Wrong.
I said precisely that graphics empowers the gameplay & if they are bad they can be more than enough to turn a you off. If you remove what’s perceptible you don’t even have gameplays.
Concept, Graphics, Gameplay, Emotion, Reward, Time, Realization = quality of an experience = potential fun
Not just gameplay…
Wrong.
I said precisely that graphics empowers the gameplay & if they are bad they can be more than enough to turn a you off. If you remove what’s perceptible you don’t even have gameplays.
Concept, Graphics, Gameplay, Emotion, Reward, Time, Realization = quality of an experience = potential fun
Not just gameplay…
[QUOTE=shadyadi;326761]I don’t care about what a particular guy looks like on a certain angle in a screenshot, in motion the game is perfectly fine. If you have an issue with that sort of thing that’s great for you. I checked out the guy, and what? he looks a bit blocky but you wouldn’t notice if you were actually playing the game, had to pause it to see what you were on about.
You could do the same in MW2 and no doubt find a hideous player model since the models aren’t awesome in that game, why try so hard to nitpick?
And why try to compare it with snidey remarks to some crappy GameLoft ‘the videogame plagiarists’ title?[/QUOTE]
Than you missed the point. It’s a video and it’s unfortunately not 100% representative of what you can see on the screen, so I pointed you out what’s wrong with the 360 version and that can be observed at the time frame. If you look properly at the character I’m talking about, you’ll see why the low resolution, lack of anti-aliasing, etc. make the game look so bad on that platform.
Look around the dude, but imagine that this effect covers the entire screen. Brink doesn’t look blurry at 5 meters, even your weapon already looks blurry.
And I suggest you go back read the first post, because it’s not about gameloft, but about what you pay for what you get, especially in 2011. MW looks better than Brink, because it’s not all blurry…
I paid for a fast paced fun shooter, I got what I wanted.
The real issues are with the netcode and matchmaking.
[QUOTE=Hyrage;326770]Wrong.
I said precisely that graphics empowers the gameplay & if they are bad they can be more than enough to turn a you off. If you remove what’s perceptible you don’t even have gameplays.
Concept, Graphics, Gameplay, Emotion, Reward, Time, Realization = quality of an experience = potential fun
Not just gameplay…
Than you missed the point. It’s a video and it’s unfortunately not 100% representative of what you can see on the screen, so I pointed you out what’s wrong with the 360 version and that can be observed at the time frame. If you look properly at the character I’m talking about, you’ll see why the low resolution, lack of anti-aliasing, etc. make the game look so bad on that platform.
Look around the dude, but imagine that this effect covers the entire screen. Brink doesn’t look blurry at 5 meters, even your weapon already looks blurry.
And I suggest you go back read the first post, because it’s not about gameloft, but about what you pay for what you get, especially in 2011. MW looks better than Brink, because it’s not all blurry…[/QUOTE]
Your Opinion. You forgot to say: Graphics are very important, in my opinion. Blurring is more realistic Edges should be soft, not hard like a cardboard cut-out. MW set-pieces and multiplayer look like card board cut-outs. It is just what you may be use to.
I suggest you stop being so negative and get a profile picture so as not to look like a spammer.:stroggbanana:
[QUOTE=wolfnemesis75;326777]Your Opinion. You forgot to say: Graphics are very important, in my opinion. Blurring is more realistic Edges should be soft, not hard like a cardboard cut-out. MW set-pieces and multiplayer look like card board cut-outs. It is just what you may be use to.
I suggest you stop being so negative and get a profile picture so as not to look like a spammer.:stroggbanana:[/QUOTE]
It’s not my opinion that graphics are important. Close your monitor en enjoy a game you can’t play. Graphics play a major role in any game, It’s a problem when you can’t barely recognize that what you are looking at is a player at 10 meters away from you, because it looks like red blurry pixels.
When graphics end up being disturbing, it’s a problem. And certainly not, blur is freaking not realistic unless you received a punch in the face or suffer from myopia as I do. And that’s another point, I wear glasses, I certainly will not play a game that gives me the feeling I need better glasses, because graphics looks like crap on my HDMI 1080p computer screen.
And that’s being realistic, not negative, but anyway… my negativity is only up to your own interpretation of your reality…
[QUOTE=shadyadi;326771]I paid for a fast paced fun shooter, I got what I wanted.
The real issues are with the netcode and matchmaking.[/QUOTE]
THIS - also this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv224f6tkuU&feature=related
For us PC Gamers… graphics don’t mean **** when it comes to competitive shooters. Performance and Gameplay come before anything else. I disabled as many of the graphical features in brink as brink will allow just for this purpose, hell i wish i could tone it down more; like remove depth of field and crank the picmip up on the textures.
In the end it really is all subjective, and depends on the game and the gamer. Games like Battlefield, I will keep the graphics cranked just because the graphics do bring a level of bad assery. But when it comes to games I like to play on a competitive level (Quake Series, Wolf ET, Brink, etc) I want the most performance possible, with as little visual distractions as possible, and thats my personal preference… I care about the gameplay and the competition more than i do about a flashy glowing wall.
[QUOTE=Hyrage;326786]It’s not my opinion that graphics are important. Close your monitor en enjoy a game you can’t play. Graphics play a major role in any game, It’s a problem when you can’t barely recognize that what you are looking at is a player at 10 meters away from you, because it looks like red blurry pixels.
When graphics end up being disturbing, it’s a problem. And certainly not, blur is freaking not realistic unless you received a punch in the face or suffer from myopia as I do. And that’s another point, I wear glasses, I certainly will not play a game that gives me the feeling I need better glasses, because graphics looks like crap on my HDMI 1080p computer screen.
