I thought this could be an interesting debate. What makes a game's presentation better, imagination or hardware? Take Super Mario Galaxy and CoD4 for example. While CoD is technologically superior, is it really better looking and sounding? SMG: CoD4: I go with imagination.
Thats a hard one, because in order for an imaginative setting and or design to appeal to me, it must actually run and look good. A great example of a game like that is the newest PoP. It has an amazing art style, and it has awesome technology to back it up. Also, keep in mind thats a wii game. I bet if it was made for the 360, it would not only have a better art design, it would also have better hardware. Then again, its really up to the setting. The reason COD4 looks the way it does is because it is a shooter based in actual areas. It SHOULDN'T have some crazy art style, because it's supposed to look realistic. All in all, interesting art styles are good, if made with good hardware to back it up.
When I walk outside everything isn't brown and grey, CoD4 is very uninspired. The Middle East and Russia have been done to death, there was a lot of potential in CoD4, but it was never reached.
I never said i really liked the look of it, i was just stating that the reason they made everything look brown and gray is because war is not a very colorful, and bright thing. Also, they nailed the look of the actual places. Chernobyl for example. Is that a bright and happy place full of oversized mushrooms and flowers the size of houses. No. If you want to wine about a game having an overly dull color pallet, point your finger at Gears of War. That takes place on a completely fictional planet, leaving room for the developers to get creative, and colorful. Sadly they didn't. BUT it did fit the mood of the story. So obviously a game about some italian plumber hopped up on shrooms in space will be more colorful than a game that has you killing terrorists in the middle east. It's all about the setting. Lets just hope developers begin to come up with some more original ideas.
Colour=!Imagination, while GoW2 was dull, the environments were very well done and original. Almost all plantlife in CoD4 was either grey-green or brown. Chernobyl obviously had to be dull, but the made up locations did not. Let's get back on topic
dumbass mario is nintendo it would never be made on the 360 because 1. its nintendos game 2. one of the main features is wii's motion control hardware and imagination can be used together a developer could make creative minigames,sidequests,etc while using hardware to make the game more immersive brining it to life
I said "if" it was" i know it never will, because its developed by nintendo. Did i ever say it should have? I was just pointing out how nintendo is really good at working with whatever hardware they have. I was just commenting on the graphics, read the whole post, DUMBASS.
maybe you should consider the same thing you obviously dont know what your talking about both creativity and hardware are able to make break games if the game looks shitty like lockdown it will ruin the feel of the game bad hardware can make the game not run well with bad framrates or bad controls
As LOCK even showed the actual reality versus the game, I also have a point to make. If they were to flavor every detail, and appeal every color pallet, not only would they waste an excessive amounts of their time, but distract players from actual game play. Having realistic flowers and colorful structure won't exactly keep players focused on killing but rather be entranced by the active environment. The difference between Call of Duty 4 and Mario is that CoD4 is intended to be a Player versus Player/Multiplayer/Competitive game. Super Mario Galaxy does have enemies to battle, in a sense, but the entire prerogative of the game is an entirely different genre then CoD4. I'm surprised the two can even be compared in this mentality. For a game to successfully please their players, they can't accommodate every aspect. Needless to say Call of Duty is obviously a detailed real environment. Transforming it into an aesthetically pleasing/fictional foreground is just absurd.
See: Spoiler Battlefield: Bad Company The sky is blue, the plants are green and the ground is gold. CoD4: The sky is grey, the plants are grey and the ground is grey. In my personal OPINION MS would have done a really bad job on mario.
I suppose it would depend on the theme. I think that the dull colors of COD4 were actually intended to be that way, you wouldn't want to be fighting in pinkish-purple hue would you? Anyways, I will agree that there could have been more life in COD4, because everything is kind of dusty or brown, and it makes it seem like you're fighting on a city that's just got nuked. Overall I think that Mario however, is presented better theme and intended effect wise, than COD 4.
I do like BF's graphics better. OMFG I was not saying if Microsoft made mario, i was just saying is Nintendo had a console as powerful as a 360 or PS3, the game would look amazing.
I think you misunderstood the question to some degree. Hop said Imagination V Hardware. Not Colorful V colorless. And an imaginative enviorment isn't that hard to create. If you look at Pikman and SMG, they have imaginative enviorments. It's easy to imagine that the enemy you see in the picture for SMG to be a catapillar. In Pikman, the enemies are Tarantulas, Daddy-Long-Legs and Ladybirds. It's refreshing and instantly makes the game stand out. Next, on your point about distracting your players. This is entirely false. If the map is distracting your players. It's either due to bad map design or having players with A.D.D. Gears 2 has a very interesting enviorment which doesn't distract at all. It's in the background and it's interesting. If anything, boring enviorments tend to distract me more as everything has some shade of grey in it. Everything starts to blur together and maps are harder to learn.