RenegadeRocks
Legend
and where are the reviews???? 
I have not seen any uptill now!!
I have not seen any uptill now!!
*spin-off* Activision's Call of Review Hero: Controversy: Spin-Off
- Thread starter RenegadeRocks
- Start date
That 10 for gfx looks misleading,They gave a 9.5 to kz2 earlier this year cutting on some lower reso shadows...nothing so for MW2.But I guess this has to do with the 60FPS smoothness
so are you saying it's a conspiracy? rather than they just thought while reviewing the games that the graphics appeared to them to be as good as they have seen in a game to date; hence a 10.
Graphics is not necessarily a technical category but the subjective impression based on the visual impact a game has. Some gamers can overlook certain issues (aliasing, shadow flickering) and be drawn to other things. Some prefer highly detailed linear games while others massive sandbox games, and the graphical interactions please their eyes. Some people prefer car games with extremely detailed cars as the focus, others with more detailed surroundings.
And then there is the issue of platform and individual reviewer. Some reviewers are just harder to please.
Reviews are a very subjective thing, and I have pointed out the inconsistency of some studios that seem to pick big games as flash points (e.g. when the editor selects a reviewer who is extra tough on a game, but the same game wins FPS of the year although 3 other FPS rated higher, by other reviewers, were rated in the same year). Ho hum.
I would just focus on the text--and even then know they have had limited time with the game and depending on the media site, reviewer, and issues they will have different focuses. e.g. Very few media sites are MP centric and it is rare to get a really indepth look at MP from most media outlets.
No, not a conspiracy. But like with most big-hyped releases reviewers reveal that they're the same fanboys as everyone else and will selectively overlook aspects because it doesn't fit with their dogmatic view. Add to that that reviewers just don't have the framework or the know-how to analyze graphics the way lots of B3Ders would and you have an analysis that is so subjective and personal as to not really mean much to anyone else. And this is when talking about graphics, which is probably the criteria most open to objectiveness -- other criteria are worse, since they're entirely protected by the 'it's just an opinion' GAF-ish blanket statement.
Now, CoD6 isn't really an anomaly here, almost every big game gets reviewed through hype. CoD6 is just in a unique position because IW gets a free pass on a bunch of things Treyarch doesn't, despite certain points of contention being so similar.
Now, CoD6 isn't really an anomaly here, almost every big game gets reviewed through hype. CoD6 is just in a unique position because IW gets a free pass on a bunch of things Treyarch doesn't, despite certain points of contention being so similar.
While Treyarch may get vocally notched about certain design/technical issues whereas IW gets a cleared bill of health by the same reviewers, I think the reasons are obvious and it ISN'T bias. Every game has technical limits and design concessions and compromising. How they are weaved into the product is what matters and IW > Treyarch.
As for graphics and hype, hype can also have a very negative backlash. There is no certainty reviewers are hyping upward, especially with the controversy around this game and the potential "flash point" traffic generation from bucking the trend.
But more importantly mainstream media reviews are looking at the product from a consumer perspective. They don't care about SPEs or eDRAM. They don't care if something looks good because of art or tremendous technology. What matters is the product on screen. Their opinion does matter in that the same way a movie or music reviewer's opinion matters. And lets not puff up the pixel counters, just because they have more technical knowhow doesn't mean they are a good judge of art or austhetics. Just because a game is technically solid doesn't mean it is graphically good.
And there is always genuine taste. Some people love the dark, grey, gritty look of a Gears and the like, and vice versa the colorful Halo. Some demand a lot of variety, some relish in a single theme with a lot of fine details easily overlooked.
There is bad art and there are bad technicals. But the reviewers don't need a "framework or the know-how" to anaylze graphics to give an informed opinion on whether a game looks good or not. Infact it may be to their benefit to take a position of the casual consumer who may not be intuned to look for certain graphical errors, hacks, and cheats but are getting the "general impression" of the image.
As for graphics and hype, hype can also have a very negative backlash. There is no certainty reviewers are hyping upward, especially with the controversy around this game and the potential "flash point" traffic generation from bucking the trend.
