lighting is amazing. Easily the second best looking game in the world after Crysis.

I am going by the criteria that Gamespot editors has set for selecting the Best Technical Graphics for 2010. So, tell me how is GOWIII's JOKE graphics in any way shape or form BETTER than PC Metro 2033 in DX10/DX11? Have you even played Metro 2033 on the PC everything maxed out in DX10/DX11?

Those first two criteria are are irrelevent. For any PC game resolution and framerate is unlocked, and just depends on your hardware and your settings. If I ran Quake 3 at stupid high resolutions at 1000fps on my PC, nobody is going to consider that some technical feat.

The third is completely subjective. Does "advanced' mean "new"? Or "complicated"? Or "sounds coolest on the marketing bullet point list they have on their website"? And even then I think it's silly to completely ignore whether said tech actually makes a game look good. Because what's the point if a game doesn't look good? I could go make a demo in an hour that has 10mil polygons, uses tessellation, HDR, deferred rendering, a fancy subsurface scattering shader, blah blah blah...but it will look like crap because I'm not an artist. Would my demo deserve a "best technical graphics award"?

Teufelhuhn

GS's justification might be that they felt that GOW3 pushed the PS3 harder than Metro pushed the PC and if that's what they did, who can argue with that. It's not written in stone as far as what's fair in how a PC game should be compared to a console game. GS, the VGA's, and any other awards all have their own factors when they decide who wins.

mztazmz

What in the world are you talking about? Metro 2033 did push the PC, even a graphics card like the HD 5770 (which is LIGHT YEARS ahead of the JOKE console graphics) has a hard time running it with full DX 11 effect @resolutions of 1680x1050 or higher. You are talking about things you know nothing about. Go look at benchmarks of Metro 2033 running with everything maxed out with DX 11, specifically HardOCP's benchmarks that they did an entire article on for Metro 2033. They came to the conclusion that you need a HD 5870 or higher to run the game in FULL HD 1080P with FSAA and with all DX11 effects. If it's pushing a HD 5870 which is AT LEAST twice the power than ALL THE CONSOLES combined in the history of gaming than it obviously is pushing the PC. Do your research.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

Those first two criteria are are irrelevent. For any PC game resolution and framerate is unlocked, and just depends on your hardware and your settings. If I ran Quake 3 at stupid high resolutions at 1000fps on my PC, nobody is going to consider that some technical feat.

The third is completely subjective. Does "advanced' mean "new"? Or "complicated"? Or "sounds coolest on the marketing bullet point list they have on their website"? And even then I think it's silly to completely ignore whether said tech actually makes a game look good. Because what's the point if a game doesn't look good? I could go make a demo in an hour that has 10mil polygons, uses tessellation, HDR, deferred rendering, a fancy subsurface scattering shader, blah blah blah...but it will look like crap because I'm not an artist. Would my demo deserve a "best technical graphics award"?

foxhound_fox

It still boggles my mind that people can honestly say GOW3 looks better than Metro2033. We're talking about an OBJECTIVE award, which ironically doesn't seem to be objective in any way. HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

Those first two criteria are are irrelevent. For any PC game resolution and framerate is unlocked, and just depends on your hardware and your settings. If I ran Quake 3 at stupid high resolutions at 1000fps on my PC, nobody is going to consider that some technical feat.

The third is completely subjective. Does "advanced' mean "new"? Or "complicated"? Or "sounds coolest on the marketing bullet point list they have on their website"? And even then I think it's silly to completely ignore whether said tech actually makes a game look good. Because what's the point if a game doesn't look good? I could go make a demo in an hour that has 10mil polygons, uses tessellation, HDR, deferred rendering, a fancy subsurface scattering shader, blah blah blah...but it will look like crap because I'm not an artist. Would my demo deserve a "best technical graphics award"?

foxhound_fox

This is exactly my point if they thought it was better that give the award artistically.It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS (as seen by the many screenshots PC gamers posted)PC Metro 2033 will run circles around GOWIII's graphics in the technical arena.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

Those first two criteria are are irrelevent. For any PC game resolution and framerate is unlocked, and just depends on your hardware and your settings. If I ran Quake 3 at stupid high resolutions at 1000fps on my PC, nobody is going to consider that some technical feat.

The third is completely subjective. Does "advanced' mean "new"? Or "complicated"? Or "sounds coolest on the marketing bullet point list they have on their website"? And even then I think it's silly to completely ignore whether said tech actually makes a game look good. Because what's the point if a game doesn't look good? I could go make a demo in an hour that has 10mil polygons, uses tessellation, HDR, deferred rendering, a fancy subsurface scattering shader, blah blah blah...but it will look like crap because I'm not an artist. Would my demo deserve a "best technical graphics award"?

Xtasy26

This is exactly my point if they thought it was better that give the award artistically.It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS (as seen by the many screenshots PC gamers posted)PC Metro 2033 will run circles around GOWIII's graphics in the technical arena.

[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?

blitzcloud

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.

So if I make a game about rotating a photorrealistic 1 million polygons+ face it should be the best technical award? DCers gonna DC.

Well Gamespot's criteria is based on creating a "impressive pictrue than anything we have seen previously"? What exactly did the outdated graphics of GOWIII did that we haven't seen before on the PC. EVEN F.E.A.R. on the PC that is a 5 year old game looks a lot better at high resoluitons with soft shadows enabled. At least Metro 2033 pushed new tech like tesselation and without a doubt the best looking game since Crysis/Crysis Warhead.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Then what is the point in having two categories, one for art, and the other for tech, if they are both entirely subjective anyways? If they just want to tell us what games look "the best" then why not just have one "best graphics" category? If they want a technical category, we need some defintions as to what they are evaluating... not just what they think "looks best" to them. This is I think why MGS4 beat Crysis: Warhead... the categories don't really mean much of anything.

Teufelhuhn

This is exactly my point if they thought it was better that give the award artistically.It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS (as seen by the many screenshots PC gamers posted)PC Metro 2033 will run circles around GOWIII's graphics in the technical arena.

Yeah, it's not BLANTANTLY OBVIOUS to the GS editors who doesn't have a clue when it comes to graphics. Oh I forgot these guys think Metal Gear Solid looks better that Crysis Warhead. Go figures! I personally think these guys are running on Intel's Integrated Graphics, they are so much fail. LOL.

technical graphics award is not about which game has a higher res and textures.

i dont think you know what it means.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Then what is the point in having two categories, one for art, and the other for tech, if they are both entirely subjective anyways? If they just want to tell us what games look "the best" then why not just have one "best graphics" category? If they want a technical category, we need some defintions as to what they are evaluating... not just what they think "looks best" to them. This is I think why MGS4 beat Crysis: Warhead... the categories don't really mean much of anything.

Teufelhuhn

This is exactly my point if they thought it was better that give the award artistically.It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS (as seen by the many screenshots PC gamers posted)PC Metro 2033 will run circles around GOWIII's graphics in the technical arena.

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.

[QUOTE="blitzcloud"]

[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.

Xtasy26

So if I make a game about rotating a photorrealistic 1 million polygons+ face it should be the best technical award? DCers gonna DC.

Well Gamespot's criteria is based on creating a "impressive pictrue than anything we have seen previously"? What exactly did the outdated graphics of GOWIII did that we haven't seen before on the PC. EVEN F.E.A.R. on the PC that is a 5 year old game looks a lot better at high resoluitons with soft shadows enabled. At least Metro 2033 pushed new tech like tesselation and without a doubt the best looking game since Crysis/Crysis Warhead.