Associate
What's DS2?
Dead Space 2
What's DS2?
I have to say I am with Deadbeat on this one. Deus Ex is about gameplay, not graphics. Would rather they completely nail the story and gameplay like Deus Ex 1 and play with below par graphics than have best graphics in the world that can run on a 8800 gtx because its so optimised.
Plus it's so obvious that those are not PC graphics, so why get knickers in a twist?
I have to say I am with Deadbeat on this one. Deus Ex is about gameplay, not graphics. Would rather they completely nail the story and gameplay like Deus Ex 1 and play with below par graphics than have best graphics in the world that can run on a 8800 gtx because its so optimised.
Plus it's so obvious that those are not PC graphics, so why get knickers in a twist?
But why are you asking for one or the other? They aren't exclusive. It's not like having a better engine, higher res textures or longer spent on models takes away time spent on the story/gameplay aspects of the game. They're all worked on by seperate people/teams so what has putting effort into making it look nice got to do with making satisfying gameplay? Absolutely nothing.
People seem to think that time spent on a game gets put into one or the other, because they have to take time away from one to spend on the other. That's not how development teams work. Occasionally companies think they can rely on a pretty engine for lackluster gameplay, but the game always flops when this is the case. There's no excuse for the game to look sub-par.
You also say it's obvious they aren't PC graphics, as if it makes a difference? Do any of the console ports, Mass effect, Dead Space, Arkham Asylum, CoD etc. really look that much better than their console counter-parts? No, and you usually can't tell the difference unless comparing them side by side.
Because a game that looks great and plays like crap is still a crap game. A game that plays great and looks decent will only get people whining who think games MUST have perfect scores in both, everyone else will just play it.
^
I can only offer up the previous examples of DS2, ME2, AA, to show but a couple recent examples of console ported games with decent graphics and fantastic gameplay. All look far better than what i've currently seen of DE3 ingame (including those ss above), and I wouldn't consider any of them to be anywhere near cutting-edge aesthetically.
A game doesn't need perfect in both, but why not have both to a high standard. Instead of a game that looks great and plays poorly, or a game that plays fantastically but looks mediocre - how about a game that looks nice and plays gloriously.
Whilst I'm at it, I'll throw in that the UI looks dated and the menus looks consolified.
- I'll most likely be proclaimed a troll for such claims, which is bizarre seeing as this was my most anticipated game for 2011, and still is one of them - but I'm dubious.
The below images are HD btw.
But why are you asking for one or the other? They aren't exclusive. It's not like having a better engine, higher res textures or longer spent on models takes away time spent on the story/gameplay aspects of the game. They're all worked on by seperate people/teams so what has putting effort into making it look nice got to do with making satisfying gameplay? Absolutely nothing.
People seem to think that time spent on a game gets put into one or the other, because they have to take time away from one to spend on the other. That's not how development teams work. Occasionally companies think they can rely on a pretty engine for lackluster gameplay, but the game always flops when this is the case. There's no excuse for the game to look sub-par.
You also say it's obvious they aren't PC graphics, as if it makes a difference? Do any of the console ports, Mass effect, Dead Space, Arkham Asylum, CoD etc. really look that much better than their console counter-parts? No, and you usually can't tell the difference unless comparing them side by side.
I can only offer up the previous examples of DS2, ME2, AA, to show but a couple recent examples of console ported games with decent graphics and fantastic gameplay. All look far better than what i've currently seen of DE3 ingame (including those ss above), and I wouldn't consider any of them to be anywhere near cutting-edge aesthetically.
A game doesn't need perfect in both, but why not have both to a high standard. Instead of a game that looks great and plays poorly, or a game that plays fantastically but looks mediocre - how about a game that looks nice and plays gloriously.
Whilst I'm at it, I'll throw in that the UI looks dated and the menus looks consolified.
- I'll most likely be proclaimed a troll for such claims, which is bizarre seeing as this was my most anticipated game for 2011, and still is one of them - but I'm dubious.
You don't understand what HD is because that's an example of a low resolution picture.
(Of which has also been compressed for steaming and then for converting to a crap .jpg)
Those pictures are simple screen grabs from HD video. Of course they're compressed to jpeg, but if I go take a screen grab of DS2 now and do the same thing it's going to look twice as good as that.
^Go on then, do it. Compress it to roughly the same size, post a comparison and we'll all marvel about how right you were - we can all boycott DE3 because it looks pap in comparison to a game in which I have no interest in playing.