paganinio on 6/11/2008 at 10:41
Is SS2 the ultimate item in this category?
Almost every FPS that received great reviews, had awesome graphics. SS2 is a rare exception to this rule. I've seen an 8 review (which, by the way, is the lowest review score for SS2 ;-) ) on Metacritic, that said "There is only one major criterion System Shock 2 fails to hit. Graphically, it isn't so special." Why should graphics be a major criterion in the first place?
Do you know why so few shooters are as deep and as complex as SS2? One of the reasons is that action gamers just want action, they don't want a skill tree or sandbox or anything. Another reason is that, the developers only have so much time, they can either work on the graphics, or work on the gameplay. Too many games are good at neither. Some games are good at graphics but lack gameplay/depth, and SS2 surely is good at gameplay/depth but lacks graphics.
BTW: Maybe it's just me, but I didn't see Unreal Tournament as a graphically good game either (released in 2000, the graphics were not better than SS2). And that game also received tons of acclaims. Half Life's graphics seemed better than both.
kidmystik101 on 6/11/2008 at 11:47
Quote Posted by paganinio
Why should graphics be a major criterion in the first place?
Because these days, unless everything has bloom out the asshole, 8x AA and a used coffee filter over it it's shit.
I fear for the future generation of both gaming and gamers.
rachel on 6/11/2008 at 12:35
I never really cared myself on my first runs because it was on a dinosaur of a computer that only recently earned its well deserved retirement (old PIII 350MHz, 64Mb RAM...), but I think Deus Ex graphics were universally described as shitty.
JohnnyTheWolf on 6/11/2008 at 12:46
How exactly is SS2 "not so special" graphically, anyway? And compared to what? Half-Life 1?
van HellSing on 6/11/2008 at 17:22
Quote Posted by raph
I never really cared myself on my first runs because it was on a dinosaur of a computer that only recently earned its well deserved retirement (old PIII 350MHz, 64Mb RAM...), but I think
Deus Ex graphics were universally described as shitty.
...And now you're going to get a bunch of rabid fanboys on your head. But yeah, DX graphics were indeed shitty.
doctorfrog on 6/11/2008 at 18:09
Quote Posted by JohnnyTheWolf
How exactly is SS2 "not so special" graphically, anyway? And compared to what? Half-Life 1?
SS2's level design graphics were always pretty good, thanks to the naturally clean-lined futuristic environment that don't need a lot of gritty detail, but the models for the hybrids, midwives, and cyborgs were primitive and goofy, even then. The cyborg ninjas, particularly, look like animated garbage bags. Compared to the other Dark Engine games, there are few shadows to hide these models and excite imagination. Even the maintenence and military bots in the game are pretty low-poly, and have few moving parts, they shrug around the Von Braun like uptight Richard Nixons. (k, maybe i'm stretching a bit there.)
Even the character hand model is an amorphous blob somehow gripping pistols and shotguns. HL1's models haven't aged any more gracefully, but they are a heck of a lot better. It's a valid criticism and a half-compliment to the game that it still manages to be awesome with models that were outdated even as the game was published.
Eldron on 6/11/2008 at 20:25
Quote:
they can either work on the graphics, or work on the gameplay.
Biggest myth of the gaming industry..
As an artist I can tell you that every art-department always strive to do the best kind of art possible, while there's other people working on the gameplay, and coding, and etc...
While graphics can easily be defined in quality, gameplay is more of a matter of a very varied taste, so it's always the more harder thing to get right.
rachel on 6/11/2008 at 21:21
Quote Posted by van HellSing
...And now you're going to get a bunch of rabid fanboys on your head. But yeah, DX graphics were indeed shitty.
I'll play the "hearsay" card to save my skin! To me at the time everything looked fantastic, it was only the third real game I played after Jedi Knight and SS2, and it blew my mind start to finish.
Quote Posted by doctorfrog
HL1's models haven't aged any more gracefully, but they are a heck of a lot better. It's a valid criticism and a half-compliment to the game that it still manages to be awesome with models that were outdated even as the game was published.
Agreed. The animations and models in HL are miles away, the "reload" animations particularly. SS2, as excellent as it is, always felt kind of stiff in that department.
redrain85 on 7/11/2008 at 00:00
No one will argue against the fact that, even for its time, SS2 did not have the most stunning visuals.
But the decks of the Von Braun, in particular, looked quite good and very realistic. Realistic, in the sense that it's how you would expect a real space ship to look.
Also, even today I find the Dark Engine's lighting system to be exceptional. I've never seen such moody lighting in any game. Even today.
The best thing is: if you now use SHTUP, Rebirth, and DDFix, you can bring the visuals more up to date. SS2 actually looks quite stunning with these additions.
I have to admit that it's hard for me to stomach really outdated graphics, these days. We've all been spoiled by the latest games. But I'll still overlook that if the gameplay is brilliantly done.
ZylonBane on 7/11/2008 at 08:01
Quote Posted by paganinio
Is SS2 the ultimate item in this category?
No.
