indyjones2131 said:Thanks Tingler. I tried to ask the most loaded questions I could lol. You should post these on your site - you really have a nice collection of new info regarding this game over there.
Rhys135 said:That shot of Indy on the tram is the best I've seen so far.
Not just better. Far better. This is astonishingly poor.EvilDevo said:I'll agree... in 2009, and with the time this game has had in development, these screens should look better.
Naturally. Gameplay is the most important thing, but still, the graphics are a major blow to this title. Furthermore, I'm a little skeptical that LucasArts will really knock this one out of the park on the gameplay front.EvilDevo said:If the gameplay is fun and unique and the story interesting, this could make for a great Indy game.
Very rarely do screen shots released this close (within a couple months) to release wind up looking all that different from the final version. If these are Wii screenshots, that is even more troubling. I don't know why the lighting is so messed up, or why everything is blurry? This is not over reaction on their part. I've followed game releases forever, and both the quality of the image and the quality of the graphics warrant reaction.marshce said:Every fan forum related to Indiana Jones is passionately focusing on how terrible the graphics look in (at first) seven screen shots of the game. Many of the vocal "fans" are writing off this game instantly:
"I'm not going to buy this!"
"I'm not going to waste my money!"
"The PS1 looks better than this!"
And so on. Why write off the game before it's even been released? At this moment, we have no idea how the game is going to play, what the story is going to be like, or how fun it will be to play. So what if a few screen shots are terrible?
Grizzlor said:This is not over reaction on their part. I've followed game releases forever, and both the quality of the image and the quality of the graphics warrant reaction.
marshce said:Many fan forum posters are working off this syllogism:
1. A good game has to have good graphics.
2. The Staff of Kings does not have good graphics.
3. Therefore, the Staff of Kings can not be a good game.
I completely agree the quality of the graphics are disappointing in those screenshots, but why condemn it on that alone? Condemn it after objectively playing it and then finding fault with its story, gameplay, AND graphics.
(By the way, I can see this thread of logic: Less than stellar graphics could be a sign that this was hastily put together, and that could lead to everything about the game being less than stellar. But my point is let's play it first and then decide. Why make your mind up that its going to be a bad day before ever walking out the door?)
marshce said:Many fan forum posters are working off this syllogism:
1. A good game has to have good graphics.
2. The Staff of Kings does not have good graphics.
3. Therefore, the Staff of Kings can not be a good game.
I completely agree the quality of the graphics are disappointing in those screenshots, but why condemn it on that alone? Condemn it after objectively playing it and then finding fault with its story, gameplay, AND graphics.
(By the way, I can see this thread of logic: Less than stellar graphics could be a sign that this was hastily put together, and that could lead to everything about the game being less than stellar. But my point is let's play it first and then decide. Why make your mind up that its going to be a bad day before ever walking out the door?)
EvilDevo said:Here's hoping!