Best graphics in 2009

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dude i have played MGS4 and MW2 and in MY OPINION MW2 is more lively. If you feel that MGS4 is more lively, well good for you, that is your opinion.

I certainly said MGS3, and not MGS4, but there are still area's of MGS4 that are more lively.

Define "lively" for me though. I mean, in MW2 you have enemies and explosions, but once all the enemies are killed, you're left with what is essentially a set piece that has nothing much left to it. MGS3, however, had birds in the trees, animals that would wonder around the woods, even insects (heck, even in the water you had fish, leeches, aligators, etc). MGS3, to me, is the king of "lively" for videogames.

Also, I don't think you should really finish off your posts with statements that suggest my opinion is stupid or worthless. "Good for you, that's your opinion" is a pretty nice way of saying "you're opinion is stupid and doesn't fall in line with the norm".
 
Isn't this a VS thread??????
Not really. It's more a "what game did you like the look of most" thread. It's all subjective opinion and though people can attempt to debate each other's choices, they'd mostly be wasting their breath. Suffice to say anyone who likes Marmite is an idiot who has no idea what good taste is!
 
I certainly said MGS3, and not MGS4, but there are still area's of MGS4 that are more lively.

Define "lively" for me though. I mean, in MW2 you have enemies and explosions, but once all the enemies are killed, you're left with what is essentially a set piece that has nothing much left to it. MGS3, however, had birds in the trees, animals that would wonder around the woods, even insects (heck, even in the water you had fish, leeches, aligators, etc). MGS3, to me, is the king of "lively" for videogames.

Also, I don't think you should really finish off your posts with statements that suggest my opinion is stupid or worthless. "Good for you, that's your opinion" is a pretty nice way of saying "you're opinion is stupid and doesn't fall in line with the norm".
Sorry, that's not what i was trying to imply. My response was based on what you said earlier. What i am trying to say is everybody is entitled to their opinion. And by that i mean the fact that MW2 is realistic/lively to me and is not to you doesn't make it any less lively to me.:smile:
 
Amazing how some people just can't respect the opinions of others and have to try to bash them in order to validate their own opinions. You know everyone is entitled to their opinions. :rolleyes:

It's easy enough just put forth your opinion, point out the positives you like, and leave it at that. No need to start going, hey such-and-such I can't understand why you think such-and-such game is even remotely good. :p

That said, I stick with my opinion that MW2 represents the overall best graphics package and presentation this year. :p That said I can go into many reasons why it isn't even close to game of the year for me (too short campaign, although absolutely excellant for the shortness for example).

I do have to say UC2 was a relatively close second place for me. As some have mentioned it's probably technically better than most others, but as a whole I just don't find it as attractive as MW2.

Although I haven't had a chance to try AC2 and have heard good things about it. Unfortunately, with a PC version announced no way I'm getting the console version, and have been too busy to go over and check it out at friends...

Regards,
SB
 
I personally don't get the love for Killzone 2. Generally uninteresting geometry, low res textures, mainly dull character models (as in seeing the exact same Helgast trooper hundreds of times), blurry and an overall "indistinct" quality to the visuals that caused me eyestrain over time. Sure, there are some nice explosions, and I'm sure the tech behind the game is very clever, but for me as a "visual treat" it was more "trick" than "treat".

Well, we see the main characters of any title throughout the entire game (hundreds of time). Doesn't mean the model will become weak because of that. :) There are other nice things about KZ2, so I don't find the good feedback surprising at all.

Also, developers use tricks all the time. If you can do similar things with lesser resources, that's good invention in my book. I gave KZ2 more credits because it was able to fool quite a few people, including Kittonwy who like HDR and dynamic shadow in his favorite games. I remember there's one other guy here who was surprised KZ2 didn't have HDR too, but I have digressed.
 
Killzone2 for impressive lighting,post processing and animation, Uncharted2 becouse is so outstanding for texturing, global illumination, depth of field, the best seen in a videogames on console, and character's models. :)

Imho both a step versus the next gen.:)
 
I think Uncharted 2 on the PS3 has to be one of if not the most awe inspiring game ever for me on a console. MGS4 had that at first with all the crazy cutscenes and the story but I think U2 left an even deeper impression.

But that said and not having played KZ2 or MW2 I cannot give a fair comparison. Still my vote will be for U2.
 
Dirt 2 is certainly a good mention! Great looking racer. Very impressive lighting too - I think that's the difference with a lot of these games.
 
New Super Mario Bros Wii. No other game this generation has yet depicted Mario bonking a question mark block to retrieve a mushroom that makes him grow big. Seeing this gives me so much glee that nothing else compares.
 
Amazing how some people just can't respect the opinions of others and have to try to bash them in order to validate their own opinions. You know everyone is entitled to their opinions. :rolleyes:

It's easy enough just put forth your opinion, point out the positives you like, and leave it at that. No need to start going, hey such-and-such I can't understand why you think such-and-such game is even remotely good. :p

That said, I stick with my opinion that MW2 represents the overall best graphics package and presentation this year. :p That said I can go into many reasons why it isn't even close to game of the year for me (too short campaign, although absolutely excellant for the shortness for example).

I do have to say UC2 was a relatively close second place for me. As some have mentioned it's probably technically better than most others, but as a whole I just don't find it as attractive as MW2.

Although I haven't had a chance to try AC2 and have heard good things about it. Unfortunately, with a PC version announced no way I'm getting the console version, and have been too busy to go over and check it out at friends...

Regards,
SB

It's not that I don't respect your opinion, I just think that you made a few judgements based on limited time with some games.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't own a PS3, correct? And you have not played Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2, correct?