But more importantly mainstream media reviews are looking at the product from a consumer perspective. They don't care about SPEs or eDRAM. They don't care if something looks good because of art or tremendous technology. What matters is the product on screen. Their opinion does matter in that the same way a movie or music reviewer's opinion matters. And lets not puff up the pixel counters, just because they have more technical knowhow doesn't mean they are a good judge of art or austhetics. Just because a game is technically solid doesn't mean it is graphically good.
And there is always genuine taste. Some people love the dark, grey, gritty look of a Gears and the like, and vice versa the colorful Halo. Some demand a lot of variety, some relish in a single theme with a lot of fine details easily overlooked.
There is bad art and there are bad technicals. But the reviewers don't need a "framework or the know-how" to anaylze graphics to give an informed opinion on whether a game looks good or not. Infact it may be to their benefit to take a position of the casual consumer who may not be intuned to look for certain graphical errors, hacks, and cheats but are getting the "general impression" of the image.
That doesn't explain or excuse anything. If something is an issue, it's an issue, it doesn't matter who made the game. The very fact that you're making excuses for IW is symptomatic of what I'm describing.
If we're going down that path, there's also the fact that given MW2's obvious upcoming success, bucking the trend may instead alienate readers and further point out that game reviewers, in general, don't accurately represent the gamers they say they represent. Bucking the trend on platform exclusives helps feed the War, bucking the trend on a sure thing would just get people who already have a formed opinion believing you don't know what you're talking about.
Right, which is what makes them unqualified. Being able to analyze and discuss this issue actually brings more information to their readers in terms of purchasing decisions. As it stands, they're just another fanboy, albeit one that actually gets VIP treatment by the same publishers that expect us to buy their games. You can usually get as clear a vision on a game by reading forums, with the difference that forum-goers aren't being paid to give their opinions.
Movie or music reviewers can, and often do, in fact, analyze things objectively. Many do in fact have knowledge of the craft of storytelling or acting or cinematography and can inform their readers of flaws or problems that they might not have been able to articulate on their own.
The 'pixel-counters' are the most worthwhile thing to come out of gaming journalism in years. Being able to qualitatively comment on FPS or IQ is a huge deal. Simply relying on purely subjective criticism is flawed in its essence, since not everyone has the same opinion. I play PS2 games and my eyes don't bleed and the way I notice FPS hitches is when I get motion sickness and have to lie down. How would my opinion be useful to most B3Ders? It wouldn't. On the other hand there are a few objective qualifiers like AA, resolution, FPS, shadowing, texture and model quality, animation etc. that can be accurately described and from which an informed viewer can attempt to draw their own conclusion. These aren't arbitrary criteria like SPEs or EDRAM, these are things that people who actually can hold discussions about graphics point out. As I said about your movies comment, above, they can inform readers about these criteria because their readers may not have the know-how to identify these issues themselves.
Sure. But we're back to subjective uselessness, where we have to sift through many reviews to try and find the one byline by someone whose opinion vaguely matches our own, and from there try to establish a rapport. And who won't have the same experience playing the game as I will because say, they're being flown to Italy by the publisher. Or because they've been getting hyped up over months for this release.
This is invalid because they're not the casual consumer. They're supposedly more knowledgeable than their casual consumer, which is why they're actually paid to play games and write about them. They don't have to 'talk down' to the casual consumer, they have to inform them to the best of their ability. Especially if, as you said, the review is a product evaluation as opposed to a critique.
Edit: But I think I'm going too far OT, and Shifty's gonna break my legs.
No.
Two games can deploy similar design decisions (e.g. rebounding health, health packs, respawning hoards of AI, etc) and in one game it work amazingly well and in another game be a disaster. Even bad technology and design issues can be mitigated, even leveraged, through the design process. Low-poly non-dynamic objects in the horizon are frequently quite sufficient (even look good plus be a performance boost to be used elsewhere) although technically a weakness. It is only a weakness if the design choices allow such issues become an issue in gameplay.
