and I have to admit, useing Gears of War as an example of graphics against Too Human was almost an insult due to the fact that Gears of Wars was allowed to use the U3 engine and Too Human was not.  From what I have read <but have no idea what to beleive> it seems that that was not SK's choice but a lack of follow through from EPic.

---

Pirate Ninja King

 Lord Twisted wrote:

 AgainWeRise9 wrote:

 F0XTR0T369 wrote:

I agree with Twisted.  Some where the Live Community became all about multi fps games.  Although I like a lot of these games, I too am looking for more multi player games that are of different genres.

The love hate relationship that is going on with SK right now, isn't about their game, its between FPS and other Genres, where the fps fans are trashing the game and other genre fans are praising it or at least willing to give it a try.

And the graphics being bad?  LoL, I've owned an atari, nes and everything up to are current gaming platforms.  There is nothing wrong with the graphics in this game.  Seems alot of the younger gamers out there, that got into gaming when the ps2 came out, seem to want more and more.  Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but for all us "old time" gamers out there, we have seen bad graphics and this game doesnt' come close.

Well, they do have a point when they complain about the graphics. Every time a new game comes out now adays, it either has a cartoony, cel-shaded look, or the graphics are intentionally stylized, OR it has graphics that bring tears to your eyes. This is going to be the first game in a while now that hasn't pushed graphics beyond the envelope, and thats what majority of gamers have come to expect.

SK has used the number of units on screen as an excuse, but gears of war 2 has over a hundered extremely detailed units on screen at a time, and Star Wars: TFU has more units on screen at once, all while using 3 processor and memory destroying physics engines with realistic DMM. Too Human IS severely lacking in the graphics department no matter what you say these days. It just simply doesn't live up to every other title coming out this year (or in this case, part of last year too...)

 

 This game is not going to have the best graphics, but honestly...the majority of the gamers are looking for better and better graphics?  That must be why the Wii was sold out of everywhere for a long long time, because it's a graphics paradise?

  Honestly, there are only a few types of gamers that are more interested in graphics then in gameplay.  A game can have the best damn graphics in the world, but if it plays like crud, the game is rated as "Crud"..

  Where as if a game has great play value and dated graphics, it is reviewed as "outdated graphics, but awesome play"

 

 So all in all, if this game has a good story, and plays well, the reviews are going to be in favor of the game.

 If they pounded a bunch of graphics into the game, and the results were, oh I don't know...Two Worlds like, with severe lag, and crappy play. SK's reviews would sink the instant it was released.

QFE

So true, when I ask my friends, wife and kids why they had to have a Nintendo Wii, not one of them ever mention graphics.  Look at all the Final Fantasys that have come out in the years, and most peoples top favs are 3 (US version for SNES) or 7 for the PS.  The graphics have gotten better over the years, but the game play........ 

---

A coward gets scared and quits. A hero gets scared, but still goes on.

 F0XTR0T369 wrote:

 Lord Twisted wrote:

 AgainWeRise9 wrote:

 F0XTR0T369 wrote:

I agree with Twisted.  Some where the Live Community became all about multi fps games.  Although I like a lot of these games, I too am looking for more multi player games that are of different genres.

The love hate relationship that is going on with SK right now, isn't about their game, its between FPS and other Genres, where the fps fans are trashing the game and other genre fans are praising it or at least willing to give it a try.

And the graphics being bad?  LoL, I've owned an atari, nes and everything up to are current gaming platforms.  There is nothing wrong with the graphics in this game.  Seems alot of the younger gamers out there, that got into gaming when the ps2 came out, seem to want more and more.  Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but for all us "old time" gamers out there, we have seen bad graphics and this game doesnt' come close.

Well, they do have a point when they complain about the graphics. Every time a new game comes out now adays, it either has a cartoony, cel-shaded look, or the graphics are intentionally stylized, OR it has graphics that bring tears to your eyes. This is going to be the first game in a while now that hasn't pushed graphics beyond the envelope, and thats what majority of gamers have come to expect.

SK has used the number of units on screen as an excuse, but gears of war 2 has over a hundered extremely detailed units on screen at a time, and Star Wars: TFU has more units on screen at once, all while using 3 processor and memory destroying physics engines with realistic DMM. Too Human IS severely lacking in the graphics department no matter what you say these days. It just simply doesn't live up to every other title coming out this year (or in this case, part of last year too...)

 

 This game is not going to have the best graphics, but honestly...the majority of the gamers are looking for better and better graphics?  That must be why the Wii was sold out of everywhere for a long long time, because it's a graphics paradise?

  Honestly, there are only a few types of gamers that are more interested in graphics then in gameplay.  A game can have the best damn graphics in the world, but if it plays like crud, the game is rated as "Crud"..

