27 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Dangerzone said: yeah.... i dont mind the missing realtime lighting or the decreased texture resolution on the pc version.... they are trying to reach a wider audience, who may not all have top spec computers
    but the character models are horrible, and this is still my only complaint.... carried over from last year, they made SOME improvements on SOME of the characters.... but they all still kinda suck

    as for the xbox version.... yes, they should have improved the game assets for the console versions, and while i do not have an xbox360 i do have a PS3..... and i feel quite left out in this round

    and i also noticed that the location and character modeling were outsourced.... so what did telltale actually do in this game? (besides programing)



    seriously i don't know why they didn't make a ps3 version, they're cheap, it's not like an exclusive. and yeah i'm really wondering what they did, the company they outsourced should be fired..just plain terrible

  • To be fair it is their first outing into the console market, although some of them were originally from LucasArts. CSI isn't really a mainstream game, so its a good one to test the waters so to speak.

  • @Skaven said: To be fair it is their first outing into the console market, although some of them were originally from LucasArts. CSI isn't really a mainstream game, so its a good one to test the waters so to speak.




    well here's the thing, the only difference between pc and console, is that, they have restrictions, but the 360 can do alot, and so does pc's, this game just doesn't cut it to today's standards

  • The port to the 360 was added into the mix well after 99% of the primary game art was created, and on top of that it is retailing for $20 less than the standard going rate for a new 360 game (CSI is $40 instead of $60). Just a few things to think about.

  • Blotched Blogger, what it comes down to is that the game looks great and you can't recognize that because you equate technical graphics enhancement with good art. I loved the visuals for the game, and just because geeky tech effects didn't contribute to why they looked good doesn't change anything. Would I have taken them? Sure. Does their absence hurt the game? Not at all.

    What I imagine most people look for in a CSI game is crime scenes that are artistically pleasing, atmospheric, and reasonably detailed - Hard Evidence has that. Time that could have been spent giving the engine all of kinds of slight graphical enhancements that would have done the game no good were instead used toward the storytelling aspect, which makes sense when you consider what kind of game this is and what kind it isn't.

    The people who are going to buy and enjoy CSI aren't going to give a damn about normal mapping, polygon count, texture resolution and the use of dynamic shadows - they're probably happy not having a clue as to what those things are (aka they aren't snobs). The previous games looked as good or worse than Hard Evidence from a technical perspective, and yet enough people have bought them that this is the 5th CSI game Ubisoft has published. So it's obvious that even a game this terrible has an audience, it just doesn't include you.

    You think the graphics are dated and disappointing; fair enough. But your assumptions about the work ethic and intelligence of Ubisoft, Telltale, and whatever other companies might be involved is pretty stupid, as are your apparent expectations for what the game was going to look like, especially considering that you loved 3 Dimensions of Murder which had the same or worse graphics capabilities as this one. (It also wasn't released for Xbox - which version did you play?) Also a good way to encourage civil discussion is to insinuate that people who like a certain company's games are a yes person to that company, so good job on that.

    @Blotched Blogger said: this game will be unfortunately swept underneath all the other AAA titles being released this year, like the awesome Halo 3, just a very bad release time.

    That remains to be seen, and I think that the audiences for Halo 3 and CSI are so different that they're not going to affect each other. You might want to note though that the "very bad release time" that Ubisoft selected for this game is, completely coincidentally I'm sure, the same as the premiere of CSI Season 8.

  • [quote]That remains to be seen, and I think that the audiences for Halo 3 and CSI are so different that they're not going to affect each other. You might want to note though that the "very bad release time" that Ubisoft selected for this game is, completely coincidentally I'm sure, the same as the premiere of CSI Season 8.[/quote]

    I like to think of CSI as the Xbox game Mom buys for herself when she's out picking up Halo 3 for her kids. :D

  • @Blotched Blogger said: My Review of CSI: Hard evidence for Xbox 360! By Botched blogger,

    Looks like the character models we`re done by armatures



    No offense, but I think you mean amatuers (someone who has little to no skill) not armatures (a skeletal framework) :D

    Tho it would be kinda intresting to see some armatures design a game ;)

  • @Jake said: The port to the 360 was added into the mix well after 99% of the primary game art was created, and on top of that it is retailing for $20 less than the standard going rate for a new 360 game (CSI is $40 instead of $60). Just a few things to think about.



    that is true, still doesn't answer my previous questions, why can't companies risk certain things to make a better product?

  • @Emily said: I like to think of CSI as the Xbox game Mom buys for herself when she's out picking up Halo 3 for her kids. :D



    that's what i'm thinking also, lol!

Add Comment