XXXXXX

233 results
1
2
3
4
5

This topic is locked from further discussion.

deactivated-64ba3ebd35404

7590

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#51 deactivated-64ba3ebd35404

Member since 2004 • 7590 Posts

First time I've agreed with a GT E3 Award in a long time. Kirby's Epic Yarn has a fantastically unique art style, and deserved to win compared to the sequels that most companies announced that looked similar to/worse then their predecessors. Examples Crysis 2 looks significantly worse than the original. While it still looks great, the step down from the original shouldn't be awarded. Gears of War 3 looks pretty much identical to Gears of War 2 only with uglier environments (judging from the demo anyway) Killzone 3 looks identical to Killzone 2 graphically, only it now runs at half the framerate thanks to 3D, yaaay... It was close for me between Rage and Kirby, but I completely agree with Kirby being given the award. Also, Lol@All the people who think that Art Style is seperate from graphics.

14 years ago

20832

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 wolverine4262

Member since 2004 • 20832 Posts

[QUOTE="kieranb2000"] Also, Lol@All the people who think that Art Style is seperate from graphics.

No, you are wrong. art style and technical graphics cannot be compared by any stretch of the imagination

14 years ago

4666

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#53 KarateeeChop

Member since 2010 • 4666 Posts

gt5 didn't even make the list. :lol: how embarrassing for pd and sony

14 years ago

deactivated-64ba3ebd35404

7590

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#54 deactivated-64ba3ebd35404

Member since 2004 • 7590 Posts

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] Also, Lol@All the people who think that Art Style is seperate from graphics.

No, you are wrong. art style and technical graphics cannot be compared by any stretch of the imagination

This award wasn't for Technical graphics however, it was for Graphics as a whole. For a game that impressed Gametrailers with its graphical prowess either artistically or technically. Kirby won for being artistically impressive. Largely because none of the other games shown were graphically impressive artistically or technically other than Rage.

14 years ago

13567

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 13567 Posts

Gears 3, Rage, Killzone 3 and Crysis 3 got ownd :lol:
It seems we have a new Graphics King, and it's on the Wii.
IronBass

:lol:

But seriously I didn't expect this, especially from GT.

Oh and the GT commets are hilarious to read.

14 years ago

4815

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#57 amaneuvering

Member since 2009 • 4815 Posts

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"]That is absolutely the wrong choice PERIOD Its obvious that a graphics competition should be based on technical graphics, not art style which should have a category of its own. That is a TERRIBLE choice for best graphics as its simply not true by a mile...Side note: Epic yarn has one of the best art styles i have ever seen.

I tell you what... Show me the reviews that rate the "art style" and "graphics" as separate categories... In fact, show me the reviews that differentiate between art style and "technical graphics" yet only use the word "graphics" when they specifically mean "technical graphics" or "graphics technology"... "Graphics" on it's own means BOTH the art style and the graphics technology powering the visuals when discussing a games "graphics". Anyone who thinks differently is the one that is in the wrong imo and if they are using the word graphics when they actually mean just the technology/enginebehind the graphicsthen they should specify it as such, and not the other way around.

14 years ago

4815

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#58 amaneuvering

Member since 2009 • 4815 Posts

[QUOTE="kieranb2000"] Also, Lol@All the people who think that Art Style is seperate from graphics.wolverine4262

No, you are wrong. art style and technical graphics cannot be compared by any stretch of the imagination

I tell you what...

Show me the reviews that rate the "art style" and "graphics" as separate categories...

In fact, show me the reviews that differentiate between art style and "technical graphics" yet only use the word "graphics" when they specifically mean "technical graphics" or "graphics technology"...

"Graphics" on it's own means BOTH the art style and the graphics technology powering the visuals when discussing a games "graphics".

Anyone who thinks differently is the one that is in the wrong imo and if they are using the word graphics when they actually mean just the technology/engine behind the graphics then they should specify it as such, and not the other way around.

