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

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.

Xtasy26

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

i dont think you know what it means.

ZoomZoom2490

DX10's Tessellation is about geometry i.e. geometry amplification.

Left = Normal

Right = DX11 geometry amplification.

It must not be so "BLATANTLY OBVIOUS", considering GS didn't even nominate the game. :?

Teufelhuhn

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]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. raskullibur

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

It must not be so "BLATANTLY OBVIOUS", considering GS didn't even nominate the game. :?

Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

It must not be so "BLATANTLY OBVIOUS", considering GS didn't even nominate the game. :?

Stevo_the_gamer

They're just people with opinions. Why would their opinions count any more less than anyone here in a forum? We're not talking about brain surgery, we're talking about looking at some games and picking what they think looks good.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

It must not be so "BLATANTLY OBVIOUS", considering GS didn't even nominate the game. :?

Gambler_3

I never said they were an "authority". My point all along has been that the editors are just a few people with an opinion, and that their opinion isn't somehow better than someone else's (or vice versa). I only brought them up because if it really is so super mega-obivous that Metro is a better looking game than GOW3, then how do you explain their award choice? Either you go with the simple and plausible explanation of "it's not actually an obvious, universal fact", or you resort to ridiculous claims of them being "idiots" or "paid off" or whatever.

Teufelhuhn

Have you played metro 2033?

They're just people with opinions. Why would their opinions count any more less than anyone here in a forum? We're not talking about brain surgery, we're talking about looking at some games and picking what they think looks good.

Teufelhuhn

And why cant they be idiots? It is entirely possible that all this is because of one editor, the one who reviewed the game.

Gambler_3

They sure don't seem like "idiots" to me. Kevin gave a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why they didn't pick Metro, and it didn't sound like something said by someone with an abnormally low IQ.

Personally I believe that if your analyzing a situation and your only possible conclusion is that a group of people is a bunch of idiots, then you're probably missing something and need to think about it some more.

The problem is gamespot did not give metro 2033 "technically proficeint graphics" emblem and nominating that game for best technical graphics would have been rather contradictory....;)

Gambler_3

Nice conspiracy theory. :P

Have you played metro 2033?

Gambler_3

Opinions which lack credibility, trying to give weight to their opinions does not -- in any way, shape or form -- add to your argument, in effect, it does the opposite. Hell, someone can tell me that MGS4 is superior to Crysis Warhead, heck, it's their opinion, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to die from laughter at the stupidity of it. :?

Stevo_the_gamer

"Every year, games push the boundaries of what game hardware can do by exploring new effects, pushing more polygons, and creating a more technically impressive picture than anything we've seen previously. This category recognizes the games with the most technically impressive graphics."

Artistic. Techniqual.A more ______ impressive picture. Most _______ impressive graphics. I agree that GS doesn't really tell us what technically means. They could of used other words instead of using technically all of the time for this brief introduction. In my eyes technically means technology. This makes the PC technically supirior to anything else. I see GoW3 being a more interesting world than 2033, but that's artistic.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

Opinions which lack credibility, trying to give weight to their opinions does not -- in any way, shape or form -- add to your argument, in effect, it does the opposite. Hell, someone can tell me that MGS4 is superior to Crysis Warhead, heck, it's their opinion, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to die from laughter at the stupidity of it. :?

Teufelhuhn

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

Opinions which lack credibility, trying to give weight to their opinions does not -- in any way, shape or form -- add to your argument, in effect, it does the opposite. Hell, someone can tell me that MGS4 is superior to Crysis Warhead, heck, it's their opinion, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to die from laughter at the stupidity of it. :?

Gambler_3

I am surprised that this thread is still up as the topic header is trolling the GameSpot editors which is against the rules. Believe it or not, they are users like us.thom_maytees

"Credibility" doesn't have anything to do with an opinion on how pretty something a game is. You either agree with an opinion, or you don't. Unless they've given some inaccurate facts, you have no reason to say they're "lacking in credibility". All you can say is that you don't agree with their opinion, and apparently you don't respect it either.

