The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
These are probably some of the most impressive screenshots I have ever seen.
You must also see them.
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/364/364229p1.html
The stained glass windows, the lighting effects, the delail...
Everyone who doesn't own an xbox must also see them as the game is multiplatform (will it look as good on PS2, I don't think so)
Graphics arn't everything I know, ahh sod it, yes they are.
Forget MGS, Splinter cell is going to rock, oh yes...
You must also see them.
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/364/364229p1.html
The stained glass windows, the lighting effects, the delail...
Everyone who doesn't own an xbox must also see them as the game is multiplatform (will it look as good on PS2, I don't think so)
Graphics arn't everything I know, ahh sod it, yes they are.
Forget MGS, Splinter cell is going to rock, oh yes...
Page:
Ant wrote:
> Try plot, music and gameplay and you'd be a little closer.
Oh please, I played this game all the way through, it was utter pants. The music certainly was nothing special, i really can't see how anyone can put that up as one of it's strong points.
Gameplay was somewhat lacking, and the plot was hardly the most complicated one I've ever come across.
> Try plot, music and gameplay and you'd be a little closer.
Oh please, I played this game all the way through, it was utter pants. The music certainly was nothing special, i really can't see how anyone can put that up as one of it's strong points.
Gameplay was somewhat lacking, and the plot was hardly the most complicated one I've ever come across.
Armatige Shanks wrote:
> Ant wrote:
> Well, considering the X-Box is supposed to be many times more
> powerful, especially graphically, than the PS2, I wouldn't be too
> surprised. But judging by Halo, I would say that's not the case.
>
> First gen titles neer take full advantage of the system... developers
> are still getting to grips with the possibilities...
>
> That the first batch of games already match up to the very best the
> PS2 has to offer is impressive.
Ahh, but as everyone has said, the graphics on this game aren't actually that impressive. So surely they are not living up to the PS2's very best? {:)
Nah, I don't know, I don't know much about gaming. When I saw these shots I did actually think they looked quite good, but as people have pointed out they've gone a bit over the top with the lighting effects.
And anyway, I thought graphics weren't the most important part of a game? {:)
> Ant wrote:
> Well, considering the X-Box is supposed to be many times more
> powerful, especially graphically, than the PS2, I wouldn't be too
> surprised. But judging by Halo, I would say that's not the case.
>
> First gen titles neer take full advantage of the system... developers
> are still getting to grips with the possibilities...
>
> That the first batch of games already match up to the very best the
> PS2 has to offer is impressive.
Ahh, but as everyone has said, the graphics on this game aren't actually that impressive. So surely they are not living up to the PS2's very best? {:)
Nah, I don't know, I don't know much about gaming. When I saw these shots I did actually think they looked quite good, but as people have pointed out they've gone a bit over the top with the lighting effects.
And anyway, I thought graphics weren't the most important part of a game? {:)
Ant wrote:
> Well, considering the X-Box is supposed to be many times more
> powerful, especially graphically, than the PS2, I wouldn't be too
> surprised. But judging by Halo, I would say that's not the case.
First gen titles neer take full advantage of the system... developers are still getting to grips with the possibilities...
That the first batch of games already match up to the very best the PS2 has to offer is impressive.
> Well, considering the X-Box is supposed to be many times more
> powerful, especially graphically, than the PS2, I wouldn't be too
> surprised. But judging by Halo, I would say that's not the case.
First gen titles neer take full advantage of the system... developers are still getting to grips with the possibilities...
That the first batch of games already match up to the very best the PS2 has to offer is impressive.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> unfortunately, that something was the graphics, which at the time were
> quite good.
Try plot, music and gameplay and you'd be a little closer.
> unfortunately, that something was the graphics, which at the time were
> quite good.
Try plot, music and gameplay and you'd be a little closer.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Obviously people enjoy mediocrity.
Sage words, looking at those screenshots, and this topic. ;)
> Obviously people enjoy mediocrity.
Sage words, looking at those screenshots, and this topic. ;)
unfortunately, that something was the graphics, which at the time were quite good.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Why people get excited about crap games is really beyond me. Obviously
> people enjoy mediocrity.
Okay, it's fair enough that you're not keen on it, but to call it 'crap' is overdoing it a bit. It's sold in massive amounts, so there's obviously something about it that appeals to many people. :-)
> Why people get excited about crap games is really beyond me. Obviously
> people enjoy mediocrity.
Okay, it's fair enough that you're not keen on it, but to call it 'crap' is overdoing it a bit. It's sold in massive amounts, so there's obviously something about it that appeals to many people. :-)
Ant wrote:
> This comment doesn't even deserve a response, considering Metal Gear 1
> wasn't even that graphically impressive.
>
> Damn...I just gave it a response. :D
Well, not only was it hyped for it's looks, your comeback still only re-enforces my point. The game was pants. No longevity, virtually no replay value, sparse gameplay, and average graphics. Yet Sonyphiles were jumping up and down about it.
Why people get excited about crap games is really beyond me. Obviously people enjoy mediocrity.
> This comment doesn't even deserve a response, considering Metal Gear 1
> wasn't even that graphically impressive.
>
> Damn...I just gave it a response. :D
Well, not only was it hyped for it's looks, your comeback still only re-enforces my point. The game was pants. No longevity, virtually no replay value, sparse gameplay, and average graphics. Yet Sonyphiles were jumping up and down about it.
Why people get excited about crap games is really beyond me. Obviously people enjoy mediocrity.
Armatige Shanks wrote:
> Ant wrote:
> I wouldn't be too surprised if
> the PS2 version gives the X-Box one a run for it's money.
>
> You mean first gen X-Box titlea are already outstripping third(?) gen
> PS2 titles?
Well, considering the X-Box is supposed to be many times more powerful, especially graphically, than the PS2, I wouldn't be too surprised. But judging by Halo, I would say that's not the case.
> Ant wrote:
> I wouldn't be too surprised if
> the PS2 version gives the X-Box one a run for it's money.
>
> You mean first gen X-Box titlea are already outstripping third(?) gen
> PS2 titles?
Well, considering the X-Box is supposed to be many times more powerful, especially graphically, than the PS2, I wouldn't be too surprised. But judging by Halo, I would say that's not the case.
Page: