Nice try, but fanboys here won't listen.

There's even one guy with "In SW graphics mean everything" as his sig.

I do agree with you though, I've never cared too much about graphics and "graphic king" discussions are kinda silly to me but I jump in them every now and then just for the lulz.

GreenGoblin2099

RE4 beats dead space just because of its boss fights.

Even to this day, it still has the best boss fights out of any video game. Sure thats MY opinion, but how could you argue when facing beasts like IT, Krauser, Right Hand, and two friggin Garradors at the same time?

I used to be a regular visitor to system wars about 2 years ago, and after a long hiatus, i have come back to see that all fanboys care about is graphics these days.

Now i might not convince anyone, but i for one, own a ps3 and xbox 360, and seeing these daily threads about GT5 vs Forza piss me off a great deal.

People need to realize that a game cannot be "Graphics King.' Every game has something that it does so well that other games who try to emulate the same aspect fall short. Similarly, every game has its weaknesses.

I finally gave the Uncharted 2 beta a whirl today, and found out to my surprise, that all this fanboy talk about graphics had led me to believe beforehand that Uncharted 2 would blow every other game out of the water. That was not the case. Sure, the art style was pretty, the animations the best i have ever seen, and the lighting and colors excellent, but the game had no alluring aspect that wanted me to instantly downplay any other game out there.

This is where i make my point: graphics do depend on the technical prowess, but even more so, they depend on the eye of the beholder, the person himself.

Now i know games like Gears 2 or Call of Duty 4 might not be as technically strong as Uncharted 2, but they have different things going for each of them.

Now gears has incredible physics. Every guy you kill dismembers completely. The cover is somewhat destructible, and the characters themselves require a higher amount of detail because of their armour. However, the game has a few jaggies, and it has the blurry Unreal Engine 3 effect that we all hate so much.

Similarly, COD4 might not be the greatest technical game, but because of the realistic artstyle is has, one can overlook the low-res textures in favor of the 60FPS and the fast controller response time. Killzone 2 is the same: blurry textures in favor of excellent animations and high poly models.

My point is: both the ps3 and 360 have a limited amount of resources, and to make the game shine, devs tend to favor on some aspects over another. You cannot have an excellent textures, 60 fps, destructibility, and time/weather cycles all in one time (at least not this gen).

Now Uncharted 2, while it is a looker, lack dismemberment. This takes the pressure off of the cell, so it does not have to render as much physics as a game like Gears 2. Similarly, a slower controller response time can allow devs to take the free power and use it on stuff like ambien occulsion and depth of field. While the game is great, it wasnt the beast i expected it to be.

This was just my two cents on the graphics debate. I know i should have blogged it, but seeing as how fanboys do not appreciate the differences that these games have, i decided to make this thread.

[QUOTE="saleen335"]

Its kinda ironic how you say that gore is aimed at 15 year olds when its actually found in mature games. I dont like gore in my games because it makes it more cooler, i like it beacuse it makes the combat more satisfying and visceral. I bet if gears didnt have its gore, it would not be acclaimed as it is now.

[QUOTE="saleen335"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]who really cares? ps3/x360 look basically the same. what x360 needs is games with stuff that breaks rather than lots more eye candy. Sgt_Hale

[QUOTE="saleen335"]For me at least, the gore makes that game more intense and visceral, therefore making the combat more satisfying. That to me is far more important than graphics. Oh and btw, im 18, so its OK if i like some blood in my games. Not everyone is a 13 year old like you dude.zarshack

[QUOTE="saleen335"][What do you mean more than eye candy? Destructible environments are being done in games like Red Faction Guerilla. Name me a ps3 game which has OMG toally 100 percent DESTRUCTIBILIZATION environments. Yeah i didnt think so. But you know what pisses me off more than the rampant and large amount of playstation fanboys in these forums? The fact that no one acknowledges how much Uncharted 2 looks SIMILAR to gears 2. I mean it has the shield like gears 2, they pretty much ripped the whole cover system off from it in the first one, so i ask u ps3 fanboys, have u realized that your game isnt as innovative as you think it is? ITs actually GEARS 2: PS3 VERSION As for graphics, it sad that people argue over them so much. To me, graphics are only visible for the first 10 minutes when i start a new game. After that, i become so immersed in it, that they take a backseat to the gameplay. Gears 2, IMO, is more visually appealing, not because its graphically better, but because it has gore, a better and more convincing world, and a wider variety of adversaries. These things make a game great, no "OMG did U SEE those xplosionz?"zarshack