Crysis 2

Elimin8or said:
I really disagree there.
Click to expand...

Yea, you do.. but objectivity does not.

If we was to be objective we would need to weight all those parts togheter and form a total judgement.

Graphics
Story
Gameplay
Sound/musc

etc..etc.. If one of those parts are much weaker than the other, then those parts will simply drag down the entire structure..

Think of Mozart.. He believed that if one single note in the entire play was weaker (misplaced/wrong/weaker) than the other, then it would destroy the structure.
 
Last edited:
Ryeong said:
Yea, you do.. but objectivity does not.

If we was to be objective we would need to weight all those parts togheter and form a total judgement.

Graphics
Story
Gameplay
Sound/musc

etc..etc.. If one of those parts are much weaker than the other, then those parts will simply drag down the entire structure..

Think of Mozart.. He believed that if one single note in the entire play was weaker (misplaced/wrong/weaker) than the other, then it would destroy the structure.
Click to expand...

that really comes down to personal opinion and how you personally weigh those. some might not even put any thought towards how the graphics affect game experience while others put graphics before anything else.
 
Ryeong said:
Bad story, good graphics = bad game..

Good story, bad graphics = bad game..

Graphics adds to the feeling.. i love when i can gasp to the views of certain games. But they become dull and lame if the story is crap :(..
Click to expand...

I read exactly what you said, see you thought I sound ridiculous for putting what you just have:

good story, bad graphics = bad game
Click to expand...

let's say then that somebody has never played any of the half-life games, and you introduce them to the series. Yes, it was made before 2007, but it is 2010, they have only JUST heard of and played them.

They play HL1, which by todays standards has terrible graphics, however it still has one of the best stories, one of the most relatable characters, some of the best maps, some of the best physics for the time, it took alot of the good parts of games and put them together to make a great game that is still considered as one of the best games ever made.

But, all of that would be worthless in your opinion, just because the graphics are bad? So we should forget every single game that came out pre 2007? You are in such a minority there and from a gaming perspective I pity you because you are limiting yourself to the pile of crap that is coming out now, it is such a stale market, everything is the same as everything else, nothing is revolutionary any more, it is just sequals, pretty pictures and remakes of the same old stuff over and over.

Drenlin, you can quote facts and figures, but you look at the "great" rts games, I'm talking C&C, I'm talking starcraft, I'm talking Warcraft, they are still remembered and still played extensively now, you can go on b.net and still find so many players in so many games of Warcraft, that was nearly 8 years ago and it is still going strong, you look at Halo wars 8 years after release and there will be nobody on, not just beacuse the 360 will be outdated, but because nobody will care any more and it will be "just another game" if you get me. Obviously not every game reaches the height that they have, but I would put money on it that it will not be anything other than a game that was known because it rode off the sucess of the original Halo games. It is all opinion, I know, but it doesn't deserve any kind of merit I think because it doesn't do anything that makes you go "that is a great game"
 
joh06937 said:
that really comes down to personal opinion and how you personally weigh those. some might not even put any thought towards how the graphics affect game experience while others put graphics before anything else.
Click to expand...

Aastii said:
I read exactly what you said, see you thought I sound ridiculous for putting what you just have:



let's say then that somebody has never played any of the half-life games, and you introduce them to the series. Yes, it was made before 2007, but it is 2010, they have only JUST heard of and played them.

They play HL1, which by todays standards has terrible graphics, however it still has one of the best stories, one of the most relatable characters, some of the best maps, some of the best physics for the time, it took alot of the good parts of games and put them together to make a great game that is still considered as one of the best games ever made.

But, all of that would be worthless in your opinion, just because the graphics are bad? So we should forget every single game that came out pre 2007? You are in such a minority there and from a gaming perspective I pity you because you are limiting yourself to the pile of crap that is coming out now, it is such a stale market, everything is the same as everything else, nothing is revolutionary any more, it is just sequals, pretty pictures and remakes of the same old stuff over and over.

