northrop wrote:Just out of curiosity I've got a question to the people who voted for A. I understand that the few of you went with A because "this is true to the original" (and I respect that), but I am also under the impression that there are also people who voted for A because "it looks more real than B or C". So I've got to ask. If it's so real... why is it that you guys don't have a problem with a toxic river in a middle of a desert 100+ years after the fact? (how many shallow rivers/streams do you have in the deserts to begin with?) Not only that, but the surrounding area look fine. Cacti seems to be toxic proof, buildings and other industrial material also seems to be fine despite being radiated for over 100 years. So... all that is real to you? Two a-bombs and a recent nuclear meltdown in Japan, and I have yet to see a green toxic river, or any evidence of it. C'mon. If you want it real... make it real. Don't half ass it.
I voted for A, I've argued against people who said C looked realistic. This does not imply that I think A looks realistic. Honestly, I think B looks the most realistic, I just want people to realize that lack of color is not what the real world looks like.
However, I do think A looks the most stylish, while C looks the most boring. I do think C looks the least realistic compared to looking outside at the real world.
Also, "If you want it real... make it real. Don't half ass it. " is a terrible philosophy to me. It's not an on off switch where the game either looks like Crysis or 16 color EGA graphics. The point is to create a world that seems real even though it isn't. A person can want realistic looking sand/water/sky/flags/whatever with a glowing stream of radiated water running through it.
So that's what I think. That and a quarter will get you a gum ball.