14 years ago

3201

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 88mphSlayer

Member since 2010 • 3201 Posts

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] Also, Lol@All the people who think that Art Style is seperate from graphics.kieranb2000

No, you are wrong. art style and technical graphics cannot be compared by any stretch of the imagination

This award wasn't for Technical graphics however, it was for Graphics as a whole. For a game that impressed Gametrailers with its graphical prowess either artistically or technically. Kirby won for being artistically impressive. Largely because none of the other games shown were graphically impressive artistically or technically other than Rage.

tbh, while i'm okay with this explanation, it's not really worth defending gametrailers when it comes to their choices in best graphics

they've been VERY inconsistent over the years when it comes to rewarding graphics

14 years ago

32198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 2

#60 Cherokee_Jack

Member since 2008 • 32198 Posts

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] Also, Lol@All the people who think that Art Style is seperate from graphics.

No, you are wrong. art style and technical graphics cannot be compared by any stretch of the imagination

They didn't say technical graphics. Using graphics to mean technical and artistic visuals is valid. The problem is that 4/5ths of their nominations were based on technical achievements, so this is more like a technical graphics category invaded by an otherwise nonexistent artistic graphics category.

14 years ago

20832

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 wolverine4262

Member since 2004 • 20832 Posts

[QUOTE="kieranb2000"][QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] Also, Lol@All the people who think that Art Style is seperate from graphics.

No, you are wrong. art style and technical graphics cannot be compared by any stretch of the imagination

This award wasn't for Technical graphics however, it was for Graphics as a whole. For a game that impressed Gametrailers with its graphical prowess either artistically or technically. Kirby won for being artistically impressive. Largely because none of the other games shown were graphically impressive artistically or technically other than Rage.

If that is how GT does it, then there are a TON of other games that should have been on that list. It is flawed and does an injustice to both approaches to game design. Ill leave my last comment as this: Graphical Epic yarn looks mediocre at best. Artistically, It is absolutely beautiful.

14 years ago

20832

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62 wolverine4262

Member since 2004 • 20832 Posts

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] Also, Lol@All the people who think that Art Style is seperate from graphics.amaneuvering

No, you are wrong. art style and technical graphics cannot be compared by any stretch of the imagination

I tell you what...

Show me the reviews that rate the "art style" and "graphics" as separate categories...

In fact, show me the reviews that differentiate between art style and "technical graphics" yet only use the word "graphics" when they specifically mean "technical graphics" or "graphics technology"...

"Graphics" on it's own means BOTH the art style and the graphics technology powering the visuals when discussing a games "graphics".

Anyone who thinks differently is the one that is in the wrong imo and if they are using the word graphics when they actually mean just the technology/engine behind the graphics then they should specify it as such, and not the other way around.

You want me to sift through reviews? lol, im good.

14 years ago

deactivated-64ba3ebd35404

7590

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#63 deactivated-64ba3ebd35404

Member since 2004 • 7590 Posts

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"][QUOTE="wolverine4262"] No, you are wrong. art style and technical graphics cannot be compared by any stretch of the imagination

This award wasn't for Technical graphics however, it was for Graphics as a whole. For a game that impressed Gametrailers with its graphical prowess either artistically or technically. Kirby won for being artistically impressive. Largely because none of the other games shown were graphically impressive artistically or technically other than Rage.

If that is how GT does it, then there are a TON of other games that should have been on that list. It is flawed and does an injustice to both approaches to game design. Ill leave my last comment as this: Graphical Epic yarn looks mediocre at best. Artistically, It is absolutely beautiful.

Honestly, I think that the nomination list should have been shorter. Child of Eden, Rage and Kirby's Epic Yarn were the only graphically impressive games at E3 this year. You can't seperate Graphics into "Graphics" and "Art style" that's silly. You mean, Technically Epic Yarn looks mediocre at best (which I disagree with, but it's your opinion) and Artistically it is beautiful.

14 years ago

20832

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 wolverine4262

Member since 2004 • 20832 Posts

Honestly, I think that the nomination list should have been shorter. Child of Eden, Rage and Kirby's Epic Yarn were the only graphically impressive games at E3 this year. You can't seperate Graphics into "Graphics" and "Art style" that's silly. You mean, Technically Epic Yarn looks mediocre at best (which I disagree with, but it's your opinion) and Artistically it is beautiful.kieranb2000

Yes, you are right. There are technical graphics and artistic graphics, but they are fundamentally different in how they should be evaluated. Artistic graphics are all about originality and being unique. Technical graphics includes many other factors that obviously dont need explanation.