Drenlin, you can quote facts and figures, but you look at the "great" rts games, I'm talking C&C, I'm talking starcraft, I'm talking Warcraft, they are still remembered and still played extensively now, you can go on b.net and still find so many players in so many games of Warcraft, that was nearly 8 years ago and it is still going strong, you look at Halo wars 8 years after release and there will be nobody on, not just beacuse the 360 will be outdated, but because nobody will care any more and it will be "just another game" if you get me. Obviously not every game reaches the height that they have, but I would put money on it that it will not be anything other than a game that was known because it rode off the sucess of the original Halo games. It is all opinion, I know, but it doesn't deserve any kind of merit I think because it doesn't do anything that makes you go "that is a great game"
Click to expand...

Objectivity consists of facts :/ not much to argue or discuss about that. If a bird can fly, then the bird can fly..


If a game has good story (5/6) and bad graphics (2/6) then it's a 3.5/6. That's just a fact. Sure, you don't need to agree with that.. but it's still a fact. Heck, i often think differenly compared to the facts i know are facts because i have another personal opinion. Yet, it's still a fact.

So how can one judge those scores? easy.. a circle is a circle.. that's how you do it. A black rock is black what so ever. that's how you're being objective. You don't think the rock is black because you think it, but because it is..

Obectivity is lame, but the only fair way..
 
no, that is not a "fact." there is no set standard rubric for grading games. if so then EVERY game reviewer would be exactly the same. a games rating consists of weighted scores from different aspects of the game. you might think that your way of doing it is a "fact," but unfortunately i guarantee you that you are the minority and that more people weigh the different aspects differently, which unfortunately makes your thinking not a "fact."
 
that is like saying you are going off the lowest mark though, if you rated something as

5/5
4/5
4/5
3/5
1/5

would it then get a 1/5 because that is the lowest value?

If you were to meet a girl and she was the nicest person to ever walk this planet but didn't look good, would you not bother? If so, you will get nowhere because, unless you are seriously lucky, nobody will ever be good enough for you, even though you are nowhere close to perfect (that isn't having a go, I'm not either, nobody is).

I think graphics have a part to play, but it is the lowest priority, so you could take an average, fine, but because the graphics carry much less weight than gameplay, characters, environment, immersion etc that average would be useless, graphics could get 1 and drag that average down, even if everything else was perfect, but the "bad" graphics wouldn't matter in the slightest to the overall thing when the game is actually played.

Crysis 2 could look better than any game ever and bring you to tears beacuse of the graphics, but once you are used to it and realise that the AI is terrible, it is buggy as hell, the sounds are appauling, the story, there isn't one, you will see it for what it is - a pile of turd with a pretty painting nailed to it.

Oh, and I know it isn't out yet, I know I can't say it will be bad, it is an "if it is bad and if the graphics are good" statement
 
Last edited:
joh06937 said:
no, that is not a "fact." there is no set standard rubric for grading games. if so then EVERY game reviewer would be exactly the same. a games rating consists of weighted scores from different aspects of the game. you might think that your way of doing it is a "fact," but unfortunately i guarantee you that you are the minority and that more people weigh the different aspects differently, which unfortunately makes your thinking not a "fact."
Click to expand...

Aastii said:
that is like saying you are going off the lowest mark though, if you rated something as

5/5
4/5
4/5
3/5
1/5

would it then get a 1/5 because that is the lowest value?

If you were to meet a girl and she was the nicest person to ever walk this planet but didn't look good, would you not bother? If so, you will get nowhere because, unless you are seriously lucky, nobody will ever be good enough for you, even though you are nowhere close to perfect (that isn't having a go, I'm not either, nobody is).

I think graphics have a part to play, but it is the lowest priority, so you could take an average, fine, but because the graphics carry much less weight than gameplay, characters, environment, immersion etc that average would be useless, graphics could get 1 and drag that average down, even if everything else was perfect, but the "bad" graphics wouldn't matter in the slightest to the overall thing.

Crysis 2 could look better than any game ever and bring you to tears beacuse of the graphics, but once you are used to it and realise that the AI is terrible, it is buggy as hell, the sounds are appauling, the story, there isn't one, you will see it for what it is - a pile of turd with a pretty painting nailed to it.

Oh, and I know it isn't out yet, I know I can't say it will be bad, it is an "if it is bad and if the graphics are good" statement
Click to expand...

