[QUOTE="jeffwulf"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"] I like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. That game is 2d, its looked good when it came out, but its 2009, I don't understand how I'm supposed to be impressed by any 2d visuals when there are 3d games that are flirting with photo-realism (I exaggerate, but you get the point). I'm not trolling, I clicked on this thread unknowingly and responded to what I saw. Yeah this game looks good...*asterisk* for a Wii game. Hardly approaching orgasm territory here. PUG_NASTYI liked the Mona Lisa. The painting is 2s, it looked good for the time, but it's 2009. I don't understand how I'm supposed to be impressed by painting when there are cameras that take photorealistic pictures. I'm not trolling, but the painting looks good *asterisk* for a painting. Hardly approaching orgasm territory though like a camera. wait what?!....a camera is a MACHINE...its sole purpose is 2 capture life... the fact that people can create images with such painstaking detail is incredible, but if everything HAD 2 look realistic....o man this would be a boring existence. Thanks you for realizing this post was sarcasm intended to show that art is an incredibly important part of beauty.
jeffwulf's forum posts
[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"] No, the Wii has awful looking 3d games as well. I just don't understand how or why I am supposed to be impressed by 2d games...Cloud_InsuranceYou obviously don't like 2D visuals, so you are not supposed to be impressed. You are not even supposed to comment. For the ones like me, that adore both 2D gameplay and visuals (this thread has shown how many of us are) this graphics are extremely impressive. I like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. That game is 2d, its looked good when it came out, but its 2009, I don't understand how I'm supposed to be impressed by any 2d visuals when there are 3d games that are flirting with photo-realism (I exaggerate, but you get the point). I'm not trolling, I clicked on this thread unknowingly and responded to what I saw. Yeah this game looks good...*asterisk* for a Wii game. Hardly approaching orgasm territory here. I liked the Mona Lisa. The painting is 2d, it looked good for the time, but it's 2009. I don't understand how I'm supposed to be impressed by painting when there are cameras that take photorealistic pictures. I'm not trolling, but the painting looks good *asterisk* for a painting. Hardly approaching orgasm territory though like a camera.
I dont trust Eurogamer ever since they gave MGS4 and Gears an 8. Congratulations to fans of the game though. :)TheGrat1Those score actually sound about right for those two games.
Dreamcast was fantastic imo it was better than the n64 and ps1.BBwloversProbally because it came out a generation later.
How does it not do a very good job? The characters were given real world personalites (well, maybe not Selphie), with real world problems.
Not really. If anything I feel like they are all somewhat childish at times.
Irvine and multiple enemies charried guns, WHAT are you talking about?
"sigh" for a future like setting you would expect more people to carry guns. Not sowards. This isn't the medieval ages we have sniper rifles and machine guns.
And The broadcast tower thing was stupid. I mean think for a moment. For a tower that has been out for so many years why NOW do they decide to repair it? and if they do broadcast how would the people know? If Television has not been possible for so many years then people most likely would not know about this. And theirs also they TV screen that was on the side of that building. Has that been their for years? why not take it down? I don't know the whole plot is odd to me.
And when Irvine is about to assinate the evil queen why does all of the sudden turn into a big wimp like hes never killed before when he was killing stuff about 10mins ago with me? Really him screwing up that shot was the only thing to extend the plot for much longer. Its dumb.
JangoWuzHere
They were all children. Squall and Rinoa were something like 16 and 17 years old.
Also, Jack Churchill was a commander in the British army in WW2 and took out a whole mortar group and took 30 German prisoners using only a Scottish Claymore. In World War 2 against guys with guns. It's not that farfetched.
And the reason the broadcast dish wasn't repaired was because there was a jamming signal caused something like three years prior to the start of the game which had only recently been lifted. This was explained only a couple hours into the game.
[QUOTE="Couth_"][QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"] Can also someone tell me why no one carrys a gun? I mean this is pretty much the furture right? instead we get gunblades, nunchunks, fist fighters, and people with big harpoons. And the plot does not make sense at times. I felt like the whole broadcast tower thing was very odd and was not very well thought out if you ask me. JangoWuzHereDid you play the game through? Several characters carry guns, including one of the main playable characters, the main characters father, and pretty much all enemy soldiers Yes I know. but i am saying for a future like setting you would expect more people to carry guns. Not Harpoons and gun blades. In World War 2, Jack Churchill took out a German mortar pit and captured 42 German soldiers using only a Scottish Claymore.
Log in to comment