14 years ago

deactivated-64ba3ebd35404

7590

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#65 deactivated-64ba3ebd35404

Member since 2004 • 7590 Posts

[QUOTE="kieranb2000"] Honestly, I think that the nomination list should have been shorter. Child of Eden, Rage and Kirby's Epic Yarn were the only graphically impressive games at E3 this year. You can't seperate Graphics into "Graphics" and "Art style" that's silly. You mean, Technically Epic Yarn looks mediocre at best (which I disagree with, but it's your opinion) and Artistically it is beautiful.wolverine4262

Yes, you are right. There are technical graphics and artistic graphics, but they are fundamentally different in how they should be evaluated. Artistic graphics are all about originality and being unique. Technical graphics includes many other factors that obviously dont need explanation.

True, but it's also possible to judge a game's graphics as a whole. The great technical graphics can balance out the lack of artistic graphics if done well. Unfortunately outside of Rage, no games had anything new or impressive technically. So it really came down to just Artistic.

14 years ago

20832

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#66 wolverine4262

Member since 2004 • 20832 Posts

[QUOTE="kieranb2000"] True, but it's also possible to judge a game's graphics as a whole. The great technical graphics can balance out the lack of artistic graphics if done well. Unfortunately outside of Rage, no games had anything new or impressive technically. So it really came down to just Artistic.

If that were true, then those games should have been on the list. Like I said before, 2 separate awards would make much more sense...

14 years ago

30574

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 31

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 30574 Posts

They dont know the diference between art style and graphics!

14 years ago

5796

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 5796 Posts

wait.....wii has the new graphics king ?

14 years ago

Stevo_the_gamer

50169

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

#69 Stevo_the_gamer Moderator

Member since 2004 • 50169 Posts

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"]That is absolutely the wrong choice PERIOD Its obvious that a graphics competition should be based on technical graphics, not art style which should have a category of its own. That is a TERRIBLE choice for best graphics as its simply not true by a mile...Side note: Epic yarn has one of the best art styles i have ever seen.

These are my thoughts as well, I"m not a fan for including artstyle into the best graphics discussion.

14 years ago

20148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 20148 Posts

Best looking game at E3? OK fine great art. But it does not have the best ''graphics'', these kids need to be schooled.

14 years ago

Nintendo_Ownes7

30973

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#71 Nintendo_Ownes7

Member since 2005 • 30973 Posts

They dont know the diference between art style and graphics!
PAL360

Graphics is Artstyle included They didn't distinguish between Artistic and Technical if it was Best Technical then Kirby wouldn't win if it was Best Artistic then none of the other games would win. But they only said Best Graphics it could mean Artistic or Technical.

14 years ago

2902

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 Fried_Shrimp

Member since 2009 • 2902 Posts

Graphics also means art style. Kirby is legit.

14 years ago

2972

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2972 Posts

Gotta agree with them...though shouldn't it be in the art style category?

14 years ago

27442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#74 finalfantasy94

Member since 2004 • 27442 Posts

[QUOTE="kieranb2000"] True, but it's also possible to judge a game's graphics as a whole. The great technical graphics can balance out the lack of artistic graphics if done well. Unfortunately outside of Rage, no games had anything new or impressive technically. So it really came down to just Artistic.wolverine4262

If that were true, then those games should have been on the list. Like I said before, 2 separate awards would make much more sense...

Pretty much.

14 years ago

20148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 20148 Posts

You can't put a game like Kirby or Pixeljunk Shooter against an Alan Wake or Killzone 3. Thats completely unfair and ridiculous.

14 years ago

2902

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#76 Fried_Shrimp

Member since 2009 • 2902 Posts

You can't put a game like Kirby or Pixeljunk Shooter against an Alan Wake or Killzone 3. Thats completely unfair and ridiculous.tomarlyn

Graphics means the overall art style, and Kirby wiped the floor clean.

14 years ago

deactivated-64ba3ebd35404

7590

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#77 deactivated-64ba3ebd35404

Member since 2004 • 7590 Posts

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] True, but it's also possible to judge a game's graphics as a whole. The great technical graphics can balance out the lack of artistic graphics if done well. Unfortunately outside of Rage, no games had anything new or impressive technically. So it really came down to just Artistic.

If that were true, then those games should have been on the list. Like I said before, 2 separate awards would make much more sense...

How so though? Gears of War 3 looks pretty much identical to Gears of War 2, only they finally turned the saturation filter off (Yes, it's a filter), and Killzone 3 looks identical to Killzone 2, only in 3D, which adds very little to the experience other than making it run slower. Neither of those are technically OR artistically impressive.

