Comments on: Casualty Rant: Pixel Junkies

By: Kaylan

Kaylan — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:23:30 +0000

I love reading these articles because they?re short but infrmoaitve.

By: panickedthumb

panickedthumb — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:34:01 +0000

OK, I found more comparison shots, where they claim the PS3 version is blurry and therefore should be boycotted. It’s absolutely ridiculous.
360:
http://www.ripten.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/bioshockdemo_05_360-1.jpg

PS3:
http://www.ripten.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/bioshockdemo_05_ps3-1.jpg

Number one, this is something not worth nit-picking. And number two, I think it’s a function of the PS3 having better fog/haze. If you look at the Rapture Metro sign, it actually looks more jagged on the 360 version. Again, nothing to write home about, but who cares? Just play games. That’s what we enjoy right?

By: panickedthumb

panickedthumb — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:07:04 +0000

I’ll play devil’s advocate. 2k has been talking about how they’ve put so much work into making the PS3 Bioshock stand on its own, so it is kinda sad that the graphics aren’t as good on the PS3. I was under the impression that the graphics were supposed to be a little better on the PS3, I have played it on 360, but I’ve been holding out for the PS3 version since it was supposed to be better. Now I’ll at least wait for some reviews to come in once the game goes gold, to see how the extras are. If they aren’t that great I might get the 360 version for the better graphics (and because the 360 controller works better with FPS games for me, personally)

THAT SAID, I’m unconvinced by this. I’ve looked at a lot of screenshot comparisons and I had to really strain to see a difference. So unless it’s FAR worse than this in the final game (like, bad enough to break the immersion), I’m going with the PS3. Seriously, the graphics do not make the game, but they help. I have played the bioshock demo, and if it looked worse than the 360 version, it didn’t take away from the atmosphere of the game. It is an amazing game regardless of platform, and I think these people are getting their panties in a bunch over nothing. Assassin’s Creed is awesome, but here’s a case where the PS3 version really suffered. Not because of graphics but because of frequent hang-ups. That’s what people need to be looking for. Does it take away from the actual gameplay? Are you going to have less fun with a slight graphics dip? No!

Like I said, I’ll wait for the reviews to see if it’s much worse, but this level of complaining over ONE TEXTURE is ridiculous.

By: Nemesis

Nemesis — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:38:05 +0000

I totally agree Bassium. Games nowadays put too much on graphics and not enough on what matters – the game itself. I prefer to review games that have graphics that are less than normal to show that these games can still be good. I see that CG also holds this view very strongly, so I’m glad to be here

By: Bassium

Bassium — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:29:03 +0000

I see I joined the right gaming site to help post stuff on, I have been thinking about this issue that the gaming community has become too spoiled with moderately good games, just because a game doesn’t have great graphics the gameplay alone can be awesome. I used to love Mega Man ames (I still do.) Now yes I know Mega Man games are popular games anyways but the originals for the NES didn’t have great graphics by todays standards but truth be told I don’t like most of the new Mega Man games that are like 3-D and stuff. (Mega Man belongs in a 2-D world.)

By: Dan Z

Dan Z — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:46:27 +0000

Technically even TJ & Earl 2: Panic on Funkatron had better graphics than the original, but you just can’t beat the classics.

Edit: I mean that’s kind of the point, right?

By: Spkl

Spkl — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:46:51 +0000

Why are you playing the original toejam and earl?
the xbox sequel has much better graphics.