As noted Treyarch, even when using the same engine and basic design parameters, has had a much more difficult time balancing gameplay, diminishing the issues through smart design, and have frequently fell mountains short in terms of the "highs" of game design. Not to mention their products tend to be significantly more buggy and rushed. As I said, Treyarch has had more difficulty weaving the product together and producing polished games. Thus design choices that are less relevant in IW games tend to be more glaring in Treyarch games.
I never made an excuse for IW, which is symptomatic of your posts, so we are even.
No.
As stated, and ignored by you, is that technicals != graphics. Technology is only one component of graphics and visual impact. You don't need to be able to count pixels, identify shadowing techniques, or differentiate framebuffer formats to determine whether a game has good visuals or not.
You are niave if you believe there aren't influential forum goers who are being "perked" if not paid outright by major market forces to be active in influencing online consumers.
I believe your error here is believing "objectively" judging graphics corresponds to the technical aspects. Graphics are as much, if not more so, an issue of art and presentation. Further not all reviewers are "dumb" may may choose to describe what they see in terms compatible with their audiance (blurry, washed out, jaggy, etc) without making the error of thinking they need to talk over consumers to get the point across.
And totally not my point. Of course which is that the technicals don't make a game "great looking" or better than another. There is a long history of games that are "technically" inferior but austhetically have amazing graphics. Pinning graphics and bias singularly to some technical criteria is an error.
Anyhow, it seems the entire concept that, "Just because a game is technically solid doesn't mean it is graphically good" and the inverse "games using legacy technology can be graphically stunning" are totally lost on you.
Graphics aren't singularly a product of technology that can be quantified by pixels, graphical techniques, or the most current whizbang acronymn. The fact art and intelligent pairing of technology (techniques, performance, art pipelines) with art designs flies right over your post is concerning.
To define games like a TF2 or a Trusty Bell by pixel counting or techniques deployed is to totally, and completely, miss the concept that "Graphics" isn't driven by technological categories. Games like Okami pertty much spit in the face of this idea.
I dare say, how do you believe reviewers should rate graphics if not by the visual impression they got from the art and beauty of the presentation?
I would love to hear this "objective" criteria and how it isn't "subjective."
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
I dare say, how do you believe reviewers should rate graphics if not by the visual impression they got from the art and beauty of the presentation?
Don´t agree with the idea that Killzone 2 graphics technology is far greater than COD´s quake based engine ?.
Lol.
Its impossible to be objective about graphics.
This is because visual presentation not only depends on technology but also upon art, and art is purely subjective.
You can have the best engine in history, but if your art team goes about and makes fugly stuff, end result is gonna be fugly, great technology or not.
See, and here you're establishing a strawman again. Please stop. No one's saying they have to count pixels or differentiate framebuffer formats. Most of the people on B3D who talk about graphics can't do these things but they can still hold informed discussions.
No one said that 'technicals' = graphics. But graphics are one of the few criteria that can be analyzed objectively, to a degree. Reviewers simply don't; they focus entirely on 'what they like'. Which, as I pointed out, and you ignored, is useless. You need a further frame of reference; you need the reviewer to be consistent with his assessments (which fanboys rarely are) and even then you're relying on material other than that review. Or you need a set of objective criteria, which in the case of graphics, are actually available.
Right. And you misread what I said, thank you very much. I said as clear an image. I didn't say clearer. If a simple 'I like it' is sufficient for a review, then we don't need paid reviewers and can just do with fanboys who will do it for free. Whether viral marketers might be in forums or not is immaterial to my discussion; if we're going to stay off-topic, let's stick to this off-topic, please?
Excuse me, but there are objective criteria. They're not the only criteria, art direction is a big part, maybe even the biggest part, but we don't even get that. We don't even get an acknowledgement 'the game is sub-HD with washed out textures and unstable FPS, but the amazing art-direction makes up for it'. We get broad, empty statements like 'graphics are impressive' because, as I said, they're unqualified to actually render judgment. As to the second, I don't buy it, for starters, and even if it were true, then they're assuming we're all idiots who can't hear a little more detail without our eyes glazing over? That's not much of a defense.