14 years ago

Nintendo_Ownes7

30973

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#78 Nintendo_Ownes7

Member since 2005 • 30973 Posts

Gotta agree with them...though shouldn't it be in the art style category? IppoTenma

They didn't have an Artistic Category if they did they should've had two Best Graphics Technical and Best Graphics Artistic. This could even be just Best Graphics Overall.

14 years ago

20148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 20148 Posts

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"]You can't put a game like Kirby or Pixeljunk Shooter against an Alan Wake or Killzone 3. Thats completely unfair and ridiculous.Fried_Shrimp

Graphics means the overall art style, and Kirby wiped the floor clean.

No it doesn't. There's art style and there's technical graphics. Kirby shows no great display of technical graphics.

14 years ago

17601

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#80 mrmusicman247

Member since 2008 • 17601 Posts

YES! :D Although that is utterly ridiculous. It should have been most visually pleasing game. Not best graphics. Rage takes that title.

14 years ago

20832

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#81 wolverine4262

Member since 2004 • 20832 Posts

[QUOTE="kieranb2000"][QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] True, but it's also possible to judge a game's graphics as a whole. The great technical graphics can balance out the lack of artistic graphics if done well. Unfortunately outside of Rage, no games had anything new or impressive technically. So it really came down to just Artistic.

If that were true, then those games should have been on the list. Like I said before, 2 separate awards would make much more sense...

How so though? Gears of War 3 looks pretty much identical to Gears of War 2, only they finally turned the saturation filter off (Yes, it's a filter), and Killzone 3 looks identical to Killzone 2, only in 3D, which adds very little to the experience other than making it run slower. Neither of those are technically OR artistically impressive.

No, I meant more artistically driven games should have been on that list if that were true. In reality, GT put Kirby up against a couple of technical juggernauts...one of these things is not like the others...

14 years ago

deactivated-64ba3ebd35404

7590

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#82 deactivated-64ba3ebd35404

Member since 2004 • 7590 Posts

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"][QUOTE="wolverine4262"] If that were true, then those games should have been on the list. Like I said before, 2 separate awards would make much more sense...

How so though? Gears of War 3 looks pretty much identical to Gears of War 2, only they finally turned the saturation filter off (Yes, it's a filter), and Killzone 3 looks identical to Killzone 2, only in 3D, which adds very little to the experience other than making it run slower. Neither of those are technically OR artistically impressive.

No, I meant more artistically driven games should have been on that list if that were true. In reality, GT put Kirby up against a couple of technical juggernauts...one of these things is not like the others...

Ah, I see what you mean, my bad =]

14 years ago

4815

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#83 amaneuvering

Member since 2009 • 4815 Posts

[QUOTE="amaneuvering"]
[QUOTE="wolverine4262"] No, you are wrong. art style and technical graphics cannot be compared by any stretch of the imaginationwolverine4262

I tell you what...

Show me the reviews that rate the "art style" and "graphics" as separate categories...

In fact, show me the reviews that differentiate between art style and "technical graphics" yet only use the word "graphics" when they specifically mean "technical graphics" or "graphics technology"...

"Graphics" on it's own means BOTH the art style and the graphics technology powering the visuals when discussing a games "graphics".

Anyone who thinks differently is the one that is in the wrong imo and if they are using the word graphics when they actually mean just the technology/engine behind the graphics then they should specify it as such, and not the other way around.

You want me to sift through reviews? lol, im good.

You don't have to. You just have to look how they categorize their scoring at the end. They don't split it into art style and graphics, or even art style and technical graphics or graphics technology. They simply score GRAPHICS, in the vast majority of cases, and that covers both the art style and the graphics technology. See, I did all the work for you in proving my point.

14 years ago

20832

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#84 wolverine4262

Member since 2004 • 20832 Posts

[QUOTE="kieranb2000"] Ah, I see what you mean, my bad =]

Im only upset because its really not fair to the developers. Its good to see an artist game getting recognition, but that doesnt mean an achievement like Rage should be ignored.

14 years ago

2339

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2339 Posts

Great looking game. Surprised it beat Crysis, but i'm thrilled.