Everything mentioned so far is based on personal aspects.. here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectivity

http://changingminds.org/principles/objectivity.htm

I like milk..

You must consider everything when being objective and reviewing. Thus, everything matters.. EVERYTHING!
 
dude, have you EVER played counter strike, or TF2, or ANY valve game? the graphics SUCK, but they are amazing games, and TONS of people still play them
 
Are you telling me that Star Wars the force unleashed sucks, jsut because it has no support for anti-aliasing? :eek:

I thought it was awesome. the PC version is way better than the PS2/PS3 versions too.
 
ganzey said:
dude, have you EVER played counter strike, or TF2, or ANY valve game? the graphics SUCK, but they are amazing games, and TONS of people still play them
Click to expand...

CS was and is so bad i don't even want to discuss it... TF2, oh no.. no no no.. that cartoony thing lol.. No ty! CS was something back in its days.. but, err. no ty.. no.. i.. I keep vomiting when i hear that people play that game, becouse it's not.. yea, its not..

Well, i do get your point. Games such as FF7 (and many of the others), silent hill 1, resident evil 1 etc.. yea.. but oh wait! NO! WRONG!,

FF7 had top-notch graphics back when it was released. was the first RPG in realitme 3D!. :o so well.. there you go ^^
 
linkin said:
Are you telling me that Star Wars the force unleashed sucks, jsut because it has no support for anti-aliasing? :eek:

I thought it was awesome. the PC version is way better than the PS2/PS3 versions too.
Click to expand...

WORST PC PORT EVERRRRRRRR!

FPS was capped to 30 OMG OMG OMG you couln't even unlock it. the devs couldn't patch it!! haha worst port in history..

Yet, ignore that and the game was awesome! i enjoyed it a lot.
 
ganzey said:
dude, have you EVER played counter strike, or TF2, or ANY valve game? the graphics SUCK, but they are amazing games, and TONS of people still play them
Click to expand...

Yeah. I just finished Portal. No amazing graphics, but a great game. Half life 2 is OK, but I just started it. Anyone remember the original Red Alert? Great game, IMO, but real shitty graphics. A lot of people like Diablo 2. Shitty graphics. NFS: MW, NFS:Underground 2, all don't have great graphics. But still good games. Battlefield 2. Black hawk down Delta force. BIA: HH, FEAR, Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell 2, MX Vs. ATV Unleashed, SOLDAT (!!!!!!!), the list goes on. All good games. Not good graphics though. Graphics do not make a game.
 
Ryeong said:
CS was and is so bad i don't even want to discuss it... TF2, oh no.. no no no.. that cartoony thing lol.. No ty! CS was something back in its days.. but, err. no ty.. no.. i.. I keep vomiting when i hear that people play that game, becouse it's not.. yea, its not..

Well, i do get your point. Games such as FF7 (and many of the others), silent hill 1, resident evil 1 etc.. yea.. but oh wait! NO! WRONG!,

FF7 had top-notch graphics back when it was released. was the first RPG in realitme 3D!. :o so well.. there you go ^^
Click to expand...

but NOW it has bad graphics, so is it a bad game?

Using your logic it should, but also shouldn't be. You are so full of contradictions it is unreal
 
Aastii said:
but NOW it has bad graphics, so is it a bad game?

Using your logic it should, but also shouldn't be. You are so full of contradictions it is unreal
Click to expand...

When you judge a game objectively you consider how it was when it was released. So what you're doing now is wrong..

FF7 will forever be the first best looking RPG game ever. Can't change that.. :(
 
Ryeong said:
When you judge a game objectively you consider how it was when it was released. So what you're doing now is wrong..

FF7 will forever be the first best looking RPG game ever. Can't change that.. :(
Click to expand...

what about FF13 though? That looks amazing right now, and it looks better than FF7, so how does that work?

I am only asking because no game reviewer on the planet works like you are saying and I think there is a damn good reason for that...
 
this is like saying that ALL movies that aren't available on bluray are horrific and should never be watched again.
 
Leave him alone, he clearly puts graphics in front of everything, there are hundrerds people like that. However, he shouldn't be calling himself a gamer. Gamers are people who play games because they are fun, some do it for money. Counter Strike is still one of the most played game online and there are hundreds of tournaments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top