hasanwhy said:
I know what you mean, but I think there is a certain level that must be achieved graphics-wise for a game to be good. Now bear with me here, check-out previous generations of gaming. The level of graphics steadily increased and a new standard was created with every new generation. I believe that there is more to gaming than just graphics, but there has to be a certain level that developers must achieve for their game to be counted as good.
|
While I understand what you're getting at, there are too many games with terrible graphics, even for their time, that are nonetheless of fantastic quality. Katamari looked like crap even when it came out, but it's still an awesome game. F-Zero X looked (but didn't play) more like a Super-FX title than a N64 game. Earth Defense Force is crap on a technical level, but you'll find few people who played it without loving it.
What we really care about is a game's quality, and while great graphics can be a superficial indicator of quality, it's never been determinative.
Serious_frusting said:
Here we have it people
And not to mention that all previous gens have been the same. No one really noticed as much because the internet wasnt as popular then. But i do know from experiance with my friends and familly back in the 90's that the games with the better graphics were usually the games that were more popular
|
Playstation games generally had better graphics than Nintendo 64 or Sega Saturn graphics?
NES games had better graphics than its many competitors?
PC games have always been the most popular games around?