How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

[Pared]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

Bad draw in? You're playing the 360 version and that's part of the reason.

Hardly any of that on the PS3 version.

[mizzta21]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

The scope of a game's environment should count towards gameplay?

OK!

lol i agree with you dude, no worries. i dont think a lot of these people get what what ur try to say.

[Cebby]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

Bad draw in? You're playing the 360 version and that's part of the reason.

Then the PS3 version should get a higher rating than the 360.

lol i agree with you dude, no worries. i dont think a lot of these people get what what ur try to say.

We get what he's saying; the size of the environment limits the graphical ability. However, I don't think the scope of an environment should count towards graphics, unless it's in the case of Far Cry or Oblivion where you can actually see miles in real time.

Here is reason I think size should effect gameplay over graphics:

If the game was only the first island with the same graphics, the graphics would still be the same. However, the players ability to do things would be affected, hence gameplay. To me, graphics can be judged in a few seconds of video. I think the scope should provide some boost of graphics ratings, but not a 4 point boost ahead of Bioshock, and others.

[mgoblue]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

Then the PS3 version should get a higher rating than the 360.



We get what he's saying; the size of the environment limits the graphical ability. However, I don't think the scope of an environment should count towards graphics, unless it's in the case of Far Cry or Oblivion where you can actually see miles in real time.

Here is reason I think size should effect gameplay over graphics:

If the game was only the first island with the same graphics, the graphics would still be the same. However, the players ability to do things would be affected, hence gameplay. To me, graphics can be judged in a few seconds of video. I think the scope should provide some boost of graphics ratings, but not a 4 point boost ahead of Bioshock, and others.

Scope drastically affects graphics...if you have a large scope you cannot devote all the resources you can vs. having a smaller scope. With your rules the only game that could have greater than 5 in graphics would be a game with only one character in one very defined room.

When your scope expressly limits your graphical ability, I don't think you should say graphics are a 5. Bioshock is totally different from GTA4...you cannot compare the graphics when you think about it. Bioshock has much more limited characters on the screen, as well as a completely closed (and not very diverse) environment.

I loved Bioshock, but just technically the games are so different. It's like saying Madden, MLB The Show, NBA 2k and all those games have garbage graphics because they don't look as realistic as Fight Night, you know?

[Cebby]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

When your scope expressly limits your graphical ability

I acknowledge that, and everyone who rated every other GTA game acknowledged that. But regardless of the scope, the graphics aren't that good.

Honestly, I've never seen anything like this. I've never seen a review that said "well, the game isn't much better than mediocre, but it's ambitious, so I'll give it a 10." Graphics are graphics. If something is pretty, it should get higher ratings than a non-pretty game. Just because it has scope doesn't mean that the graphics are suddenly the best graphics on the market. GTA4 doesn't have the best graphics on the market.


Graphics
Solid next-gen graphics offering fantastic particle effects, good animation, and a steady framerate of 30 FPS are unfortunately countered by noticeable fade-in, texture and screen tearing.


Does that not describe GTA4 (aside from the screen tearing)?

[Pared]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

But regardless of the scope, the graphics aren't that good.

This is why I won't agree with you. You're disregarding things and talking about "if's" when I would point to what is actually there.

You know what's damn impressive about this game? Go up in a helicopter at night... look down at the streets. You see a bunch of little lights that represent car headlights.... you know what they are, but they look like little dots. Slowly drop down and land... while looking at the dots... and you will see those are actually cars down there, not little circles of lights to give the impression there are cars.... each one of those lights actually represent a car.

That, to me, is so amazing to be in a video game. While you on the other hand, from everything you've posted, want to have each car look like a photo-realistic recreation that competes with Forza2 and GT5.

Apples and Oranges when you really think about it...

[Blzer]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

If the game was only the first island with the same graphics, the graphics would still be the same.

