Why was Crysis: Warhead snubbed at the GOTY awards?

Best Graphics here was given to MGS4. Same at Gamespot. Gametrailers gave it to Gears 2.

Now I have to ask. Why didn't Crysis win this? It might not be the best game but by a graphical point it is FAR FAR better than MGS4 and even Gears 2 plus runs better than the original Crysis. They pulled out all the stops and it is definitely the most realistic looking game.
Other games might look better from an artistic view point but Crysis wasn't going for that. It was going for the most realistic look and it did that.

I just really don't get it.

Best Graphics here was given to MGS4. Same at Gamespot. Gametrailers gave it to Gears 2.

Now I have to ask. Why didn't Crysis win this? It might not be the best game but by a graphical point it is FAR FAR better than MGS4 and even Gears 2 plus runs better than the original Crysis. They pulled out all the stops and it is definitely the most realistic looking game.
Other games might look better from an artistic view point but Crysis wasn't going for that. It was going for the most realistic look and it did that.

I just really don't get it.

Raw power doesn't equal better graphics every time. Just because something looks realistic doesn't mean it looks good. There's much more to it than that, like the style, atmosphere, and how well it fits with the game's story and theme. That's why games like Mario Galaxy look better than a third of all Xbox 360 games. Yes, I've seen Crysis. But MGS4 pulls off the atmosphere perfectly and the graphics fit very well with the theme.

Every one/site is entitled to their own unique opinion. Opinions aren't fact...they are just personal feelings and obviously the staff(as a whole) at GB think MGS4 had the best graphics. I'll never understand why people get so upset over an opinion. Also, you state only that Crysis: Warhead was the most realistic looking game...that doesn't technically mean it had the best graphics of any game out there. That only means that in your eyes, Crysis: Warhead pulled off that specific style better than any other game.

Best Graphics awards are honestly dumb. There is another topic started about this exact thing you're talking about. There should be a "best technical graphics" and "best art direction" honestly to have a fair award. Also PC and console games should be seperated in those, because its kind of common sense. Since that is pretty much not happening anywhere though, what game had the "best graphics" is extremely sugjective and comes down to what people simply think looks better, not talking from a purely technical achievement.

I think for the Gametrailers award, it should have gone to Crysis Warhead as they were all on about graphics being quantifiable and it all coming down to polycount etc. If you judge in an objective way like that Warhead wins hands down.

It should be the "Best Looking Game" not the broader term "Best Graphics".

Because Crysis doesn't look as good as some other games?
Am I the only one who thinks so?  While sure, Crysis has higher resolution textures and realistic looking water, etc.   it doesn't look perfect in all respects and those are blemishes on the game.  It aims for reality and fails.

MGS4 on the other hand aims for a certain look and achieves that.  This is why the upcoming SO4 looks great as well in the new videos


Call it cheap tricks all you want




Cool, but I much prefer this

The atmosphere and design are part of the graphics category as well, so MGS4 more properly portrays the war-torn zone it is taking place in, while Crysis: Warhead, still looking fabulous, doesn't put all of its raw power to the best use, opting more for lighting and fire effects than a believable world.

It's an expansion, it would be bizarre for 1 game to win "best graphics" 2 years in a row.

"The atmosphere and design are part of the graphics category as well, so MGS4 more properly portrays the war-torn zone it is taking place in, while Crysis: Warhead, still looking fabulous, doesn't put all of its raw power to the best use, opting more for lighting and fire effects than a believable world."

"Best Graphics awards are honestly dumb. There is another topic started about this exact thing you're talking about. There should be a "best technical graphics" and "best art direction" honestly to have a fair award."

"Because Crysis doesn't look as good as some other games?
Am I the only one who thinks so?  While sure, Crysis has higher resolution textures and realistic looking water, etc.   it doesn't look perfect in all respects and those are blemishes on the game.  It aims for reality and fails.

MGS4 on the other hand aims for a certain look and achieves that.  This is why the upcoming SO4 looks great as well in the new videos


Call it cheap tricks all you want




Cool, but I much prefer this"

There is a youtube video comparing crysis screenshots to real photos. For some of them, you can't tell a difference. Asked to choose which one is real you might have picked the wrong one.

Seriously, you guys are going to look at SCREENSHOTS of the game to judge best graphics?

"Seriously, you guys are going to look at SCREENSHOTS of the game to judge best graphics?

GG!!!

Here, look at this video:

  

There is a DRASTIC difference between low and high.  The fact is that, if you look at the specs on this dood's computer...not everyone can afford that.  I'm sorry, but I couldn't knowingly give this game "Best Graphics" in anything strictly because of three reasons:

1.  Accessibility to the public - MGS4 consistently looks gorgeous...Warhead needs even a moderate rig to look halfway decent.  Otherwise, it just looks like Far Cry 1.

2.  Consistency - Having played the game, I can say that there were plenty of time where my character model felt out of place from the world I ventured in.  MGS4 never felt that way.

3.  Grit-filter - Battlefield: Bad Company and Left 4 Dead both use this as a way to battle against AA, and Warhead did it MASSIVELY as a way to cut down the spec needs of the computers.  In turn, however, they did nothing but mask crap.  I think the biggest candidate for this AA cheap move is Bioshock on PS3.

MGS4 was honest and pure with what you saw.  Warhead is not.  I could not give it "Best Graphics" knowing all this, and I'm glad that the media knows their shit enough to not just hand over "Best Graphics" to a game that doesn't fully deserve it.

"

didnt we already have this argument?

http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion/30/people-are-so-mad-that-crysis-warhead-isnt-winning-best-graphics/223448/#40

"Best Graphics here was given to MGS4. Same at Gamespot. Gametrailers gave it to Gears 2.

Now I have to ask. Why didn't Crysis win this? It might not be the best game but by a graphical point it is FAR FAR better than MGS4 and even Gears 2 plus runs better than the original Crysis. They pulled out all the stops and it is definitely the most realistic looking game.
Other games might look better from an artistic view point but Crysis wasn't going for that. It was going for the most realistic look and it did that.

I just really don't get it."