And as you reiterate your point I reiterate that this is a strawman. I'm not saying that the only measure through which to measure graphics is objectively. I'm saying that graphics are the one criteria where you can actually offer some objective analysis and that reviewers should. If a game shines only because of art-style, then mention that and talk about the trade-offs. Sure, come to a conclusion 'it still looks great', but inform your readers. If the only criteria you choose to use to analyze a game is art-style, be up-front about it. But don't come with a purely subjective 'I love the graphics' because for all that one person might think art-style speaks more loudly than technology, another might disagree. As I said above, useless.
So what you're describing seems to be a completely different set of issues with Treyarch games. That's clearly not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the design issues that these games share. No one can seriously conclude that a lack of AI is good when IW does it but bad when Treyarch does it unless they're blinded by fanboy loyalty.
But you did. You just said that certain flaws are a problem in one game and not in the other. In fact, you said, and I'm paraphrasing: 'but the product is what matters and IW > Treyarch'. This is essentially arguing from the conclusion. Because you want IW to be a better developer than Treyarch (and it almost certainly is) you're willing to overlook certain flaws in IW's games that you wouldn't overlook in Treyarch's. The point is that neither developer should get a free ride; a flaw's a flaw. If IW is indeed a superior developer this'll show through no matter what -- and being called on their issues will just push them to fix them, once and for all.
MW2 is a MEGA-hyped game with TENS OF MILLIONS of marketing dollars involved, the importance of good AI and the need for innovation (that some games got knocked for) simply do not apply to MW2 as far as many sites are concerned, too much money is involved, at the end of the day they can hide behind the whole "opinions are subjective" thing and that basically let sites get away with essentially moving the goal posts as they see fit.
Last edited by a moderator:
the ignoramus
Regular
I sort of agree. I was actually very annoyed at the poster that implied that because MW2 has texture streaming, I had no basis to say that some areas of MW2 looked no better than MW1, or at least had no more of a visual impact than anything from MW1.
so what you are really saying is MW2 is just as flawed as it's predecessors and by definition can not be worthy of the 10 in graphics and final 9.5 that IGN gave them since it shares the same flaws. since IW is perceived as better, they are getting a pass and rated higher than they deserve.
there you go, all sewn up for ya.
so what you are really saying is MW2 is just as flawed as it's predecessors and by definition can not be worthy of the 10 in graphics and final 9.5 that IGN gave them since it shares the same flaws. since IW is perceived as better, they are getting a pass and rated higher than they deserve.
there you go, all sewn up for ya.
Who the hell is talking about scores? The text of the review. The part you read, you know? That's what I'm talking about. When WaW came out I realized that reviewers were complaining about things that were present in MW but were overlooked. Since WaW was the newer game, it wasn't unreasonable to expect it to fix the original game's flaws. MW2 comes out, many of these still persist (despite assurances to the contrary) but everyone's strangely mum about it. (And to be perfectly clear, it's not like I'm a Treyarch lover. I just think the free pass the fanboy press gives devs they like is pure BS.)
But if you want to go on about scores, they can give MW2 a 10 for all I care and I won't complain as long as:
1) There's a modicum of honesty, that the fanboy goggles are taken off. If there are problems with the game, point them out. Particularly, issues reviewers have previously found fault with in WaW (but that were actually inherited from MW) and that persist into MW2 continue to be issues. If the reviewer points them out but says 'the game's still a 10' that's fine, as long as:
2) The review text fits the posted criteria for the score, if said criteria exist. Most sites don't have actual criteria. Gamespy, for instance, does.
Ideally, I'd like reviews to be applied consistently, so that, given the limited budget of those of us who actually buy our games, we can attempt to make an informed decision as to which game to buy without having to scour a dozen different reviews. But I won't even list this consistency thing as a requirement, it's clearly too much to ask.
Similar threads
- Locked