  Where as if a game has great play value and dated graphics, it is reviewed as "outdated graphics, but awesome play"

 

 So all in all, if this game has a good story, and plays well, the reviews are going to be in favor of the game.

 If they pounded a bunch of graphics into the game, and the results were, oh I don't know...Two Worlds like, with severe lag, and crappy play. SK's reviews would sink the instant it was released.

QFE

So true, when I ask my friends, wife and kids why they had to have a Nintendo Wii, not one of them ever mention graphics.  Look at all the Final Fantasys that have come out in the years, and most peoples top favs are 3 (US version for SNES) or 7 for the PS.  The graphics have gotten better over the years, but the game play........ 

The reason Wii owners don't talk about graphics is because they know they traded off next-gen graphics for a fun and gimmicky control scheme. But what does 360 have to offer? Nothing but good graphics, and DLC. That's why more and more gamers are starting to base whether or not they're buying a game on whether it has DLC and next-gen graphics. Why buy a $60 game if you know once you beat it you're done. If you buy a $60 game and there's DLC, however, I'm sure most of you would dish out $10-20 to keep playing that game if you like it. When it comes down too it, aesthetics are a huge determining factor in sales of a game these days. Be honest with yourselves, you didn't pay $300-500 for a next-gen system to play games that look like they were released on the original xbox, and you didn't pay that much to play games that you go through once, finish and never play again. If a game doesn't have good graphics and some DLC these days its just not going to stack up to most other games on market.

 AgainWeRise9 wrote:

 F0XTR0T369 wrote:

 Lord Twisted wrote:

 AgainWeRise9 wrote:

 F0XTR0T369 wrote:

I agree with Twisted.  Some where the Live Community became all about multi fps games.  Although I like a lot of these games, I too am looking for more multi player games that are of different genres.

The love hate relationship that is going on with SK right now, isn't about their game, its between FPS and other Genres, where the fps fans are trashing the game and other genre fans are praising it or at least willing to give it a try.

And the graphics being bad?  LoL, I've owned an atari, nes and everything up to are current gaming platforms.  There is nothing wrong with the graphics in this game.  Seems alot of the younger gamers out there, that got into gaming when the ps2 came out, seem to want more and more.  Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but for all us "old time" gamers out there, we have seen bad graphics and this game doesnt' come close.

Well, they do have a point when they complain about the graphics. Every time a new game comes out now adays, it either has a cartoony, cel-shaded look, or the graphics are intentionally stylized, OR it has graphics that bring tears to your eyes. This is going to be the first game in a while now that hasn't pushed graphics beyond the envelope, and thats what majority of gamers have come to expect.

SK has used the number of units on screen as an excuse, but gears of war 2 has over a hundered extremely detailed units on screen at a time, and Star Wars: TFU has more units on screen at once, all while using 3 processor and memory destroying physics engines with realistic DMM. Too Human IS severely lacking in the graphics department no matter what you say these days. It just simply doesn't live up to every other title coming out this year (or in this case, part of last year too...)

 

 This game is not going to have the best graphics, but honestly...the majority of the gamers are looking for better and better graphics?  That must be why the Wii was sold out of everywhere for a long long time, because it's a graphics paradise?

  Honestly, there are only a few types of gamers that are more interested in graphics then in gameplay.  A game can have the best damn graphics in the world, but if it plays like crud, the game is rated as "Crud"..

  Where as if a game has great play value and dated graphics, it is reviewed as "outdated graphics, but awesome play"

 

 So all in all, if this game has a good story, and plays well, the reviews are going to be in favor of the game.

 If they pounded a bunch of graphics into the game, and the results were, oh I don't know...Two Worlds like, with severe lag, and crappy play. SK's reviews would sink the instant it was released.

QFE

So true, when I ask my friends, wife and kids why they had to have a Nintendo Wii, not one of them ever mention graphics.  Look at all the Final Fantasys that have come out in the years, and most peoples top favs are 3 (US version for SNES) or 7 for the PS.  The graphics have gotten better over the years, but the game play........ 

The reason Wii owners don't talk about graphics is because they know they traded off next-gen graphics for a fun and gimmicky control scheme. But what does 360 have to offer? Nothing but good graphics, and DLC. That's why more and more gamers are starting to base whether or not they're buying a game on whether it has DLC and next-gen graphics. Why buy a $60 game if you know once you beat it you're done. If you buy a $60 game and there's DLC, however, I'm sure most of you would dish out $10-20 to keep playing that game if you like it. When it comes down too it, aesthetics are a huge determining factor in sales of a game these days. Be honest with yourselves, you didn't pay $300-500 for a next-gen system to play games that look like they were released on the original xbox, and you didn't pay that much to play games that you go through once, finish and never play again. If a game doesn't have good graphics and some DLC these days its just not going to stack up to most other games on market.

