God of War III

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
They're not as good as some Sony fanboys have hyped them up to be, but I wouldn't call them terrible.

it isnt about "fanboys", i wud consider myself sumthing of a sony fanboy. but the graphics here are shitty.

terrible graphics. plus, the "far " off point of view doesnt help.

^bad graphics and the camera isnt near enough to the character{obviously a bid to make the graphics look smoother } to give a grand scale of whats ging on, the characters and scenarios look small and less than grandeose{they did sumthing similar in soul reaver 2}

Prototype had bad graphics. Just Kratos' character model looks better than anything in that game.

Originally posted by Sado22
he then started arguing with me that "the toe is actually as important as the boxer's fist"

As for as graphics go, anyone who plays a game for graphics isn't a real gamer.

As for as graphics go, anyone who plays a game for graphics isn't a real gamer.

What?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^bad graphics

Bad Graphic my ass 😠

and the camera isnt near enough to the character{obviously a bid to make the graphics look smoother } to give a grand scale of whats ging on, the characters and scenarios look small and less than grandeose{they did sumthing similar in soul reaver 2}

Sounds like you were expecting something along the lines of Heavenly Sword with those battlefields.

^heavenly sword was ok. but go ahead and compare the graphics to sumthing like assasin's creed. ull understand what i mean by "smoothing" . it does have bad graphics. the only "interactive" graphics i found were those of the chaos blade trails.

Kratos ripping off Heleos'es head was epic.

the blades of athena look amazing in this game. all the weapons look awesome.

~Sado

Originally posted by leonheartmm
[Bit does have bad graphics. . [/B]

Like your an expert on that.....

Originally posted by WO Polaski
its too bad this wont come out on the xbox.

cause if it did id buy both of the copies of the game... just to compare! 😱

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
ahah
Get off my dick

Originally posted by NemeBro
What? 😐

As for as graphics go, anyone who plays a game for graphics isn't a real gamer.

I disagree on a factual level.

You do know that the "hardcore" gaming market is marketed to by "excellent graphics".

Are you even familar with the "hardcore demographic"?

And, I have played games JUST on the premise of "excellent graphics." I am considered a hardcore gamer by the gaming marketers, as well. 😐

IMO, it's the whole picture. Excellent graphics, great story, excellent controls, excellent replay value, and engrossing characters.

That constitutes a great game, to me. Suchs as Fallout 3. 😄 (The characters, though, aren't as engrossing as I want them to be...but they are well enough.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree on a factual level.

Graphics just look pretty, they are not a factor at all over whether the game is good or not.

Not solely, no. For some, it's the make or break factor of the their experience when simply watching gameplay videos prior to its release because they can't seem to recognize what they might otherwise consider decent gameplay. You know what those people are called?
Idiots. Games can have the most engrossing gameplay there is and still have mediocre at best graphics (for their generation), ie the aforementioned Prototype (that being said, Alex Mercer has really good animations in gameplay). Hell, Nintendo knew this with the Wii, and while they're plagued with shovel ware from third-party companies, the first-party stuff that they make themselves tends to make the best use of what they got with the Wii, maybe because they know what the hell they're doing with it.

Good graphics tend to be a testament, or at least an addition, to good presentation in a cinematic level. The take on a certain art style matters more than the art style itself. People who ignore that factor are just ignorant.

Originally posted by First_Tsurugi06
Not solely, no. For some, it's the make or break factor of the their experience when simply watching gameplay videos prior to its release because they can't seem to recognize what they might otherwise consider decent gameplay. You know what those people are called?
Idiots. Games can have the most engrossing gameplay there is and still have mediocre at best graphics (for their generation), ie the aforementioned Prototype (that being said, Alex Mercer has really good animations in gameplay). Hell, Nintendo knew this with the Wii, and while they're plagued with shovel ware from third-party companies, the first-party stuff that they make themselves tends to make the best use of what they got with the Wii, maybe because they know what the hell they're doing with it.

Good graphics tend to be a testament, or at least an addition, to good presentation in a cinematic level. The take on a certain art style matters more than the art style itself. People who ignore that factor are just ignorant.

That's pretty much what I think.

A game has to have nice* graphics for me to completely like it.

*Nice does not necessarily mean technically sophisticated.

For game genres such as RPGs which are primarily based around immersion, the visual aspects could definitely be considered a fundamental part of the game and a factor in its quality.

For the sake of not having an overworld that looks like sh*t in terms of textural effects, perhaps so. God of War doesn't focus on immersion with its environments so much as it focuses on sheer scale of the level designs with dynamics to the backgrounds (which tends to be at its prime in the first parts of the game almost as a tradition), most of which you end up actually going to in order to show that it's not all pre-rendered (take the Steeds of Time aspect in GoWII for example), coupled with a fixed camera that tends to show dynamic angles, and they seem to be maintaining that with God of War III what with being able to fight atop the larger titans in the game ala the third trailer, and also just having them move around in real time like in the demo shown.