[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by fov

Really good point. I was wondering about that (but forgot to say anything).

I remember a recent conversation on this board about how story in adventure games should be better... how dare the developers skimp on story and put all their money in graphics (those bastards!)... if they really cared about telling a good story they should just tell it and shouldn't worry so much about pleasing us with graphics. Etc. I don't remember which thread it was on and I may be embellishing just a little, but that was the gist.

Oh well. Can't have it both ways.

Eh, if they're developing an adventure then they'd already have a story outline to sell to publishers and work to it from the start. That's why there's people like Martin and Steve about - any narrative based game should take plot, characterisation and continuity seriously. Also, bear in mind, if you're doing a 2D static-screen game you're going to be staring at those screens for a while.

I still can't understand why a genre which requires good graphical design representation to really work well has so many people saying it's not important. It should equally be as important from the off as story and puzzle design.

If they just want to tell a story, why bother making a game in the first place?

[Bastich]

Holy shit are people defensive. My complaint is about the publisher who most likely made the decision on number of disks, not the game.

The reason it is a valid complaint is because other games of the same resolution or lower do NOT have compression artifacts like that. It is quite frankly the WORST compression I have ever seen in a game ever. If you can't see it, your monitors suck, or you need glasses.

Imageshack has a 1MB file size limit so I can't post a full uncompressed picture, but here is the same room with the compression set to highest quality (100).


Amazing. The artifacts are still there.

It isn't a pet peeve. It is something that is blatantly obvious in every screen of the game. Perhaps I have better vision than you people, but this isn't an attack on the game in the slightest. I liked the artwork enough to takes hundreds of screenshots while I played the game. Why would I make up shit like this? I have nothing to gain by it.

[usman]

The people at game spot have a habit to give bad scores to Adventure Games as always.

Specially I was very angery & sad when I see "The Black Mirror" score just a little above 5

Those DAMN People

[squarejawhero]

That's not actually true. They're very fair for the most part. In fact, the Black Mirror review lists many strengths, but for the reviewer the negatives outweigh them. He actually enthuses about it too.

All you have to do is spend time clicking on their reviews to find good to great adventure scores - sometimes higher than I'd personally rate them! Missing got a 7.1, Sherlock 7.3, Myst:Revelation 8.5, Return to Mysterious Island 7.3... Good solid scores, each game being more than worthwhile and the reviews doing them justice.

[Jake]

Gamespot are sometimes a little tough in their grading, but I think they're usually pretty honest.

[squarejawhero]

They've got to give a balanced account and I think they do a good job. The reviews themselves are actually well written and sound like they've given each game more than a fair chance.

I think we'd be kidding ourselves if from an objective viewpoint you'd rather The Black Mirror up there in the 9's. But then we're in the "subjective opinion" argument, of which there's never any winner. The guy SAID he wanted to like it, that it was a "real shame" it didn't leap over the hurdles it created for itself.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Gamespot has always had this bare bones approach to their writing. It's very direct, succint, and honest, and I like that. But the problem with it is the fixation on the clinical, technical, and objective qualities of the game and not enough on other attributes, like aesthetics and concepts. So the reviews and other articles end up being flat and not well rounded.

Personally I much prefer taking The Adrenaline Vault's reviews more seriously. But I tend to follow individual writers more than rely on overall sites.

[Curt]

I have no major issues with Gamespots reviews on the whole. As I've said before, the fact that Games players can vote too adds a bit of balance and Gamespot make no attempt to hide the User Ratings average as it's even bigger than their own score, and almost always different.

Btw, Still Life User Rating average has dropped slightly in the last couple of days from 8.8 to 8.6 (from 256 ratings). I'm watching carefully before I purchase.

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by usman

The people at game spot have a habit to give bad scores to Adventure Games as always.

Specially I was very angery & sad when I see "The Black Mirror" score just a little above 5

Those DAMN People

IT'S A CONSPIRACY

[squarejawhero]

Greg Kasavin eats babies!

[samIamsad]

So do I.

[squarejawhero]

Well, I'm a Reptilian. Apparently we rule the world.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Babies are good because their flesh is tender. Unfortunately they're not that flavourful because they haven't lived long enough to be seasoned.

[squarejawhero]

I lightly kill them, then hang them up to mature on the bone. Naturally, if they're female that can't be done.

[gillyruless]

Can somebody explain to me what glitch I'm supposed to be noticing in those pictures? Trep, SJH, anyone? I spent good two weeks playing the game and did not notice anything that bothered me about the graphics. I've got a decent monotor a 17' Dell LCD with a native resolution of 1024X768 and I've been staring at the two picture Bastich posted for a vouple of minutes and can't still see anything.



BTW, everyone's entitled to his/her opinions but I think if you are going to say that the graphics in Still Life is bad without even playing the game by picking out a small graphics glitch, you are being nitpicky and trying hard to find faults with the game. That just doen't seem fair. Take it from someone who spent a lot of time playing the game. The game looks beautiful. Even Bastich thought so.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Except for that lapse in quality.

Whoever wants to send me their copy of Still Life, you have to wait. I'm planning on getting a new PC in couple months and for some reason my graphics card (GeForce 4 Ti) is having issues.

[squarejawhero]

A 17" Dell LCD should have a native resolution of 1280X1024... I'm pretty sure that's normal for a 17" - use it! Actually, depending on your LCD, sometimes lower than native produces a less than crisp image. Which might explain why you wouldn't see a graphical glitch as much as someone else with a crisper image.

The kind of glitch Bastich is on about is more to do with texture compression, which produces a kind of fuzz/block artifact. Sometimes you can see it in DVD's with a low tonal range, say grey smoke against a dark background or murky water with some movement - this kind of thing is more noticeable moving. Many FMV's use really poor compression just to keep the size down.

It's not actually so bad or noticeable in Still Life though, at least from what I've seen. I can't remember from the demo, but that shot does showcase artifacting. Not enough to annoy me, but then it's a smaller box on this resolution than I would otherwise view it.

[Curt]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I can't remember from the demo, but that shot does showcase artifacting.

I always thought artifacts were quite an important element for the intrepid (no relation btw ) adventurer.

Seriously, I'm playing on a 19" monitor at 1280 x 960 and never noticed any artifacts in the demo that would have put me off the game graphically. If they were there, they didn't interfere too much imo. Could it not also be graphics card related? That would maybe explain why it appears worse to some than others. I'm running a 6600GT with Forceware 71.84 drivers.

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

A 17" Dell LCD should have a native resolution of 1280X1024... I'm pretty sure that's normal for a 17" - use it! Actually, depending on your LCD, sometimes lower than native produces a less than crisp image. Which might explain why you wouldn't see a graphical glitch as much as someone else with a crisper image.

The kind of glitch Bastich is on about is more to do with texture compression, which produces a kind of fuzz/block artifact. Sometimes you can see it in DVD's with a low tonal range, say grey smoke against a dark background or murky water with some movement - this kind of thing is more noticeable moving. Many FMV's use really poor compression just to keep the size down.

It's not actually so bad or noticeable in Still Life though, at least from what I've seen. I can't remember from the demo, but that shot does showcase artifacting. Not enough to annoy me, but then it's a smaller box on this resolution than I would otherwise view it.

I tried 1280X1024. Oh man, I don't think I can keep my resolution at that level, it's gonna kill my eyes. I think I finally do see something though. You guys are talking about the white smudges on the lower left side of the wall, right? Funny, I never noticed it while playing the games. But then again, the most graphically advanced game I played was Morrowind so I'm not used to noticing such a thing.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Yeah, when you play a lot of other game types, especially FPSs, you do become more sensitive to graphical qualities on a technical level.