[QUOTE="Erlkoenig"]Greatest SP campaign of all-time? Not even close. Even if we're just counting the FPS, I would not put it in top 5. Half Life, Bioshock, Max Payne, Far Cry, and NOLF all had better campaigns.Regisland
[QUOTE="navyguy21"]buggy, screen tearing, etc are all graphics. Those don't deter the gameplay. But are graphical flaws. If someone runs through a wall that is part of the graphics. Screentearing, framerate, are all aspects of why a game has good graphics. It isn't a single screenshot.
adamosmaki
screem tearing, framerate, and glitches are related to performance, not to graphics. Glitches are related to buggy game code. Graphics can be directly related to what a person sees on screen. Uncharted 2 has great graphics because a lot of concessions were made in other areas, but you dont see those things. UC2 also has glitches, but the media reports those as performance issues. Same with ME1. It praised for graphics, yet hit for performance on the very things you named. So, maybe those things mean graphics to you, but the majority of sites separate graphics from performance. when its combined, its usually referred to as Presentation, but we are talking graphics here, just how the game[s] look.Graphics include performance issues. The game is not one screen. Graphics are the inclusion of all technical and artistic aspects.[/QUOTE With Stalker Complete 2009 the game looks stunning and adresses almost all issues And Stalker COP has no glitches or tech issues. I didn't notice 1 in the whole playtrough. And did anyone bother to watch the video i posted ? Still Gear has better graphics?
the 360 can potentially do better graphics than the ps3, but Sony has many talented developers who can really make the difference.
navyguy21
This is exactly what ive been saying this gen. Sony has some talented devs, and THAT is who deserves the credit, not the platform itself. Bungie and Epic are untalented?
[QUOTE="uRan_Ehr"] Somehow I come to believe Revan is just a hater. Back when ME2 got released he was boiling mad about it the whole day and now he wants everyone to believe STALKER looks better than GeoW2 ... uRan_Ehr
I don't think I would ever consciously agree with Revan, but I have the original STALKER on PC and I have Gears 2 on 360, and I think STALKER looks better. Trees look like... REAL TREES. Get right up next to a tree and the high res bark textures are startling. Gears goes crazy with bump-mapping but really it's not that technically impressive in terms of polygon count and actual realism. It's a gorgeous game, but STALKER tries something different and achieves it.
Assuming STALKER running maxed on a high-end PC (which is the best-looking PC game I have personally seen aside from Crysis) will not outperform Gears 2 on a 360 is kind of silly, if you ask me. Sometimes people mess it up. So Morrowind or any other older game looks fantastic on a super gaming PC too? The graphics of STALKER are pretty meh compared to other PC games and yes, there are console games that beat the hell out of STALKER. Man.... Watch this in HD. If Gears still looks better i don't know what to tell you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_QvD5fM2do
[QUOTE="Revan_911"][QUOTE="nhh18"]High profile games are the best looking games. Low profile games tend to be bug ridden, and lack the polish. Graphics are basically polish. Metro 2033 isn't going to be the best looking title seeing how the game won't have the best programmers (which work on the high profile games) and have to go by art design among other stuff to make it appealing. Stalker wasn't a great looking game because of game bugs, glitches, and other stuff hinder graphical performance (if you see character run through a wall, you have the right to complain). So I don't understand this double edge sword. If it is a low profile budget game it could be good but, the fact remains that the graphics will never match the high profile games. That is a fact. No one is debating quality, he stated that the game is the graphics king, and some people agreed with him.
nhh18
Dude...I just don't beilve what I'm reading. Small developers deliver the most innovative and best games. Anything that's published by big companies is bland and dumbed down. If you're a PC gamer i just lost faith...I am just talking about graphics. Not about the quality of a game. I love mattmakesgames seeing how he probably makes the best platformers but in terms of overall game graphics, high profile AAA titles tend to have the best graphics.
http://mattmakesgames.com/games.php
No they don't. Call of Prypiat beats every high profile game out there in terms of graphics. Why? Because it's on the PC! They may waste a 100 millon dollars on a game for the 360 and it will never look as good as Stalker. The hardware is just too limited.
[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] Well you, Navguy seem to think cows are the problem here and won't admit that Metro 2033, and in your case Mass Effect 2 looks better than some PS3 games but if this is true, than how come no one is talking about these games that way? You know as graphic kings? I mean in Killzone 2 reviews and Uncharted 2 reviews, the reviewers said point blank these games are the best looking on consoles to date, these comments werent said about ME2, or the 360 version of Metro 2033.nhh18
There are a lot of publications talking about the graphics in Metro 2033 (and alan wake). The problem is that unlike KZ2/UC2, this isnt a high profile title. Surely you understand how public media works right? Had this game been made by EA, Activision, or either platform holder, you can bet your behind that this would be in the forefront of every media outlet. But for now, you have to understand that this game started out under the radar, and it has gotten this big through word of mouth, which is usually an indication that the game is at the very least a good game. Same happened to Demon Souls.
EDIT- Some publications have stated that ME2 is a great looking game, but i agree, none (that i know of) have called it graphics king, though a few did say that about ME1, but of course that was ignored
High profile games are the best looking games. Low profile games tend to be bug ridden, and lack the polish. Graphics are basically polish. Metro 2033 isn't going to be the best looking title seeing how the game won't have the best programmers (which work on the high profile games) and have to go by art design among other stuff to make it appealing. Stalker wasn't a great looking game because of game bugs, glitches, and other stuff hinder graphical performance (if you see character run through a wall, you have the right to complain). So I don't understand this double edge sword. If it is a low profile budget game it could be good but, the fact remains that the graphics will never match the high profile games. That is a fact. No one is debating quality, he stated that the game is the graphics king, and some people agreed with him. Dude...I just don't beilve what I'm reading. Small developers deliver the most innovative and best games. Anything that's published by big companies is bland and dumbed down. If you're a PC gamer i just lost faith...
[QUOTE="Revan_911"][QUOTE="nhh18"]How could you say this It came out in 2007, and gears of war probably had better framerate than that game. I ran it on a computer that could play crysis on high and to my disbelief the framerate on stalker shadow of chernobyl actually dipped on occassions. I have no idea why some people think the game has good graphics. It had some horrible glitches, and horrible framerate bogs down on whatever you believe is good with the game.
nhh18
Ran perfect for me. With 2009 complete mod its better than anything on consoles. Stalker Call of Prypiat defeats anything on consoles easily. Take a look at gameplay videos.I didn't use any mods and didn't buy stalker call of pryipiat I bought the original version. Seems to me that you couldn't run it MAXED with 60 fps and you got irrationally pissed at the game. Stalker is one of the best most unique shooters this gen, and ever and you're missing out just because of some technical issues. I recommend you get Call of Prypiat 20$ on Steam completely new about 15hour campaign + multiplayer (weak multiplayer but still). It has almost no bugs and issues and it looks and runs way better than Stalker Clear Sky.
Do people play games. Stalker was not a good looking game, and was never a good looking game. Metro 2033 is going to be bug glitchy, and full of weird engine and other problems that I have no idea why fanboys lemmings would hype it up. This is a solid A title at most but graphic king? You guys are now borderline blindness.
nhh18
Stalker is not good looking ? The original was one of the best games graphics wise when it came out, and COP completely obliterates anything on consoles.How could you say this It came out in 2007, and gears of war probably had better framerate than that game. I ran it on a computer that could play crysis on high and to my disbelief the framerate on stalker shadow of chernobyl actually dipped on occassions. I have no idea why some people think the game has good graphics. It had some horrible glitches, and horrible framerate bogs down on whatever you believe is good with the game. Ran perfect for me. With 2009 complete mod its better than anything on consoles. Stalker Call of Prypiat defeats anything on consoles easily. Take a look at gameplay videos.
Do people play games. Stalker was not a good looking game, and was never a good looking game. Metro 2033 is going to be bug glitchy, and full of weird engine and other problems that I have no idea why fanboys lemmings would hype it up. This is a solid A title at most but graphic king? You guys are now borderline blindness.
nhh18
Stalker is not good looking ? The original was one of the best games graphics wise when it came out, and COP completely obliterates anything on consoles.
Log in to comment