14 years ago

2339

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2339 Posts

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] Ah, I see what you mean, my bad =]

Im only upset because its really not fair to the developers. Its good to see an artist game getting recognition, but that doesnt mean an achievement like Rage should be ignored.

Rage doesn't look as photo realistic as GT does. Do a comparison yourself. :D

14 years ago

2902

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#87 Fried_Shrimp

Member since 2009 • 2902 Posts

[QUOTE="Fried_Shrimp"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"]You can't put a game like Kirby or Pixeljunk Shooter against an Alan Wake or Killzone 3. Thats completely unfair and ridiculous.tomarlyn

Graphics means the overall art style, and Kirby wiped the floor clean.

No it doesn't. There's art style and there's technical graphics. Kirby shows no great display of technical graphics.

Yes it does. I did a course in Graphic Design.

14 years ago

4815

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#88 amaneuvering

Member since 2009 • 4815 Posts

[QUOTE="Fried_Shrimp"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"]You can't put a game like Kirby or Pixeljunk Shooter against an Alan Wake or Killzone 3. Thats completely unfair and ridiculous.tomarlyn

Graphics means the overall art style, and Kirby wiped the floor clean.

No it doesn't. There's art style and there's technical graphics. Kirby shows no great display of technical graphics.

I tell you what...

Show me the reviews that rate the "art style" and "graphics" as separate categories...

In fact, show me the reviews that differentiate between art style and "technical graphics" yet only use the word "graphics" when they specifically mean "technical graphics" or "graphics technology"...

"Graphics" on it's own means BOTH the art style and the graphics technology powering the visuals when discussing a games "graphics".

Anyone who thinks differently is the one that is in the wrong imo and if they are using the word graphics when they actually mean just the technology/engine behind the graphics then they should specify it as such, using terms like "technical graphics" or "graphics technology" or something like that, and not the other way around.

14 years ago

deactivated-64ba3ebd35404

7590

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#89 deactivated-64ba3ebd35404

Member since 2004 • 7590 Posts

[QUOTE="Kokuro_Kun"][QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] Ah, I see what you mean, my bad =]

Im only upset because its really not fair to the developers. Its good to see an artist game getting recognition, but that doesnt mean an achievement like Rage should be ignored.

Rage doesn't look as photo realistic as GT does. Do a comparison yourself. :D

GT has also looked the same way for the past 3 years. There is nothing impressive about its graphics anymore, other than the impressive fact that it has taken so long for the game to STILL have not come out.

14 years ago

20832

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#90 wolverine4262

Member since 2004 • 20832 Posts

[QUOTE="Kokuro_Kun"][QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] Ah, I see what you mean, my bad =]

Im only upset because its really not fair to the developers. Its good to see an artist game getting recognition, but that doesnt mean an achievement like Rage should be ignored.

Rage doesn't look as photo realistic as GT does. Do a comparison yourself. :D

There is WAY more going on in Rage than GT. A LOT of racing games have approached photo realism..

14 years ago

20148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 20148 Posts

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="Fried_Shrimp"] Graphics means the overall art style, and Kirby wiped the floor clean.Fried_Shrimp

No it doesn't. There's art style and there's technical graphics. Kirby shows no great display of technical graphics.

Yes it does. I did a course in Graphic Design.

Whatever. Art style is subjective and technical graphics are a different beast.

14 years ago

20832

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#92 wolverine4262

Member since 2004 • 20832 Posts

[QUOTE="amaneuvering"] You don't have to. You just have to look how they categorize their scoring at the end. They don't split it into art style and graphics, or even art style and technical graphics or graphics technology. They simply score GRAPHICS, in the vast majority of cases, and that covers both the art style and the graphics technology. See, I did all the work for you in proving my point.

That is for rating a single game on a single platform. When comparing many games across multiple systems, it should not be treated the same.

14 years ago

2902

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#93 Fried_Shrimp

Member since 2009 • 2902 Posts

[QUOTE="Fried_Shrimp"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"] No it doesn't. There's art style and there's technical graphics. Kirby shows no great display of technical graphics.tomarlyn

Yes it does. I did a course in Graphic Design.

Whatever. Art style is subjective and technical graphics are a different beast.

Technical graphics can look aweful though. For example, the most technically graphical game on the Wii is the conduit, but overall that game has aweful graphics.

14 years ago

9029

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#94 AmayaPapaya

Member since 2008 • 9029 Posts

I don't see the point of people arguing. The whole point of debating graphics is for console owners who want to prove which console is more powerful. That is why people always consider graphics just in the technical sense.

