Best of E3 2010 Awards - Best Graphics (Umm, what?) - Games

[QUOTE=n0cturni;22904268]It took me a while to figure out Frontlines: Fuel of War used UE3.[/QUOTE] Mass Effect 2, Alpha Protocol none of those look like UE either

The UE3 can accomplish extremely awesome graphics AND look different from the norm with the engine. I don't get why everyone is just bandwagoning on Gears of War 3's graphics. I mean, yeah, it looks like the same old, same old; but Gears was the first game to feature the engine, and the 'standard look' of the UE3 fits perfectly. Must be the browns and the grays everyone is sick of. v:v:v

Well in my opinion, that award was well deserved, as this game so darn colourful and vibrant.

RAGE should have won. If you aren't won over by the amazing looking painted textures, the character models are amazing and the game runs extremely smoothly

I saw Crysis coming again :I Edit: Though once again in FPS games the npc melee/close quarters combat looks un-satisfying.

Epic Yarn looks like a fun game, though.

[QUOTE=Egevened;22904412]Mass Effect 2, Alpha Protocol none of those look like UE either[/QUOTE] ME1/2 both have a clear UE-look to it. :colbert: Awesome games still. No idea of Alpha Protocol though. Haven't played it.

[QUOTE=Ganoric Mank;22903421]Wow, it's not as if Epic Yarn is even that impressive for a 2D game, I've seen shitloads of sidescrollers that look better, e.g Fancy Pants Adventures, which was a fucking flash game.[/QUOTE] You think [I]fancy pants[/I] looks better? Wow. [editline]07:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Dark Kite;22904336]Borderlands is not cell-shaded. All their textures are hand drawn, much like RAGE. They did add effects to make it appear more like a cell-shaded game (eg the black outlines around stuff) but most of the time they're just shaders which you can turn off. The difference between RAGE and Borderlands is just how they decided to draw their textures. If I remember right, for Borderlands they drew (eg coloured pencils or something similar) and in RAGE they went for a painted approach which causes a different appearance.[/QUOTE] But those black outlines ARE what makes something cel-shaded.

Well deserved, even if the title should have been changed to reflect what they meant by "graphics". [QUOTE=Slasha00;22905816] But those black outlines ARE what makes something cel-shaded.[/QUOTE] No, it is not. The black outline is a characteristic feature of cel-shading, but the way the polygon handles lighting is what makes it cel-shaded. Instead of having multiple colors and shades that derive from a light source, it simplifies the colors to a few basic shades.

Graphics wars :ohdear:

[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;22902495]Gears 3's graphics just looks like the previous games but with green added to the pallete It still suffers from severe unreal engine-ism[/QUOTE] Did Fenix get whiter or something because some looked very odd about his arms.

[QUOTE=Xelatomis;22903483]Looked exactly like Borderlands to me.[/QUOTE] Except borderlands has 5x lower resolution textures, cell-shading and low model detail. Whilst rage has better textures, models, no cell-shading and better effects over all.

[QUOTE=niloc117;22908821]Did Fenix get whiter or something because some looked very odd about his arms.[/QUOTE] He had shoulderpads/sleeves then. Now they have no sleeves. I think anyway.

[QUOTE=Meatmuppet;22902649]Why the fuck wasn't Gran Turismo 5 nominated[/QUOTE] Because it would clearly win and there would be no competition.

[QUOTE=niloc117;22908821]Did Fenix get whiter or something because some looked very odd about his arms.[/QUOTE] No sleeves. He looks like even more of a douchebag than he did previously, his only redeeming feature now being he's voiced by Bender. Although GoW3 looks more graphically impressive than the first two, it's still boring. [editline]03:21AM[/editline] [QUOTE=silentjubjub;22912641]Because it would clearly win and there would be no competition.[/QUOTE] I remember when I first saw GT5 and I was blown away by its graphics. It's been in development for so long now that they don't wow me as much, if at all.

WHY THE FUCK WONT YOU LET US MIX POWERS IN KIRBY GAMES???!! I could do it in Kirby 64 and it was the shit.

RAGE has the sexiest shadows ever, oh my god.

Fuck graphics, give us back the awesomeness.

[QUOTE=silentjubjub;22912641]Because it would clearly win and there would be no competition.[/QUOTE] [img_thumb]http://i48.tinypic.com/35875lf.png[/img_thumb] [I]Sexy.[/I]

Epic Yarn was the "odd one out" of all the nominations. Every other game had dreary browns and grays, whereas Kirby looked the nicest (You can't debate that it made you at least feel slightly "happy" inside!). It may not have the best detail, but it certainly isn't another cookiecutter graphics game. It looks nice, and I may actually purchase it.

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;22914537]WHY THE FUCK WONT YOU LET US MIX POWERS IN KIRBY GAMES???!! I could do it in Kirby 64 and it was the shit.[/QUOTE] Honestly that was the best feature and they took it out. Also am I the only one who's mad that in this Kirby game you don't suck enemies up? I mean come on, that's like the whole point of Kirby. I'd rather have Kirby's Air Ride 2.

It's Kirby. Automatically awesome.

I still can't stop face palming at EPIC YARN. EPIC MICKEY. EPIC MAKES THINGS 20 TIMES BETTER.

They should rename it from best graphics to most appealing graphics or most innovated graphics. Best graphics determines realism and form what I saw, that was not realistic at all.

[QUOTE=Darkebrz;22915525]I still can't stop face palming at EPIC YARN. EPIC MICKEY. EPIC MAKES THINGS 20 TIMES BETTER.[/QUOTE] Epic Mickey is a stupid name but it's called epic yarn because it's a pun, since a yarn is like a story.

I don't see why what Gametrailers says is important.

[QUOTE=Darkebrz;22915525]I still can't stop face palming at EPIC YARN. [/QUOTE] Just be glad they didn't call it EPIC THREAD.

I don't remember them saying anything about it, but is Wii going HD? cause I want HD for Epic Yarn if I end up picking it up.