Jump to content

Its official 8.5 Graphics= Lazy Dev


Recommended Posts

Xbox reviews do seem to focus on technical aspects far too much for my taste.  And the notion that Xboxers care more about technical issues over solid role playing elements is sadly mistaken.  I think the industry and its media circuit are forgetting the reason why many of us bought Xbox's in the first place: because we ain't got the cash to fund a Half-Life 2 or Doom3 calibur computer at the moment--poor college student syndrome, I like to call it.

 

well the Xbox is billed as "the most powerful console on earth" so there's no reason why everything shouldn't look like a Ninja Gaiden or Splinter Cell. But in your defense ppl do bash on graphics too much.

 

i found KotOR to be one of the best lookin games on the system. my draw dropped when i looked at some of the beautiful scenery on dantooine (probably not gonna be able to say the same in the 2nd game). and even though a lot of ppl gripe on the lack of lightsaber reflection (never even noticed it) did that really take away anything else from the game? i dont even think the engine allowed\could handle something like that...

 

im pretty sure obsidian did the best job they did in the time allotted. if they developed an entirely different engine we probably wouldn't be gettin this game til the 3rd movie comes out, and there'd be pissed off fans too b\c what was wrong with the first one?

 

none of us gamers were complaining about graphics when we were banging out countless hours of Super Metroid or Chrono Trigger (man i need to play that again) on SNES :D

 

face it, we're "graphics spoiled".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page 8 of this thread reads like this crap paper I wrote drunk at 5 am for a Latin American Revolutions class in my freshman year of college.

 

The professor was Colombian-born and so I figured if I used infrequent (and sometimes incorrect) lexicology and uncommon (borderline Shakespearean) grammatical patterns I could obfuscate the inescapable veracity of the notion that I knew punctiliously nothing about the Nicaraguan revolution.

 

I think I got, like, a c minus or something, but on the bright side, I got my paper back about two weeks after everyone else, presumably because the professor had to use a dictionary or get help in grading it.

 

At least I stuck it to the man.

 

What are the excuses of the page 8 posters for writing this sophomore termpaper crap and passing it off as intellectualism?

 

 

Rofl :huh:

 

Maybe they're still in high school, in which case you can attribute it to an alderian inferiority complex. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devs were either going to spend time making the game look good, or making it good. They chose making the game good, and I commend them for it. The graphics for KOTOR 1 were great. They weren't state of the art, but they were pretty damn good. Go to that lookout on the unknown world and tell me the graphics are poor.

 

The reason RPGs often don't worry about graphics as much is that there is more than the environment to emerse you in the world, which is often somewhat unrealistic. In an FPS, you're walking around the world shooting stuff, and all you have is your surroundings to convince you. In an RPG, there are characters with needs and personalities to convince you.

 

When it comes down to it, I'd always rather have a fantastic game than a fantastic looking game, especially when it means that I get the same, plenty good graphics from before.

 

Also, there were no crippling bugs in KOTOR. People who complain about the technical stuff really need to do one of two things: get over it, or save more often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not. But certainly you realize it takes money to hire people to write that dialogue. You have a finite amount of resources to complete a project. A decision must be made to cut certain things, such as r&d in a graphics engine.

 

So?

 

Why should the amount of money the company put into graphics affect the review of the game?

 

Players don't pick up a game and say "Oh. . . these graphics are equal to a game I played five years ago. . . however they're a poor company and I'm sure they did the best they could with what they could."

 

A player picks up the game and says "Oh. . . these graphics are equal to a game I played five years ago."

 

You compare KotOR to Halo because they're on the same system with the same technical specs. Just like you compare an N64 game to an N64 game you compare an Xbox game to an Xbox game.

 

I personally don't care about graphics much and prefer gameplay and story first and foremost, I also appreciate that graphics affect sales. When your common joe-schmoe picks up a game and sees antiquated graphical presentation they don't get the same WOW they would from a modern game. That should be how games are rated, not on how much money the company allocated to the graphics department.

 

That said, KotOR II's graphics are fine. If we've come to the point where 9.0 is rated low then honestly, we need to re-evaluate the rating system. If you bring an A- home to your parents they probably didn't say "this sucks!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, KotOR II's graphics are fine. If we've come to the point where 9.0 is rated low then honestly, we need to re-evaluate the rating system. If you bring an A- home to your parents they probably didn't say "this sucks!"

 

That was kind of weird when everyone went mad over that it didn't get a perfect 10 or something? So what? You expected something spectacular?

Get the game and play it for yourselves before you whine like a little baby over some review... <_<

Edited by Ameorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...