And that’s being realistic, not negative, but anyway… my negativity is only up to your own interpretation of your reality…[/QUOTE]
Brother, the most popular games right now are handheld Iphone games, so don’t tell me Graphics are the most important thing in a game’s value and enjoyment. Give me a break. Get a profile picture they are free so you do not look or act or sound much like a spammer. :stroggbanana:
[QUOTE=WastelandTraveler;326793]THIS - also this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv224f6tkuU&feature=related
For us PC Gamers… graphics don’t mean **** when it comes to competitive shooters. Performance and Gameplay come before anything else. I disabled as many of the graphical features in brink as brink will allow just for this purpose, hell i wish i could tone it down more; like remove depth of field and crank the picmip up on the textures.
In the end it really is all subjective, and depends on the game and the gamer. Games like Battlefield, I will keep the graphics cranked just because the graphics do bring a level of bad assery. But when it comes to games I like to play on a competitive level (Quake Series, Wolf ET, Brink, etc) I want the most performance possible, with as little visual distractions as possible, and thats my personal preference… I care about the gameplay and the competition more than i do about a flashy glowing wall.[/QUOTE]
Brink would look prettier with less useless details, sharper graphics and decent textures. I mean if you look at the sky on the 360 version, that’s how the sky looked in the first Deus Ex on PC when 3D games was starting to take shape; it’s disturbing.
one of the main things they need to fix on 360 is the 30fps limit… if they even brought it up to 40 it would feel much smoother.
Dude, I’ll tell you one last time otherwise I’ll start you think you are heavily retarded. It’s not about how high end the graphics look that matters, it’s how much they are not disturbing.
Quake III by default on PC actually looks better than Brink on the 360, because you the game is just clean and any other complaint would be simply about the art direction (and that is a matter of opinions, but it’s not what I’m talking about here). The graphics of Quake III may be outdated, but they still look great.
From a technical point of view, Brink looks terrible on console and it’s just how it is. Games look great on the iPhone, because they are made and designed properly for the resolution they are running on (I I’ve worked on a few and I can tell), but not Brink on the 360.
Or I could say that Brink was visually scaled down on the 360 and the result is not acceptable for a $60 AAA game in 2011. I think it’s much easier to understand that way. It should have been optimized and altered, some objects should have been removed just to ensure the graphics would be at least ‘‘acceptable’’. It may require more time, but it’s necessary.
The thing is, if you have a big TV and are far from it, that may not be as distrubing as it is for the others that are play on a computer screen 4 feet away and see everything perfectly that may be disturbing.
Well I suggest you go back to school in order to rework your logic to better understand the difference between fact & opinion.
[QUOTE=Hyrage;326810]Dude, I’ll tell you one last time otherwise I’ll start you think you are heavily retarded. It’s not about how high end the graphics look that matters, it’s how much they are not disturbing.
Quake III by default on PC actually looks better than Brink on the 360, because you the game is just clean and any other complaint would be simply about the art direction (and that is a matter of opinions, but it’s not what I’m talking about here). The graphics of Quake III may be outdated, but they still look great.
From a technical point of view, Brink looks terrible on console and it’s just how it is. Games look great on the iPhone, because they are made and designed properly for the resolution they are running on, but not Brink on the 360.
Or I could say that Brink was visually scaled down on the 360 and the result is not acceptable for a $60 AAA game in 2011. I think it’s much easier to understand that way.[/QUOTE]
This is your opinion. You do realize that your opinion may not be everyone’s, right? Oh, get a profile picture you look like a spammer.
I have to agree that Brink is far too blurry and low res on ps3 at least.
I come from a comp background on pc, and the only reason I’m playing on console is due to my PC being used for music production these days.
The game is more than playable, but sometimes it can be very difficult to make out what’s going on in the heat of battle.
Yeah, that’s how it is. But are you saying that the reason why the console version has crap graphics is because it’s on console? There are so many 360 games out there with much better graphics than Brink. So that is not an excuse as to why the console versions have such crap graphics.
Exactly and well put. The point is, if Brink would have been produced on the 360 with consideration of the hardware, it wouldn’t look like a badly scaled down game all blurry.
It would look sharp, clean, with decent texture, 3D models would have less polygons, etc. Still, it would be as sharp as Quake III on PC at least.
The graphics in COD (360) are better than Brink (360). And framerates are higher in COD too. Now I really can’t take you seriously if you won’t even ADMIT that Brink has worse graphics than a game running the same old engine for the past how many years? 5? And how about BC2, which supports more players, with larger maps, and vehicles… yet they still managed to keep the graphics up without sacrificing a steady framerate?
There is no excuse as to why Brink has horrible graphics on consoles.
yeah yeah we know PC looks way better but consoles are only getting better with every release. Personally I could see microsoft making a desktop-like console in the future where they may merge controller players with mouse players and have the system actually use both itself. Plus Microsoft is coming out with a new disc format so that they CAN hold more information and read faster than the current DVD format, if you haven’t noticed in the past 2 years texture loading issues are plaguing many many games because they hold so much info now just on a disk.
So, the argument that consoles are useless and crap or whatever is completely bogus because in reality they are currently two different styles of play that do not collide at all, so why don’t we wait until they do to play the mine’s bigger game?
Lol, at least it doesn’t look like L.A. Noire where the people have real faces and LEGO bodies lmao!
hahah, I thought about that too. All the budget went in the face lifting.
Back to Brink…
All I’m saying is that the game doesn’t look like a game made for the 360 or PS3. It’s like taking a fat guy and trying to make it fit in clothes that do not fit him at all, so you remove buttons as an excuse. It fits, but damn it makes him look ugly. Not because he can’t look good, but because the clothes are not right for him.