Teufelhuhn

[QUOTE="mztazmz"]

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.

Xtasy26

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.

They may have felt that GOW3 was more impressive given the hardware it's running on compared to the hardware you just described that it takes to get impressive results from Metro.

I love the way you keep bragging about the kind of (expensive)hardware required to make Metro look good. The fact that Metro needs all this expensive hardware to look good is nothing to brag about. If anything, the only case you're making is that Metro is a poorly optimized game that relies on high-end PC's to look good. Other games like UT3 look really good, even on midrange and lowend PC's. That is an example of good optimization.

So how does Metro look on a PC with a 7800gtx(PS3 equivalent) compared to GOW3? Like sh1t right? Yup.

The fact is that Crysis with user mods running on DX9 looks better than Metro and that game is 3 years old. That is why, as a PC game, Metro doesn't impress much. Talk all you want about DX11 and tesselation, VISUAL RESULTS are all that matter.

No PC game has been able to match or beat Crysis's graphics in 3 years, and until one does, nobody will be impressed.

And considering that you hate consoles so much, why don't you delete your account here and use a PC GAMING ONLY website? I think you'd be much less frustrated:P

They may have felt that GOW3 was more impressive given the hardware it's running on compared to the hardware you just described that it takes to get impressive results from Metro.

mztazmz

I don't intend to be "mean", but that is ridiculous.

They are reviewing the graphics, not the limitations ofhardware.

For example, wouldyour reasoning mean someone could code a new game for N64, wring the best possible graphicsout ofN64 hardware and thusly have the best technical game?

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

"Credibility" doesn't have anything to do with an opinion on how pretty something a game is. You either agree with an opinion, or you don't. Unless they've given some inaccurate facts, you have no reason to say they're "lacking in credibility". All you can say is that you don't agree with their opinion, and apparently you don't respect it either.

Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

"Credibility" doesn't have anything to do with an opinion on how pretty something a game is. You either agree with an opinion, or you don't. Unless they've given some inaccurate facts, you have no reason to say they're "lacking in credibility". All you can say is that you don't agree with their opinion, and apparently you don't respect it either.

Teufelhuhn

There are quite a few $10 PSN titles that are native 1080p with silky smooth framerates, yet GOW3 is 1080i and certainly less than 60fps.

But somehow, GOW3 looks WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than any of those games:shock:

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

"Credibility" doesn't have anything to do with an opinion on how pretty something a game is. You either agree with an opinion, or you don't. Unless they've given some inaccurate facts, you have no reason to say they're "lacking in credibility". All you can say is that you don't agree with their opinion, and apparently you don't respect it either.

Teufelhuhn

Yes comparing graphics is not objective but as far as I am concerned it is "common sense" to say that metro 2033 looks infinitely better on a technical level than gow3. If someone "finds" gow3 more appealing to the eye then that means they like the art s t y l e and for that we have best artistic graphics.

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

-Snooze-

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

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

mitu123

I will ask again, have you played metro 2033? If not then you are not qualified to debate on this.

Yes comparing graphics is not objective but as far as I am concerned it is "common sense" to say that metro 2033 looks infinitely better on a technical level than gow3. If someone "finds" gow3 more appealing to the eye then that means they like the art s t y l e and for that we have best artistic graphics.

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

I will ask again, have you played metro 2033? If not then you are not qualified to debate on this.

Yes comparing graphics is not objective but as far as I am concerned it is "common sense" to say that metro 2033 looks infinitely better on a technical level than gow3. If someone "finds" gow3 more appealing to the eye then that means they like the art s t y l e and for that we have best artistic graphics.

Teufelhuhn

We all know you wanted Ghost of Sparta to win :)

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

If you dont like it go somewhere else , it looks like hermits got owned again. GOW3 looks amazing MLAA making it equal to 8xAA, Native 720P outstanding textures, no load times , up to 50 enemies on screen at a time. Yes its very impressive game and just so you know about every website is giving it to GOW3 not just gamespot.