I played through all 3 games (the third being MW2) and I can say without a doubt that MW2 is the least impressive package overall. It has the weakest explosions and smoke, the weakest textures, the weakest lighting, and the weakest animation.

Now, it's still subjective, as you can personally like any game you like mor than others, I'm just saying that I hardly thought MW2 was more "alive" than any other game. In fact, I'd say the only thing that could possibly lead to that would be the frame rate, because it's pretty smooth which leads to this "life like" feel when you see things. That said, the game breaks down on so many levels visually that it's hard for me to consider it a contender for best looking.

The environments are nice, but there is zero life to them outside of the enemies. No animals, no insects, no ambient sounds other than distant gunfire and explosions (or terrorist screams). Nothing about the game is "alive". The segment that was most "alive" was Contingency, because the blizzard was well done. The closest the game comes to letting you know that life exists outside of you and the terorrists is a handful of caged chickens littered around favela.

Again, everyone is free to their opinion, but that doesn't mean their opinion may or may not be based on limited experience with other products. I might have the opinion that Pepsi is the best soda in the world, but unless I've tried a multitude of other sodas, that opinion may be a bit silly.

Edit: With that said, I'm not making any sweeping statements proclaiming any one game to be better looking than another, because it's completely subjective and will ultimately be different from person to person.

The only thing you could honestly argue from game to game is technical differences, but that still doesn't tell you which is "best".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
True, but people can only really base their opinions on what they've played, so you really can't say it's invalid either.

The problem with threads like these are they are too subjective. It really depends on what is relevant to you...lighting, framerate, screen tearing, art, etc.

I've played so few games in 2009, that I can't even qualify an opinion.
 
True, but people can only really base their opinions on what they've played, so you really can't say it's invalid either.

The problem with threads like these are they are too subjective. It really depends on what is relevant to you...lighting, framerate, screen tearing, art, etc.

I've played so few games in 2009, that I can't even qualify an opinion.


Well, in that case I'd say people should say "the best game I played in 2009 was [insert game]".

I'd say you could totally give your opinion on the subject, you did play games, and out of those games, you must have one you felt looked best. Therefore, you most certainly do qualify to give your opinion, and I'd love to hear it :)
 
The problem with threads like these are they are too subjective. It really depends on what is relevant to you...lighting, framerate, screen tearing, art, etc.
It's not a problem as long as the spirit of the thread is understood.

tha_con said:
Well, in that case I'd say people should say "the best game I played in 2009 was [insert game]".
But that's implied; not just in the nature in the thread, but in the nature of all human debate. We can only offer ideas based on our experiences and learning, which may suffer from significant holes that we may not even be aware of. Explicitly stating caveats strikes me as polical correctness gone mad, like all these dumb disclaimers saying an individual giving their individual opinion doesn't represent an organistion at large.

No-one on this board or anywhere in the world can specify a scientific, fully considered answer to the Best Graphics question. The data isn't available for the technical considerations, while the subjective matters are unquantifiable.
 
Well, in that case I'd say people should say "the best game I played in 2009 was [insert game]".

I'd say you could totally give your opinion on the subject, you did play games, and out of those games, you must have one you felt looked best. Therefore, you most certainly do qualify to give your opinion, and I'd love to hear it :)

Unfortunately for me, the games I played in 2009 were all released in 2008.
That being the case, I would have to go with Halo 3 and Assassins Creed.

I picked up Little Big Planet, Batman AA for PS3, Halo ODST and RE5 (for the 360) but have yet to play any of them. I waiting until I get settled in my new home in about a week before I jump in to play those.

Out of the 4 I picked up, I'm really looking forward to getting into Batman and LBP (for the wife).
 
It's not a problem as long as the spirit of the thread is understood.


But that's implied; not just in the nature in the thread, but in the nature of all human debate. We can only offer ideas based on our experiences and learning, which may suffer from significant holes that we may not even be aware of. Explicitly stating caveats strikes me as polical correctness gone mad, like all these dumb disclaimers saying an individual giving their individual opinion doesn't represent an organistion at large.

No-one on this board or anywhere in the world can specify a scientific, fully considered answer to the Best Graphics question. The data isn't available for the technical considerations, while the subjective matters are unquantifiable.

Well, I'd say to that, if you're going to make sweeping statements about something being the best, you'd better be prepared to debate about it, correct? Especially if you imply that the majority of the other contenders aren't as "alive" (especially since MW2 is pretty dead outside of you, allies, and enemies).

Just saying. It's cool to voice your opinion, but it's also cool to refute it if someone disagrees. More specifically, you should actually provide some points to your thoughts if you're going to go so far as to accuse someone of "bashing your opinion" to "validate your own" when I clearly gave no opinion on the thread at all.
 
So yeah, MW2 looked really excellent. And so alive.

I was surprised by the games looks together with the lively battlescenes. Lots of stuff going on with vehicles, soldiers running around and bullets/explosions left and right. Felt quite authentic with the debris swaying around the scene and how it is cordinated. IIRC bullet impacts also create lights and bouncing sparks are nice considering it is a 60fps game. :D
 
KZ2 for me

There's just no other game that provided me with such unique look and feel, and it's amazing to see how KZ2's visual shines even more after playing other supposedly good looking games such as U2 & MW2 etc.

U2 didn't impressive me much, as there's nothing new about it. It's the same old tech, just executed better in every way.

I'd pick GOW3 demo as the second most visually impressive game I've seen this year. Can't wait to see the full game.

And an honorable mention goes to Flower for its artistic design. The game is just beautiful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top