- Reaction score
Photorealistic does not have to look like something real. It has to look like it could be made real and not be noticeably off.
You just don't understand that it looks like a computer generated image rendering in real time.
The first part of that completely ignores my statement. And I did find the N64 and the Xbox the best consoles of their generation (though the Xbox kind of tied with the Gamecube for me).
I thought the Xbox was leaps and bounds better than the PS2 in terms of the games I liked, but the PS2 was the better system with the most support.
The difference between last generation and this generation in terms of hardware is that the PS2 was clearly not as powerful as the Xbox or GameCube. The differences in terms of graphics in the current generation of consoles are very minimal.
For example, PS2's version of Splinter Cell had whole graphical effects removed, as well as whole parts of levels just to work right on the console.
You won't see that this generation because that hardware difference is just so minimal. The people who claim the PS3 has better graphics in there games are just misinformed thinking that since the 360 is older it can't even contend, which is clearly untrue.
That is completely wrong. The 'lowest common denominator' method is exactly how a large number of developers work. A developer that thinks that the 360 is the most powerful system is a fool.
What planet do you live on? Most developers do make games on the better system and then port down.
How is it foolish for developers, who work with both consoles every day and knows the ins and outs of each, to think the 360 is more powerful? You obviously know more than they being that you can read spec sheets, right?
You can't blame the architecture. The architecture is fantastic, or the PS3 wouldn't be so much more powerful than the 360. By your logic, things shouldn't change. Just because an idea doesn't fly, doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. And just because everyone across the board agrees, doesn't mean they're right.
Why can't you blame it's architecture? To develop for it not only takes longer, it's harder and Sony is known for there bad documentation.
General speaking, when most of the developers in the industry agree on something, it's true. They aren't a bunch of uneducated red necks (not many at least).
Would you like to go into the flaws of console-only gaming?
Save that for it's own thread. I personally like them both equally.
This is probably the most trustworthy reviewer I've ever heard of: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation
And even he thinks Halo 3 is loaded with mediocrity.
If you follow the industry just a little you'd know of Yahtzee and I do like his reviews, but being a hardcore gamer myself I think he can be a bit to critical in most of them.
I still prefer the methods I've mentioned before.
imaran said:If you let the reviewers make up your mind for you, what is the point of playing?
I don't let reviewers make up my mind about anything, in fact I play even the bad games. I only use reviews to help guide my purchases and educate me on what I'd be getting in a game and why it's worth or not worth a purchase.
I'm not even saying that I use it to make all of my purchase, I just don't blindly buy a game based on the opinion of some guy at a store who gets paid minimum wage to sell Pokemon for the DS to little kids.
But you're going off topic of the original reasoning reviews are were brought up. It's wonderful you love a bad game like Haze, but what makes me think you just don't know what you're talking is that you rank it up with games that are actually critically good titles and someone may purchase a PS3 for.
Finally, reviews are really the only way to compare the quality of each system's game library. Personal preference aside, the 360 has more games that have scored higher in reviews than the PS3.