^ this is what I kept trying to explain .__. I mean before mc3 and nova 2, Mc2 was regarded as the best console quality experience in mobile gaming. Everyone knew that the graphics weren't the best but the overall gaming was really fun and that is why it was regarded as "console quality" not because of its graphics.
Exactly. MC2 is really the epitome of a good gaming experience...just plain fun. Sure the graphics weren't great, the weapons were few, but the game was really, really fun. Also it was all us iOS gamer had NOVA 3, well, it's graphics are definitely impressive for a mobile, about between PS2 and PS3 (maybe early PS3 games) but it jaut doesn't have the depth that console and PC games have. Oh yes and the multiplay rocks, it just isn't my style usually.
It depends on what kind of game it is, for a sci-fi game, NOVA 3 is OK, because we don't know what future is like and the rip-off weapons looks decent in NOVA 3. The future iron costume is kind of fit to less polygons. And it is imaginary, it feels like half cartoon style. But game like MC 3, no. It describles things around us and modern war, we familiar with it. And less polygons makes cloths and face looks awful---you can't see other's face in NOVA 3('s multiplay). And it's try to be something looks real and trun out to be a COD rip-off.
We could refine this a bit and refer to "console-quality graphics" or "console-quality gameplay" - or depth or length or whatever. We should also note that many console games are of very low quality. And GTA 3 is console-quality, if that console is a PS2. The term is just too broad and too vague to be useful.
it depends on do you like NOVA 2? somehow NOVA 2 is way better due to the jetpack ruined NOVA 3. I can imagine someday there are full of jetpack guys in the NOVA 3 and it become totally unplayable if gameloft don't fix it.
it's easy to understand. NFS and some kart-ride games all are racing games. But it's much easier to make a beautiful kart racing game. With same polygons and visual effects in a beautiful kart game to make a NFS would be pretty bad.
^ I'm so confused right now. Maybe use google translate from your language? Or is that what you are currently using...
ok, i should revise my words to be readable. what I say is: Mario kart 7 looks decent, but developer can't make a NFS(need for speed) game which has same amount of polygons as a Mario Kart 7 game---even double the number of polygons is far from enough. Same story for MC3 and NOVA 3. The armour of NOVA charater needs less polygons to get a decent looking than it's MC counterpart, use same amout number of polygons to build a jacket or a shirt is not a good idea. For the guns, you need as many polygons as you can get to build a good model in MC3 and you need all kinds of visual effects to make it looks real. But in a NOVA game, you just need to make the guns looks cool due to none knows what future weapons looks like. It needs less costing to achieve a same decent looking.
the game is already full of jetpack guys, it feels unplayable. yes, one can get a jetpack for herself, but what's the point? everyone with a jetpack, unplayable.
So how can we consider that console quality? GL games are good for what they are but I dont think they're even the best candidates on iOS to get that disctinction. There's higher quality and iOS only games like Waking Mars or Chaos Rings that feel very polished and unique or even ports of console games like Aquaria or GTA 3. What im trying to say is that if we want to use Console Quality as a measure of the quality of a game then there's a fair amount of better choices than nova3. Of course this is just my opinion.