[QUOTE="raskullibur"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]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

LOL no it wasnt. And its barely nominated anywhere , The fact of the matter is its sad Graphic card companys can throw around new effects coming out then mention a game that has them and then all the hermits come in in SW and say ( ZOMG ITS THE BEST LOOKING GAME EVER) Metro 2033 has very little going on screen at a time , the geometry is average and other then nice textures and lighting it does nothing special.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

I will ask again, have you played metro 2033? If not then you are not qualified to debate on this.

Yes comparing graphics is not objective but as far as I am concerned it is "common sense" to say that metro 2033 looks infinitely better on a technical level than gow3. If someone "finds" gow3 more appealing to the eye then that means they like the art s t y l e and for that we have best artistic graphics.

SilverChimera

We all know you wanted Ghost of Sparta to win :)

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

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

SilverChimera

Simple answer- because this is consolespot. Like it or not, argue it or not, GameSpot is focused predominantly on console users. PC users represent a much larger gaming audience, but are not centered around one device. All Nintendo fans are curious as to what Nintendo is doing next, very few PC users actually care what nVidia does next. While console users are defined by systems, PC users are largely centered around games. At the end of the day, that takes a *lot* more work to keep up with, and it's not worth it for the page views.

-

yes, it's consolespot. Oh well, it is what it is, if the universe revolved around what game reviewers thought of games, it would be a sad place indeed - they're just opinions at the end of the day.

-

Also, Metro 2033 is kind of garbage :o

Gears of War got so much crap for being a "corridor shooter" (which it isn't, especially Gears 2), and yet Metro 2033 is the technical champ? Why?

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="mztazmz"] OK, so you're butt-hurt beyond belief, got it.

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.

raskullibur

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.

Which version of Metro 2033 were you playing, the one running on Integrated graphics. Metro 2033 will do things graphically that GOWIII can only DREAM OF. What has God of War 3 done that is "special" that we have not seen on the PC?

[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.

3) LMAO.

1) If it fails their own standards that they set out. Then it's fail...what else would i call it? Maybe loony?

2) This was for the best technical graphics, not how much it pushed in terms of little hardware. If that was the case why don't we choose Goldeney on Wii as the best "technical" graphics because it did "so much" with Wii's antique hardware. While we at it, why don't we throw in a PS2 game. The arguemnt is illogical.

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="Xtasy26"]

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.

Teufelhuhn

Why don't you answer the question I asked you earlier, that you haven't answered, because your arguments are devoid of logic. In what way shape or form is GOWIII graphics are better technically than Metro 2033?

[QUOTE="krayzieE99"][QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

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.

krayzieE99

I can max it out @900P (which is the same resolution I run Crysis/Crysis Warhead to get silky smooth framerates) which still pwns consoles lame 720P that most consoles run on because of their JOKE hardware.

[QUOTE="1Stark1"]

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

lordlors

Sales say differently. That is why most devs make console versions just like how Dragon Age was made on all Ps3 and 360 along side the PC eventhough its gameplay is one that you would usually assume on PC

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

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.

TheSterls

If you dont like it go somewhere else , it looks like hermits got owned again. GOW3 looks amazing MLAA making it equal to 8xAA, Native 720P outstanding textures, no load times , up to 50 enemies on screen at a time. Yes its very impressive game and just so you know about every website is giving it to GOW3 not just gamespot.

LMAO. So does that mean Crysis Warhead looks worse than MGS4? Does that mean a Ford Pinto is better than a Lamborghini Murcielago? The graphics of GOWIII are a JOKE compared to Metro 2033. In which way shape or form is GOWIII better than Metro 2033? And how many of those websites actually ran the game on a gaming rig?

I could understand if the GS staff got drunk and picked GOW3 ut to not even include ANY pc games well one word comes to mind BIAS