Isn't this a VS thread??????
Completely meaningless subjective discussions.
In fine and unfortunately yes…
Isn't this a VS thread??????
Completely meaningless subjective discussions.
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.
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!Isn't this a VS thread??????
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: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".
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".
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.
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.
That said, I stick with my opinion that MW2 represents the overall best graphics package and presentation this year. 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
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]".
It's not a problem as long as the spirit of the thread is understood.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.
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.tha_con said:Well, in that case I'd say people should say "the best game I played in 2009 was [insert game]".
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
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.
So yeah, MW2 looked really excellent. And so alive.