How about just developing games with good Replay Value? I havent purchased any DLC content for any of my games, cuz I honestly feel like its all stuff that shoulda been there in the first place, even if they were only accessible by reaching certain milestones in a game.
Wii owners can Always go back to their games andhave fun because the games are mostly designed for parties and repeated play. 
Basically i think a fun game u can revisit will net more than a good lookin game with some DLC

Actually I bought a 360 for the online abilities, not the graphics. If I was so die hard on graphics, I would have just bought a new computer.

  I bought a 360 because I was tired of having to update my computer every 6 months in order to play the newest greatest games. Every time I buy a new computer game I also have to buy a new video card, or more ram, or another hardrive.  Last game I bought for my PC I upped it from 2 gigs of ram to 3 gigs of ram, and a new video card, and had to add a secondary hard drive beause the game needed 18 gigs of hard drive space!

  So buying a 360 is cheap compared to that. I can not upgrade my PC any further, the next time something is outdated on my PC I have to buy a new PC.

  I bought the 360 because I don't want to have to upgrade stuff all the time. I bought the 360 because I wanted to be able to play online on a fairly ever ground with everyone else.

   I love good graphics, but they are pointless if the game is a pile of poo. I prefer story and game play over graphics....yes, if you end up comming out with a 16 bit game with great game play, and story, it will still bomb, but the graphics on Too Human are far from failure.

---

Pirate Ninja King

AgainWeRise9 wrote:
The reason Wii owners don't talk about graphics is because they know they traded off next-gen graphics for a fun and gimmicky control scheme. But what does 360 have to offer? Nothing but good graphics, and DLC. That's why more and more gamers are starting to base whether or not they're buying a game on whether it has DLC and next-gen graphics. Why buy a $60 game if you know once you beat it you're done. If you buy a $60 game and there's DLC, however, I'm sure most of you would dish out $10-20 to keep playing that game if you like it. When it comes down too it, aesthetics are a huge determining factor in sales of a game these days. Be honest with yourselves, you didn't pay $300-500 for a next-gen system to play games that look like they were released on the original xbox, and you didn't pay that much to play games that you go through once, finish and never play again. If a game doesn't have good graphics and some DLC these days its just not going to stack up to most other games on market.

That is so not true dude.  Nintendo has always been behind in the graphics department, and people still buy their products because they are fun.  I did not buy my xbox or 360 for the "great" graphics.  I got it for online play.  I owned a Dream Cast and thought that was a system above its time and when I heard about the xbox, from Microsoft, the online giants, that is why I bought it.

And I do buy 60 dollar games I might only play through once.  For me its entertainment.  The cost of going to a movie is almost 20 dollars after pop and popcorn where I live.  That's 10 dollars an hour for entertainment.  a 60 dollar game that gets me 40 hours or more of entertainment, well that is entertainment at a 1.50 an hour.  Can't beat that.  :) 

---

A coward gets scared and quits. A hero gets scared, but still goes on.

 F0XTR0T369 wrote:

AgainWeRise9 wrote:
The reason Wii owners don't talk about graphics is because they know they traded off next-gen graphics for a fun and gimmicky control scheme. But what does 360 have to offer? Nothing but good graphics, and DLC. That's why more and more gamers are starting to base whether or not they're buying a game on whether it has DLC and next-gen graphics. Why buy a $60 game if you know once you beat it you're done. If you buy a $60 game and there's DLC, however, I'm sure most of you would dish out $10-20 to keep playing that game if you like it. When it comes down too it, aesthetics are a huge determining factor in sales of a game these days. Be honest with yourselves, you didn't pay $300-500 for a next-gen system to play games that look like they were released on the original xbox, and you didn't pay that much to play games that you go through once, finish and never play again. If a game doesn't have good graphics and some DLC these days its just not going to stack up to most other games on market.

That is so not true dude.  Nintendo has always been behind in the graphics department, and people still buy their products because they are fun.  I did not buy my xbox or 360 for the "great" graphics.  I got it for online play.  I owned a Dream Cast and thought that was a system above its time and when I heard about the xbox, from Microsoft, the online giants, that is why I bought it.

And I do buy 60 dollar games I might only play through once.  For me its entertainment.  The cost of going to a movie is almost 20 dollars after pop and popcorn where I live.  That's 10 dollars an hour for entertainment.  a 60 dollar game that gets me 40 hours or more of entertainment, well that is entertainment at a 1.50 an hour.  Can't beat that.  :) 

Lol I've never seen it broken down like that before ( the price i mean).
Interesting way of looking at it. now imagine that, in a game that you would love to play through a second or third time