I don't think that's true. Remember that the entire game, the entire city (including interiors) loads at the first loading screen. After that, there is zero loading. Recall GTA III and Vice City, when going between cities, they had to load information then and there. Basically, the game is already making sacrifices with allocated memory at one time by loading the entire game at once rather than going between cities. Part of it probably takes a hit to graphics as well, though I can't be sure.

And that's where the dynamic lighting kicks in so well also... the way in which going from exteriors to interiors is seamless, as well as the change in lighting. I really think a 10 is exactly what this game deserved.


By the way, I just wanted people to know that the PlayStation 2 versions of GTA III, Vice City, and San Andreas received 8.5, 8.6, and 8.5 in graphics respectively. Those games were far behind what any other game offered visually when looking at things on the screen at one time (and we're not even talking about the game's framerate, texture clipping, and pop-in issues), but they took into account what the game was doing at one time then, too. Meanwhile, the beautiful All Star Baseball 2002 received an 8.0 in graphics. I don't think that GTA was mainstream enough to be considered a title that a company would be paying websites off for, especially in 2001.

[mgoblue]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

I acknowledge that, and everyone who rated every other GTA game acknowledged that. But regardless of the scope, the graphics aren't that good.

Honestly, I've never seen anything like this. I've never seen a review that said "well, the game isn't much better than mediocre, but it's ambitious, so I'll give it a 10." Graphics are graphics. If something is pretty, it should get higher ratings than a non-pretty game. Just because it has scope doesn't mean that the graphics are suddenly the best graphics on the market. GTA4 doesn't have the best graphics on the market.


Graphics
Solid next-gen graphics offering fantastic particle effects, good animation, and a steady framerate of 30 FPS are unfortunately countered by noticeable fade-in, texture and screen tearing.


Does that not describe GTA4 (aside from the screen tearing)?

I'm not seeing the pop in you do (PS3 vs. Xbox issue?) but in general I just somewhat disagree with your process...

IMO you have to take into account what the game does (how many characters on screen at once, etc) in order to rate the graphics. A war game with 50,000 characters on the screen could have a 10 in graphics (IMO)...

That's where we disagree...you'd give every game except the "Single player in a single room" concept a 4, right? Not every game can be Soul Calibur with only 2 players on the screen at once and a very limited level...

I think we just disagree...I think a game with a large scope can get a good graphics score. I just don't see how GTA 4 would be below a 5, but maybe that's just me. I've also done computer graphics, so maybe truly understanding this stuff at the lowest level makes me respect and "get" what they're doing and why it's pretty damn amazing.

[Blzer]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

And let's not forget the fact that online you're able to be with 15 other people in the exact same environment as single player. Cops, pedestrians, time of day progression, all cities, vehicles, and overall detail... that's a feat on its own.

[phant030]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

I'm sorry. But you guys bring up many irrelevant things. Either u look at the game and think it has great graphics or not. And I think not. Their ok. More like 6 or 7. I was dissappointed when i saw the game.

[Bornindamecca]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

I'm sorry. But you guys bring up many irrelevant things. Either u look at the game and think it has great graphics or not. And I think not. Their ok. More like 6 or 7. I was dissappointed when i saw the game.

That's a ridiculous point of view. The issue is simple, and has been consistent in all art forms since the beginning of time. Arguing against the basic principle is more than wrong; it's irrational.

The more things you have, the less detailed those things will be. The less things you have, the more detailed they can be.

It's not just a hardware principle, or a video game principle, and it's a little shocking that people are too dim to grasp it despite it's consistencies across all mediums across the history of civilization.

[eDotd]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

Because its all subjective. The scores are not in comparison to each other so you cant compare a score for MLB The Show to GTA IV, they arent graded like that. Secondly, with all the constant loading this game has to do to keep things virtually seamless, its the best you are going to be able to get in graphics, these graphics are better then anyother GTA game to date and has more going on to boot, I think the graphics grade was legit, as long as you arent comparing it to another game and then expecting better then that game, first make sure you understand how they do their grading.