Yes there were other games that were artistically well done. But Epic Yarn was easily the most stand-out of them at E3. It is varied and very original. It also had nothing wrong with it either. For example Zelda SS had the bad environments, Epic Mickey showed a lot of the weaker side of the Wii, and Limbo isn't a new idea or that varied etc...

14 years ago

3914

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 3914 Posts

All this just means that developers will work even harder on their current games to look more impressive.
Which is a good thing.

To be beaten by Kirby is a joke. But the joke will be on those who think that this is the best graphics, artsy or not.

14 years ago

2902

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#96 Fried_Shrimp

Member since 2009 • 2902 Posts

All this just means that developers will work even harder on their current games to look more impressive.
Which is a good thing.

To be beaten by Kirby is a joke. But the joke will be on those who think that this is the best graphics, artsy or not.
g0ddyX

Dude, why have you got a picture of Gordon Brown in your sig? He's not even relevant anymore (not that he ever was).

14 years ago

20148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 20148 Posts

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="Fried_Shrimp"] Graphics means the overall art style, and Kirby wiped the floor clean.amaneuvering

No it doesn't. There's art style and there's technical graphics. Kirby shows no great display of technical graphics.

I tell you what...

Show me the reviews that rate the "art style" and "graphics" as separate categories...

In fact, show me the reviews that differentiate between art style and "technical graphics" yet only use the word "graphics" when they specifically mean "technical graphics" or "graphics technology"...

"Graphics" on it's own means BOTH the art style and the graphics technology powering the visuals when discussing a games "graphics".

Anyone who thinks differently is the one that is in the wrong imo and if they are using the word graphics when they actually mean just the technology/engine behind the graphics then they should specify it as such, using terms like "technical graphics" or "graphics technology" or something like that, and not the other way around.

Where do you get your reviews from? A professional review most often comments on the specifics of the art style and technical graphics in a game seperately (lighting, textures, etc). Anyone assuming art style and technical achievement is the same thing has no common sense imo.

14 years ago

4815

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#98 amaneuvering

Member since 2009 • 4815 Posts

[QUOTE="Fried_Shrimp"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"] No it doesn't. There's art style and there's technical graphics. Kirby shows no great display of technical graphics.tomarlyn

Yes it does. I did a course in Graphic Design.

Whatever. Art style is subjective and technical graphics are a different beast.

But they never specified "technical graphics".

The simply said "graphics".

Art style is art style.

Technical graphics is technical graphics.

Graphics is both.

14 years ago

2902

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#99 Fried_Shrimp

Member since 2009 • 2902 Posts

[QUOTE="amaneuvering"]
[QUOTE="tomarlyn"] No it doesn't. There's art style and there's technical graphics. Kirby shows no great display of technical graphics.tomarlyn

I tell you what...

Show me the reviews that rate the "art style" and "graphics" as separate categories...

In fact, show me the reviews that differentiate between art style and "technical graphics" yet only use the word "graphics" when they specifically mean "technical graphics" or "graphics technology"...

"Graphics" on it's own means BOTH the art style and the graphics technology powering the visuals when discussing a games "graphics".

Anyone who thinks differently is the one that is in the wrong imo and if they are using the word graphics when they actually mean just the technology/engine behind the graphics then they should specify it as such, using terms like "technical graphics" or "graphics technology" or something like that, and not the other way around.

Where do you get your reviews from? A professional review most often comments on the specifics of the art style and technical graphics in a game seperately (lighting, textures, etc). Anyone assuming art style and technical achievement is the same thing has no common sense imo.

Really? Because I thought it was common sense that Graphics refered to the overall look of the game, not a reference to the type of mapping the game uses. :roll:

14 years ago

25501

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 25501 Posts

[QUOTE="Fried_Shrimp"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"]You can't put a game like Kirby or Pixeljunk Shooter against an Alan Wake or Killzone 3. Thats completely unfair and ridiculous.tomarlyn

Graphics means the overall art style, and Kirby wiped the floor clean.

No it doesn't. There's art style and there's technical graphics. Kirby shows no great display of technical graphics.

sounds to me like the award was for visual appeal. regardless if it was technical or artistic.

14 years ago

233 results
1
2
3
4
5

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment