It's just a very easy, and horrible, argument to use. Some people do actually frown on that which is not a realistic shooter, but it's not the majority. There are far better arguments out there.

The most underrated? Nah, there are many better candidates for that. The fetch quests are awful enough, the story takes its time to drum up the interest, the combat is way too simplistic IMO and the dungeons are drab. It's still enjoyable, but it got what it deserved from my point of view.

It's a shame you can't appreciate Atlus. Meanwhile, I'll be enjoying it to its fullest. I'll never play the demo, though, it's all about the complete package.

Regardless of the quality of the system itself, that's rubbish. First-party isn't MS's strongest point.

This has always been so. But it's mostly due to the overexaggeration of graphics overall in terms of how they enrich a game. Great graphics are nice, but gameplay is still so much further ahead in the list of priorities, at least IMO.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

I seem to remember that DA: Origins was brilliant even if it was released on consoles as well. So was the original Knights of the Old Republic, actually.

mattuk69

Pretty obvious since you insinuated that a game not being on consoles equated a good game. A very, very false statement. I could mention more games, but I chose to use two games from the same dev as Star Wars: The Old Republic.

And about that LA Noire review... yeah, not really a review. I appreciate the humor that was put in, but it reminded me more of a Yahtzee video which took one feature of the game and just whined over it incessantly. My only gripe is with labelling it as a review, since it really isn't.

I don't really understand the FEM's hate for Nintendo. They just don't localize some of the games on time, says little about the future.

I seem to remember that DA: Origins was brilliant even if it was released on consoles as well. So was the original Knights of the Old Republic, actually.

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"] its all personal preference, maybe it does or maybe it doesn't, who caresSeiki_sands

Artistic design might be personal preference... but how is technical graphical superiority not objective?

A technical graphics award is an award given to a game whose combination of technical features make the game look better. This is an entirely subjective decision. There is no objective way to say the superior dynamic lighting in Title A makes the game look better than the superior anti-aliasing scheme used in Title B. There is no objective graphics award, artistic or technical.

Further, contrary to popular belief individual artistic graphics criteria can likewise be examined in a relatively objective way by trained artists (a category of people far less numerous than those familiar with technical graphics terms on boards like these), but when one attempts to make a final determination based on a combination of artistic criteria, just like technical graphics it becomes an entirely subjective choice.

The ONLY way to make a technical graphics award relatively objective is to break it up into its component elements. You must assign separate awards for efficient use of anti-aliasing, dynamic lighting, polygon counts, draw distances, and of course if you take non-graphics considerations into account for any of these, such as the number of AI elements which can limit choices for graphics, you once again turn it into an entirely subjective decision.

By far one of the best posts about this matter that I've seen. Good job.