I thought the first response in this thread pretty much summed it up..

[metallidevils]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

That's a ridiculous point of view. The issue is simple, and has been consistent in all art forms since the beginning of time. Arguing against the basic principle is more than wrong; it's irrational.

The more things you have, the less detailed those things will be. The less things you have, the more detailed they can be.

It's not just a hardware principle, or a video game principle, and it's a little shocking that people are too dim to grasp it despite it's consistencies across all mediums across the history of civilization.

You forgot something:
More things you have, the less detailed those things will be, the worse the game looks.

I know the game is ambitious, I know there's no loading times, I know the scope of the game is huge, I GET IT. However, I fail to see how 'no loading times' contributes to GRAPHICS. They clearly decided to sacrifice graphics, in order to have no loading times and to have more content. I'm not saying that was a bad choice. All I'm saying is, the GRAPHICS suffer because of the size of the content that loads all at once. If you're going to give a game a 10/10 in graphics, it better blow me away as soon as I step out of the apartment and look around the city. There's no room for excuses for a game that gets a perfect graphics score. 10/10 means the game looks amazing, probably better looking than any other next gen game, regardless of whether theres 1 loading screen or 100. IGN was set on giving this game perfect 10s before they even got their hands on it.

A game that looks incredibly lifelike, with less jagged edges and clipping, but has loading screens whenever you walk into a room, deserves a better graphics rating than this one, at least IMO. I understand why having less loading time results in poorer graphics, but I don't understand why that means the poorer graphics should just be overlooked.

[mizzta21]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

You forgot something:
More things you have, the less detailed those things will be, the worse the game looks.

I know the game is ambitious, I know there's no loading times, I know the scope of the game is huge, I GET IT. However, I fail to see how 'no loading times' contributes to GRAPHICS. They clearly decided to sacrifice graphics, in order to have no loading times and to have more content. I'm not saying that was a bad choice. All I'm saying is, the GRAPHICS suffer because of the size of the content that loads all at once. If you're going to give a game a 10/10 in graphics, it better blow me away as soon as I step out of the apartment and look around the city. There's no room for excuses for a game that gets a perfect graphics score. 10/10 means the game looks amazing, probably better looking than any other next gen game, regardless of whether theres 1 loading screen or 100. IGN was set on giving this game perfect 10s before they even got their hands on it.

A game that looks incredibly lifelike, with less jagged edges and clipping, but has loading screens whenever you walk into a room, deserves a better graphics rating than this one, at least IMO. I understand why having less loading time results in poorer graphics, but I don't understand why that means the poorer graphics should just be overlooked.

alright man, lets just all give the game a 9 in graphics! there, happy? lol

[KobeBryant]

Re: How in the world did IGN give GTA4 a perfect 10 in graphics?

Then the PS3 version should get a higher rating than the 360.



We get what he's saying; the size of the environment limits the graphical ability. However, I don't think the scope of an environment should count towards graphics, unless it's in the case of Far Cry or Oblivion where you can actually see miles in real time.

Here is reason I think size should effect gameplay over graphics:

If the game was only the first island with the same graphics, the graphics would still be the same. However, the players ability to do things would be affected, hence gameplay. To me, graphics can be judged in a few seconds of video. I think the scope should provide some boost of graphics ratings, but not a 4 point boost ahead of Bioshock, and others.

I know for a fact that I've put down GTA IV more than anyone else here at OS and it's not to be cool or different, it's just my honest opinion on the game. But I think it's important to say again that from the start I said the story and the graphics are excellent and haven't put either one of those down at all, because I think in those two areas this game made a step forward, its in the side missions and random stuff that I feel like the game took a big step back.

However I will say I agree with Soldier that the size of a game should count towards graphics because if they can't make something work the way it should, they should just leave it out, instead of 95% of the city looking amazing and then the small 5% looking cheesy or whatever.

I don't know that I'd give the graphics a 10, but at worst overall I would give them a 9.5.